are colleges racist?

[IndianParent]

<p>

Then, your participation in this entire thread (all 400 posts) has been a strictly academic excercise?

</p>

<p>Yes. As I have said many times, I do not have a horse in the race. I have some idea where my kid would apply, but it is not HYPSM, or any academic institution for that matter.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

IMO, a more appropriate quote for this particular website would be “April is the cruelest month.”</p>

<p>Don’t worry folks. Only about 1500 more posts and I’m certain Harvard will be changing their policy entirely.

</p>

<p>I vote for 15000+. This thread is great fun.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

white liberals who support these preferences have to be labelled as “paternalistic” in order to obscure this point.

</p>

<p>There is at least one White conservative on this thread who supports using race as a factor in admissions. It is not a paternalistic viewpoint, rather it is in support of allowing private businesses to make their own lawful business decisions. They can use race in the manner described in Grutter or not consider race, that is their decision and it is lawful.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

So, who wants to cut Asian-Americans down to 5% and Jews down to 2% to help the squeezed out demographic mass of non-Jewish ‘European-Americans’?

</p>

<p>Random question I guess.</p>

<p>All I see is that many posters want (limitless) over-representation for Asian-American students, and under-representation for all other groups. They are the ones talking representation, not I.</p>

<p>Hint: for performersmom, fab, IP, others: “over” in this case refers to relationship to US population, not to “over” as in supposedly desirable “quota”, a term which was invented by certain posters and does not exist in the real world of admissions decisions in the current day.</p>

<p>IOW, the implication from some posters is that perhaps there should be quotas for whites and URM’s, but not for Asian-Americans.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

xiggi, I believe that I perfectly integrated, but only partially assimilated. I also know that there are many, many others like me. Thus, I find it strange when the color of my skin or my accent precludes me from being part of the European culture in some people’s estimation.

</p>

<p>I believe that integration and assimilation depends highly on one’s direct environment. Then you may have to add the issues of acculturation as a third variable. Fwiw, European culture is probably quite different from European history and traditions. When one considers the ever increasing “melting pots” in Europe, one has to wonder about the most current definition of European culture. Looking at soccer, as an example, one has to marvel at the racial distribution of teams such as France, Belgium, or even Germany (just to name of few.) </p>

<p>As far as being part of the European culture, it would be interesting to learn how different the experiences of Indians are in Canada/the United States versus the United Kingdom. And perhaps, then compare it to how Indians fare in different countries in Europe. I read that Germany is a popular destination for Indian students. I wonder how well they fare in that environment!</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

All I see is that many posters want (limitless) over-representation for Asian-American students, and under-representation for all other groups. They are the ones talking representation, not I.

</p>

<p>Not true at all. Speaking for myself, I was limitless over-representation (in terms of proportion in general populace) of any race, as long as the most qualified applicants are admitted. It can be 100% pinkish-orange (to pick a color) for all I care. I am race-blind.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>Bay, do you believe then that colleges using the best methodology possible to follow the Grutter decision? If a private commercial for-profit biz used sam, would you think that it is in line?
How do you feel about the ambiguity in the Grutter decision, saying quotas are illegal, but that pre-categorizing candidates as UNDER and OVER represented by race, is in line?</p>

<p>Do you feel that discrimination is definitely NOT happening? Or that this system including holistic admissions really prevents it? Or do you say it does not matter as ling as the law in being followed…</p>

[performersmom]

<p>E-
Hint: so that means that there is a pre-determind concept that the population of students must somehow mirror the general population</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I have some idea where my kid would apply, but it is not HYPSM, or any academic institution for that matter.

</p>

<p>Now that is perplexing! Don’t tell me that your kid might join Je Khenpo in Bhutan? That would take the popular goatherding discussion way too far. </p>

<p>Of course, we should recognize the great value of … happiness, as former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck wanted us to know.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Wouldn’t you want to know the perspective of a poor White or Asian kid as well to compare notes?

My point is that I tend to discount the philosophical arguments of those who also stand to benefit personally from their point of view. That may not be fair to all of them, of course, but in law, at least, a “statement against interest” is recognized as more likely to be true.

But do you think having “racial” boxes to identify college applicants is a particularly important way to categorize applicants? Could it be setting up some unfairness, some generalizing, some stereotyping? Is it really accomplishing what it is set up to do?

As I’ve said before, it would be fine with me if colleges simply created a “white or Asian” category. I do think that for social engineering purposes colleges should give preferences to URMs, and so they should be identified.
But I also have to say (as I’ve said before about a zillion times) that although it’s possible that there is conscious or unconscious discrimination against Asians on the basis of race, it’s also possible that part or even all of the discrepancy between scores of admitted whites and Asians at top schools can be explained by demographic issues like geographic diversity, choice of major, and choice of ECs. If this is so, eliminating the distinction on forms between white and Asian, and even using numbers instead of names, would not change the disparity in results. I also think, cynically, that if a school wanted to keep the numbers of Asians down, they could easily do so even if they didn’t use names or racial ID on their forms. They would just discriminate against students highly likely to be Asian based on clues on the resume.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I believe that integration and assimilation depends highly on one’s direct environment. Then you may have to add the issues of acculturation as a third variable.

</p>

<p>Fully agree. My work life is fully integrated, my personal life only partially assimilated. I do not think that full assimilation is possible, at least for the first generation. That would be giving up my personal preferences altogether and replacing them with the American norm. There are some parts that suit me (e.g., watching the fireworks on the 4th), that I have picked up. Others don’t (e.g., barbecuing), and I have stayed away from them. </p>

<p>Acculturation is a long and slow process that happens over generations and in groups. It doesn’t happen at the individual level.</p>

[Bay]

<p>pmom,</p>

<p>Yes, I believe colleges are using the best methodology possible, because that is what the U.S. Supreme Ct found. I do not profess to know better than they.</p>

<p>As for private non-college businesses, Grutter does not apply. Grutter found that racial diversity benefits the college learning environment, it did not address the workplace environment.</p>

<p>Grutter allows colleges to admit “a critical mass” of minorities to achieve their diversity goals, and leaves it to the colleges to determine what that is.</p>

<p>Discrimination absolutely IS happening. But if the colleges are following Grutter, then it is LAWFUL discrimination.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

They can use race in the manner described in Grutter or not consider race, that is their decision and it is lawful.

</p>

<p>Accurate. And that is why we have the beauty of choice in this country. We can repudiate a business’ policy with regard to racial balance when selecting from an abundantly talented group with plentiful ethnic/racial diversity, with regard to AA as an initiative and even dominating policy for that business (hiring, admissions). We show that repudiation by not patronizing those businesses – a decision which I have made several times myself: I do not patronize businesses whose policies I find distasteful or imbalanced. That includes educational businesses, and I have done so, as I’ve mentioned several times on this and previous threads. There are private K-12 schools run by administrators whose very major in college must have been Social Engineering, with a minor in Political Correctness. Their admissions policies are a joke, i.m.o. Therefore, my children did not apply there.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

My point is that I tend to discount the philosophical arguments of those who also stand to benefit personally from their point of view. That may not be fair to all of them, of course, but in law, at least, a “statement against interest” is recognized as more likely to be true.

</p>

<p>So why ask any URM as to whether AA is good?</p>

<p>

I do think that for social engineering purposes colleges should give preferences to URMs, and so they should be identified.

</p>

<p>And that’s the crux of the issue. Colleges do give preference to URMs for social engineering purposes. It may be right from the perspective of the URM, but not so from the perspective of the ORM. You want to get the perspective of the URM on this, but not that of the ORM. </p>

<p>That bias is somewhat bewildering to me.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Accurate. And that is why we have the beauty of choice in this country. We can repudiate a business’ policy with regard to racial balance when selecting from an abundantly talented group with plentiful ethnic/racial diversity, with regard to AA as an initiative and even dominating policy for that business (hiring, admissions). We show that repudiation by not patronizing those businesses – a decision which I have made several times myself: I do not patronize businesses whose policies I find distasteful or imblanced. That includes educational businesses, and I have done so, as I’ve mentioned several times on this and previous threads. There are private K-12 schools run by administrators whose very major in college must have been Social Engineering, with a minor in Political Correctness. Their admissions policies are a joke, i.m.o. Therefore, my children did not apply there.

</p>

<p>That’s like saying if a restaurant refuses to serve anyone but Caucasians, just don’t eat there. The right response would be to file a lawsuit.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Discrimination absolutely IS happening. But if the colleges are following Grutter, then it is LAWFUL discrimination.

</p>

<p>Ah, we just made a giant progress on this thread. Previously it was all about - there is no discrimination. Now it is clear that discrimination is there for sure, but it is legal.</p>

<p>The solution is simple - overturn the law that makes discrimination legal.</p>

<p>HUGE progress!</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Now that is perplexing! Don’t tell me that your kid might join Je Khenpo in Bhutan? That would take the popular goatherding discussion way too far.</p>

<p>Of course, we should recognize the great value of … happiness, as former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck wanted us to know.

</p>

<p>Why is that perplexing? What if my kid became a plumber, for example? Anything wrong with that?</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Ah, we just made a giant progress on this thread. Previously it was all about - there is no discrimination. Now it is clear that discrimination is there for sure, but it is legal.

</p>

<p>And this statement tells us that until post#3896, you missed the entire premise of “AA!”</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

So why ask any URM as to whether AA is good?

Why indeed? I am more interested in hearing why a URM might think AA is bad. As for ORMs, I give more credence to those who think AA is good than those who think it is bad, because those who think it is bad have potentially selfish reasons for thinking in that way. Again, I’m sure that this is not fair to all AA opponents who would also benefit from its demise.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

That’s like saying if a restaurant refuses to serve anyone but Caucasians, just don’t eat there. The right response would be to file a lawsuit.

That’s an interesting analogy. I think some folks here would want to file the lawsuit after going into the restaurant and observing that not “enough” Asians were eating there, even if the restaurant denied discriminating against them.</p>