are colleges racist?

[IndianParent]

<p>

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>

<p>So, I presume you give equally low credence to those URMs who think AA is good? In other words, if a poor URM kid says that AA is wonderful, you would discredit that immediately because of conflict of interest?</p>

[epiphany]

<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>

<p>No! It means what I said it means. Some Asian-Americans want the colleges to stick to ceilings (quotas) on other groups but not to themselves. </p>

<p>The “mirroring the general population” is a term not invented by me but by businesses, especially private educational ones. It is a term used loosely to refer to approximate proportions, and is meaningful much more in the positive than in the negative. Thus, leaving Asians out of it for a moment, for a college to label itself as a national college drawing from a diverse country and welcoming all applicants, but ending up with an enrollment of 1% white, would not be mirroring the general population. (The HBCUs are not fair game here as they have a particular mission.) </p>

<p>However, if that same college offered majors that especially appealed to certain minority groups, and much less so (but somewhat so) to whites, it could make sense that the ultimate configuration would be 20% Hispanic, 20% Black, 20% Asian, 5% Native-American, and 35% white. None of those figures represent proportions in the US population, but neither in themselves can they be considered quotas, racist, etc., in the context of such a (mythical) college.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

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

</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with being a plumber. In the eyes of many, the profession seems to be more attractive than having a liberal arts degree. </p>

<p>The perplexing part is the “non-academic institution” comment. Even Devry is an academic institution.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Indianparent:

Quote:
Quote:
“Still, you must have some notion whether Harvard is less racist or more racist than the country as a whole?” </p>

<p>I don’t. I have seen only a tiny sliver of America, and none of Harvard. </p>

<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>

<p>It’s not the horse race that I resent; it’s the wild goose chase. :/</p>

[epiphany]

<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>

<p>Invalid analogy. Colleges are not refusing to serve anyone but Caucasians. #2, colleges are not breaking the law, as Bay has informed you.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>Not fair, Bay. Much of this thread and others has been about trying to “prove” the existence of discrimination against Asians, when AA was removed from UC’s methodology.</p>

<h2>I did not get the idea that anyone was trying to prove or disprove “legal” discrimination. That is a circular argument.</h2>

<p>So, some here approve of racial boxes, AA, etc even though is is a form of discrimination because even though it is discriminatory to some “races”, because it is social engineering and was declared legal for college admissions in the Grutter decision.</p>

<p>I still think that Grutter decision is contradictory and ambiguous, however, with regard to the difference between quotas and balancing and labeling representation and UNDER and OVER. </p>

<p>Canuckguy, what is the legal situation in Canada? And do colleges use racial boxes in admissions? Any other form of social engineering- if so how?</p>

<p>I also question whether the racial boxes really are as effective as SES would be in social engineering.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

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>

<p>Oh no, not at all. The case for lawsuit would be there if the restaurant was turning away Asian customers who complied by the restaurant’s dress and behavior code, were willing and able to pay, wanted to order only what was on the restaurant’s menu, but the restaurant still turned them away to maintain a quota of Asians.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Nothing wrong with being a plumber. In the eyes of many, the profession seems to be more attractive than having a liberal arts degree.</p>

<p>The perplexing part is the “non-academic institution” comment. Even Devry is an academic institution.

</p>

<p>Are conservatories academic institutions? If yes, I stand corrected.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Some Asian-Americans want the colleges to stick to ceilings (quotas) on other groups but not to themselves.

</p>

<p>That is a completely false statement.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Invalid analogy. Colleges are not refusing to serve anyone but Caucasians. #2, colleges are not breaking the law, as Bay has informed you.

</p>

<p>The point was not about colleges. The point was about the right response to racism of any sort. Taking your business elsewhere as you prefer is not in my opinion the right response. Suing is.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>Yuh, E, I call foul there, too.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I also question whether the racial boxes really are as effective as SES would be in social engineering.

</p>

<p>Fully, fully agree!!</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

So, I presume you give equally low credence to those URMs who think AA is good? In other words, if a poor URM kid says that AA is wonderful, you would discredit that immediately because of conflict of interest?

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? I would use “discount” rather than “discredit,” though.

The case for lawsuit would be there is the restaurant was turning away Asian customers who complied by the restaurant’s dress and behavior code, were willing and able to pay, wanted to order only what was on the restaurant’s menu, but the restaurant still turned them away to maintain a quota of Asians.

OK, but you’d need to have some evidence that the restaurant was doing this. Anecdotes that every time you called they said there were no reservations wouldn’t be enough. That, again, is my point–people seem so sure that colleges are doing this, but there really is very little evidence that they are.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

OK, but you’d need to have some evidence that the restaurant was doing this. Anecdotes that every time you called they said there were no reservations wouldn’t be enough. That, again, is my point–people seem so sure that colleges are doing this, but there really is very little evidence that they are.

</p>

<p>It would definitely stand up in court. This is precisely how racism in rentals are smoked out. Have two people call one after the other, one with a Asian name and accent, and one without.</p>

<p>As for colleges, Hunt, I have already posted a link to a peer-reviewed academic paper published in a reputable social sciences journal that clearly showed that Asians displaced URMs and to some extent even Whites after using race as a criteria was made illegal in multiple states. There has not been a single dissent against this paper in the academic circles. </p>

<p>If that is not proof positive, I don’t know what is. This thread reminds me of the global warming threads that I have participated in the past. People will keep repeating that there is no global warming despite oodles and oodles of scientific research.</p>

<p>Did you read the article that I posted in direct response to one of your posts? I respectfully request that you do so. Here it is again.</p>

<p><a href=“http://escholarship.org/uc/item/35n755gf[/url]”>Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The Post-Affirmative Action Era;

[Bay]

<p>

Not fair, Bay. Much of this thread and others has been about trying to “prove” the existence of discrimination against Asians, when AA was removed from UC’s methodology.</p>

<p>I did not get the idea that anyone was trying to prove or disprove “legal” discrimination. That is a circular argument.

</p>

<p>Not fair? I answered the questions you asked me. I guess you asked the wrong ones.</p>

<p>But yes, plenty of this thread involved using race to benefit URMs. How did you miss that?</p>

<p>You didn’t ask me about whether URMs were taking the spots that would have gone to Asians. Is that what you want to know? I think you already know my position ad nauseum: There is no significant evidence that URMs are taking the spots of Asians.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Did you read the article that I posted in direct response to one of your posts? I respectfully request that you do so. Here it is again.</p>

<p><a href=“http://escholarship.org/uc/item/35n755gf[/url]”>Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The Post-Affirmative Action Era;

</p>

<p>First of all, this article is not about the elite colleges we are discussing. As I understand it, Hunt’s factual issue is bias against Asians in favor whites, not the issue of URM preferences. That aside, here is a quote from the study:</p>

<p>

Following the elimination of affirmative action at these five universities, white enrollment, as a percent of the student body, also began to decline and has continued to do so since then (see Graph 12 and Graph 13 below). While the percent of whites as a proportion of the population had been declining in all three states, thus lending justification for the decline in the number of white students, it is an important trend worth noting. For those who campaigned for the elimination of affirmative action in the belief that it would advantage the admission of white students, the trend over the past eight years can hardly be satisfying.

</p>

<p>This is a quote from the study. It is hardly ironclad. While the study marginally supports your theory I suppose (with respect to the public institutions listed at least), it certainly presents no ringing endorsement of the notion that there is incredible racial bias in favor of whites over Asians in the admissions at elite schools (as I believe you actually conceded when I first brought it up). Are we to gather that this single study, off point as it is, counts not only as consensus, but as “unanimity” among social scientists on the issue. So I ask again, please produce at least a few studies which actually show and present author’s conclusions of racial prejudice against Asians and in favor of whites at elite, private universities. If there is such a statment in this study, please reference it so I can read it.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>I seem to remember much of the discussion was about how strong the evidence was, not about whether it was legal…</p>

[Bay]

<p>As far as I could tell from that study, it also did not take yield into account. It looks only at enrollment.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

As far as I could tell from that study, it also did not take yield into account. It looks only at enrollment.

I’m sure there may be other things wrong with it as well, but I was trying to accept it at face value because, after all, it’s “peer reviewed.”</p>

[Bay]

<p>An interesting conclusion made by the authors of the study, is that those universities now provide a crappier education, because the reduced diversity affected the quality of the education by limiting different viewpoints inside and outside the classroom.</p>

<p>(Couldn’t figure out how to make the quote feature work on that article.)</p>