are colleges racist?

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@fabrizio

Copy and pasting from my post #1934:</p>

<p>Regarding the perception that Asians are discriminated unfairly against whites (i.e. what Jerry Kang and Frank Wu refer to as “negative” action), it really doesn’t help when you read an article stating that “Admissions officers, while defending the overall integrity of the system, admitted that bias is a real problem.”

The ex-admissions officer who said in that article that the bias is real, also said that the college where he had worked, Stanford, had taken measures to eliminate the bias problem. So the cited article also would support the proposition that there is now no “negative action.”
<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian&lt;/a&gt;

He also said that the bias is real – and cited his experience in his previous job as part of the admissions office at Stanford University. There, he said, the office did a study some years ago in which it compared Asian and white applicants with the same overall academic and leadership rankings. The study was only of “unhooked kids,” meaning those with no extra help for being an alumni child or an athlete. The study found that comparably qualified white applicants were “significantly” more likely to be admitted than their Asian counterparts.</p>

<p>Stanford’s admissions office responded with some serious self-reflection, he said, and officials now spend some time each year studying different kinds of bias – like letters that compare Asian applicants to other Asians – in an attempt to weed out any unfair judgments. With bias removed, he said, “there’s no way that a school or college can be considered too Asian.”

</p>

<p>The same ex-admissions officer said something similar in another article, discussed in posts 2144, 2151, and 2153, and available at <a href=“http://www.discriminations.us/2008/02/the-harvard-crimson-defends-discrimination/[/url]”>http://www.discriminations.us/2008/02/the-harvard-crimson-defends-discrimination/&lt;/a&gt;

Jonathan Reider, director of college counseling at San Francisco University High School, said most elite colleges’ handling of Asian applicants has become fairer in recent years. Mr. Reider, a former Stanford admissions official, said Stanford staffers were dismayed 20 years ago when an internal study showed they were less likely to admit Asian applicants than comparable whites. As a result, he said, Stanford strived to eliminate unconscious bias and repeated the study every year until Asians no longer faced a disadvantage.

In other word, Asians no longer face a disadvantage.</p>

[Bay]

<p>fab,
I wrote, “it appears you are using the Inside Higher Ed article as your prime evidence. Does that sum up your position accurately?”</p>

<p>Yes or no?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Maybe we’ll get to that point when we become like other countries and stop allowing immigrants the chance to make a better life for themselves. When we do that, we should have less diversity and everyone should know their rightful place in society.

This long thread has been passionate, and heated at times (nothing wrong with that), but no one has sunken so low.

</p>

<p>Haddon, while I disagree strongly with limabeans01’s suggestions that anyone who opposes racial preferences is</p>

<p>(a) bitter
(b) selfish
(c) nativist
(d) all of the above</p>

<p>I believe his (her?) remark came from prematurely replying to my statement, “As is, there is a fatal flaw in the notion that we should use racial classification today so we don’t have to use it tomorrow. How will you EVER get to the point where you don’t use it if you keep using it?”</p>

<p>Like Bay, limabeans01 didn’t read the next sentence/paragraph: “Oh, because by using it today, we can create an educated class of ‘underrepresented’ minorities in leadership roles, thereby producing a virtuous cycle, which will enable us to stop using racial classification?”</p>

<p>Again, it baffles me as to how clueless the pro-racial preference side is when it comes to knowing what their ideological opponents believe. I’ve discussed this issue long enough to play Devil’s Advocate. I bet I could easily walk up to an “affirmative action bake sale” and play the part of a racial preference supporter. But reading the posts from the other side of the discussion leave me firmly convinced that they cannot do the same.</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>“Affirmative Action in admissions is still desperately needed.”</p>

<p>I will take this opportunity to post a few links about “disparities” and “achievement gaps”. </p>

<p>No, this does not answer the question regarding affirmative action.</p>

<p>No, affirmative action (alone) cannot fix disparities and gaps. </p>

<p>No, I am not equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. </p>

<p>No, it is not neccesarily the role of universities to address these issues; yes they are largely “academic”</p>

<p>Yes, there are poor people, sick people, uneducated people of all races.</p>

<p>Yes, some believe affirmative action is the CAUSE of disparities, achievement gaps, and maybe all that is wrong with the world. </p>

<p>Yes, some believe it is a “freud”, a substitue for doing what REALLY needs to be done to fix these problems. </p>

<p>Yes, you can pick these articles apart. </p>

<p>I am taking this opportunity because personally, I believe these are much bigger issues. Personally, I believe the number of black kids benefiting from affirmative action is less than a drop in the bucket comapared to the number effected by these “gaps” and "disparities’.I am posting because when I look at THESE numbers, I believe the black kids who make it into the affirmative action pool, even the “wealthy” ones, have beat same serious odds, even if their parents beating the odds got them started. I want to know everything there is to know about these kids. These are growing populations folks! </p>

<p>Personally, I believe race still matters, and I think that’s why Fabrizio beats his drum, and I beat mine. Personally, I think it’s personal! (ah!!! the " educated class of ‘underrepresented’ minorities in leadership roles, thereby producing a virtuous cycle, which will enable us to stop using racial classification" !)</p>

<p>[NAEP</a> - Achievement Gaps](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/]NAEP”>Methodology Studies - Achievement Gaps | NAEP)</p>

<p>[Why</a> Racial Disparities in Health Care Persist - Newsweek](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/14/the-great-divide.html]Why”>Why Racial Disparities in Health Care Persist)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079429,00.html#0_undefined,0_[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079429,00.html#0_undefined,0_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@Haddon1267

“everyone should know their rightful place in society”? You sound like a true master!</p>

<p>So the immigrants should just appreciate the better life you ALLOW them to have and stay quiet and timid? They are not supposed to pop up at forums like this and argue with masters like you on a topic that involves their interests? Unbelievable. This long thread has been passionate, and heated at times (nothing wrong with that), but no one has sunken so low.</p>

<p>BTW, by rightful place, I am sure you don’t mean our respective original continents.

You might want to check the settings on your sarcasm detector.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

In other word, Asians no longer face a disadvantage.

</p>

<p>At best you can say that “Asians no longer face a disadvantage at Stanford.” By saying so, you’re admitting that the notion of “negative action” isn’t complete bunk; it happened. The question is whether it still happens. Of course that is very difficult to prove without being there.</p>

<p>You glossed over the following paragraph from the article:</p>

<p>

Based on working with institutions where Asian enrollment exceed 25 percent – something that is increasingly common at elite publics in California and top universities elsewhere – [Rachel Cederberg] said she hears lots of talk about admissions officers who complain about “yet another Asian student who wants to major in math and science and who plays the violin” or people who say “I don’t want another boring Asian.”

</p>

<p>I also used those quotes in my post #1934, and I repeat what I said. Yes, a class shouldn’t be all STEM majors and violinists. Yes, Asians shouldn’t expect to get in to private elites on the basis of their stats and ECs. No, I should not be reading comments like “I don’t want another boring Asian.” If the student’s application is not compelling, then that’s all you have to say. What does his being Asian have to do with anything?</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Like Bay, limabeans01 didn’t read the next sentence/paragraph: “Oh, because by using it today, we can create an educated class of ‘underrepresented’ minorities in leadership roles, thereby producing a virtuous cycle, which will enable us to stop using racial classification?”

</p>

<p>fab,
I have read this statement 3 times now. Maybe you need to explain what it means, because I don’t care about it, and it seems like you think I should. I already told you that I couldn’t care less how racial diversity is achieved, so long as it is Constitutional.</p>

[Bay]

<p>And now that I have acknowledged reading it, please tell me, what is your evidence of Asian discrimination? The Inside Higher Ed article? Yes or no? Something else? What?</p>

[Haddon1267]

<p>

You might want to check the settings on your sarcasm detector.

</p>

<p>My detector works fine :)</p>

<p>I have read many (not all) of the posts in this thread. While I agree more with some than others, I have no problem listening to all the opinions and, believe or not, trying to understand the merits of each side. But the cited post just stuck out, and I feel I had to say something, because it sounded so distantly and unpleasantly familiar …</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

At best you can say that “Asians no longer face a disadvantage at Stanford.” By saying so, you’re admitting that the notion of “negative action” isn’t complete bunk; it happened.

I have not “admitted” anything, though I did cite post #2153 where xiggi challenged Reider’s version of what the Stanford study showed.</p>

<p>

I also used those quotes in my post #1934,

Actually, in #1934, you did not use the whole quote, thus disguising the double-hearsay nature of the “talk” that Cederberg said she heard.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Well, it appears that fabrizio thinks there is discrimination against Asians because he read it in a magazine.</p>

<p>Actually, I’m not sure that he has ever said that he does, in fact, think that it is happening.</p>

<p>But in the (perhaps) vain hope of actually discussing this topic in an adult manner, what would be some sensible methods of finding out whether, in fact, this kind of discrimination is happening? It appears that at Stanford, 10 years ago, they went looking for, and found, evidence of unconscious bias against Asians. How would one go about doing that? And if you suspect a university of practicing deliberate discrimination–even though it is denied–how would you go about investigating it? I think this is very difficult to do, which is why I think that the real agenda for some people, at least, is to promote more “transparent” admissions criteria–which really has to mean primarily stats, because nothing else can be all that transparent.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

And if you suspect a university of practicing deliberate discrimination–even though it is denied–how would you go about investigating it?

Ask for an investigation by the Dept of Education, which has the tools to find unlawful discrimination, if it exists.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Or here’s a little thought question: let’s say you want to find out whether “geographical diversity” might be having a depressive effect on Asian admissions. How could you gauge that? You might look at what states have the highest percentages of Asians. You might consider whether those are the same states that tend to have highly competitive high schools. You might try to find out whether those Asian kids with really high scores are spread out across the country, or whether they tend to be concentrated in certain states.</p>

<p>If you find that geographic diversity makes no difference, then you can drop that inquiry. If you find that it does, then you can ask whether it’s being deliberately used to suppress Asian admissions (possible, since that was apparently done for Jews), or you can argue that it should be abandoned because of its disparate impact even if there is no intent to discriminate.</p>

<p>But if you’re convinced that the schools are just brazenly discriminating with negative quotas and lying about it, you don’t need to consider anything like that.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I have not “admitted” anything, though I did cite post #2153 where xiggi challenged Reider’s version of what the Stanford study showed.

</p>

<p>You wrote, “In other word [sic], Asians no longer face a disadvantage.” What does “no longer” mean? Before but not currently. If you didn’t mean that, then you should’ve said, “In other word, Asians don’t face a disadvantage and never did.” But then you wouldn’t have quoted from the article, now would you?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Well, it appears that fabrizio thinks there is discrimination against Asians because he read it in a magazine.

</p>

<p>Do you have any substantive comments about the article itself? Or are your posts about the article limited to magically transforming “admissions officers” to “some other people”?</p>

<p>

…which really has to mean primarily stats, because nothing else can be all that transparent.

</p>

<p>Did you have any objections to assigning each applicant a unique identifier per application cycle and limiting the infamous box to “Are you a ‘URM’? If ‘yes,’ please check one or more of the following:”?</p>

[Bay]

<p>fab,
Anyone can decline to state now.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>fabrizio, you and I both know that threads like these are a big game for you. But you need to be more subtle, or everyone will figure it out.</p>

<p>

You wrote, “In other word [sic], Asians no longer face a disadvantage.” What does “no longer” mean? Before but not currently. If you didn’t mean that, then you should’ve said, “In other word, Asians don’t face a disadvantage and never did.” But then you wouldn’t have quoted from the article, now would you?

“In other words” means: that is what the article said.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

Anyone can decline to state now.

And where does that leave Jerry Kang, Frank Wu, and Jian Li?</p>

[Bay]

<p>^That is true, but it sounds like fab is proposing that all Whites and Asians be <em>required</em> to not divulge their names, on the grounds that some people think the Adcoms will discriminate on that basis. That seems extreme to me, and it penalizes applicants who may have made a name for themselves in some area.</p>

[Bay]

<p>btw, I think I remember the fab said he had legally changed his name to “Anglicize” it. That is certainly an option for those whose suspicions rise to an extreme level.</p>