are colleges racist?

[fabrizio]

<p>

If you were a Harvard adcom looking at a future America made up of 50% Hispanic Americans would you want to be the one to explain why they make up only 5% of the freshman class?

</p>

<p>

Good point, and could explain Harvard’s business decision to use race as a factor in admissions.

</p>

<p>So Hispanics get preferences not because they were historically oppressed or disadvantaged but because demographics indicate that they will be the majority “group” in America in the near future?</p>

<p>OK then.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>That would sort of be a version of developmental admits.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Recent immigrants to the US do not understand why they have to be penalized for the sins of the past in the US–why don’t the whites just pay for it? Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. When you immigrate to a country, you are buying into both the benefits and the problems of living in that country.

</p>

<p>Hunt, as I recall from earlier in this thread, you’re from Maryland. Do you live in a posh, mostly white suburb in Maryland? Or do you live in the rowhouses depicted in The Wire?</p>

<p>I ask not to be belligerent, though you don’t have to believe that, but to question just how much you’re doing to address the “injustice” you bemoan.</p>

<p>

Oppression of racial minorities, especially blacks and Native Americans, is a huge part of the history of this country, and affirmative action is one of the tools that is being used to try to undo the damage of that history (I don’t feel the need to buy into the polite fiction that AA can only be about “diversity,” by the way).

</p>

<p>Then children of Caribbean and African immigrants should not be [url=<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]disproportionately[/url”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]disproportionately[/url</a>] benefiting from racial preferences. I’ve pointed that out to you before, and your response was, “Well, they assimilate into black America.” So what if they do? They are not descendants of slaves. Ironically, they may even be the descendants of Africans who enslaved other Africans, yet you see fit to grant them preferential treatment!</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Hunt, as I recall from earlier in this thread, you’re from Maryland. Do you live in a posh, mostly white suburb in Maryland? Or do you live in the rowhouses depicted in The Wire? I ask not to be belligerent, though you don’t have to believe that, but to question just how much you’re doing to address the “injustice” you bemoan.

The second sentence is one of the funniest ones you’ve written, fabrizio. As to the first, it’s not really any of your business where I live, or what I do to help those less fortunate than myself. You, of course, are on a campaign to harm those less fortunate than yourself, but I’m not asking you what you’re doing to make up for that. Did that sound too belligerent?</p>

<p>As for URMs who aren’t the descendents of slaves, I don’t think they should get as much help as those who are (same for poor vs. rich), and I don’t think they do get as much help, but I still think that’s it’s beneficial as a matter of social engineering to help them, too, since I don’t think there are enough high-performing low-SES non-immigrant black students to generate “enough” black students in the most selective schools. If you don’t like the word “enough,” that’s tough.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

So Hispanics get preferences not because they were historically oppressed or disadvantaged but because demographics indicate that they will be the majority “group” in America in the near future?

</p>

<p>That reason would be consistent with a college valuing the benefits that flow from learning and living in a racially diverse (including Hispanic) campus environment.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>

If President Casper wanted to talk about poor(er) students, he would have. Directly and clearly.

Actually I thought he was relatively direct and clear:

. However, I am extremely wary of any admissions process in which economic and social disadvantage (including dysfunctional home environments) become categorical criteria to be formally weighed in decisions about whom to admit as a student. In order to survive as a sane society, we should not create incentives for ever more people to think in terms of victimhood or to play the role of victims, or to suggest that one must be disadvantaged to be given serious consideration in the college admission process.

from [Statement</a> on Affirmative Action](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/951004affaction.html]Statement”>Statement on Affirmative Action)</p>

<p>He also says:

 We do not admit minorities to do them a favor. We want students from a variety of backgrounds to help fulfill our educational responsibilities, not, to my mind, to address the effects of historic discrimination, although that might be a result.

</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

The second sentence is one of the funniest ones you’ve written, fabrizio. As to the first, it’s not really any of your business where I live, or what I do to help those less fortunate than myself. You, of course, are on a campaign to harm those less fortunate than yourself, but I’m not asking you what you’re doing to make up for that. Did that sound too belligerent?

</p>

<p>It wasn’t my intention to be funny, nor do I read that way. As for your question, no, it’s not belligerent; it’s defensive. And it confirms what I thought: you whine and moan about “injustice,” but you’re not living in the rowhouses of Bawlmer.</p>

<p>

since I don’t think there are enough high-performing low-SES non-immigrant black students to generate “enough” black students in the most selective schools. If you don’t like the word “enough,” that’s tough.

</p>

<p>Again, it’s so ironic that the self-described defenders of "URM"s’ “interests” think "URM"s are not good enough to get into our nation’s “most selective schools” without preferences.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

That reason would be consistent with a college valuing the benefits that flow from learning and living in a racially diverse (including Hispanic) campus environment.

</p>

<p>Are you saying that without preferences, there won’t be enough Hispanics at these colleges? And what exactly are these vaunted benefits, anyway? Why do they appear when "URM"s are at X% of the campus, fail to appear when they’re at X - epsilon%, and disappear when they’re at 3X% of the campus?</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Are you saying that without preferences, there won’t be enough Hispanics at these colleges?

</p>

<p>Nope.</p>

<p>

And what exactly are these vaunted benefits, anyway? Why do they appear when "URM"s are at X% of the campus, fail to appear when they’re at X - epsilon%, and disappear when they’re at 3X% of the campus?

</p>

<p>I thought you read Grutter, fab.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Again, it’s so ironic that the self-described defenders of "URM"s’ “interests” think "URM"s are not good enough to get into our nation’s “most selective schools” without preferences.

What’s ironic about it? One look at the stats for SAT results shows that it’s true.</p>

<p>Your latest comment isn’t funny. It’s kind of stupid, really. You think that I should be living in a slum in order to have the right to support affirmative action? As for whining and moaning, please. If you think pointing out that slavery and oppression are unjust is “moaning,” then you need some more education.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Nope.

</p>

<p>Then…they don’t need the preferences, do they?</p>

<p>

I thought you read Grutter, fab.

</p>

<p>Of course. And there’s no answer to my second question, which gave rise to Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas’s dissents.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

What’s ironic about it? One look at the stats for SAT results shows that it’s true.

</p>

<p>The SAT isn’t everything. Is that the only reason why you think without preferences, there won’t be “enough” (whatever that is, it’s magically not a quota) "URM"s?</p>

<p>

Your latest comment isn’t funny. It’s kind of stupid, really. You think that I should be living in a slum in order to have the right to support affirmative action? As for whining and moaning, please. If you think pointing out that slavery and oppression is “moaning,” then you need some more education.

</p>

<p>I didn’t intend for it to be funny, and your remarks continue to demonstrate your defensiveness, which I suppose is to be expected, since I brought up an issue that the Washington Post recently termed “sensitive.”</p>

<p>Hey, you LIVE in Maryland. I only watched a television show written by a resident of Baltimore. According to David Simon, those “slums” you speak of used to be inhabited by…whites. Where’d they go, Hunt? Where you live now? Let me guess, you and your neighbors love to sing the praises of diversity…far away from these “slums”!</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Then…they don’t need the preferences, do they?

</p>

<p>Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. It is their option to use race if they feel their student body would benefit from admitting a particular candidate who might not otherwise make the final list. I imagine that HYPS probably get the cream of the URM candidates, so it is certainly possible that they don’t use race as a compensatory tool to the degree that other colleges who don’t attract the top candidates do.</p>

[Bay]

<p>I think IndianParent would be pretty bummed out if he found out that Harvard/Yale grads end up living in slums.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Sigh. I shouldn’t engage these kinds of arguments, but here goes.

The SAT isn’t everything. Is that the only reason why you think without preferences, there won’t be “enough” (whatever that is, it’s magically not a quota) "URM"s?

You know very well that the numbers of URMs at elite colleges would drop significantly without preferences. So why play this game? While SAT isn’t everything, it’s pretty important.</p>

<p>As for where I live, this is an ad hominem argument that is really unattractive. It’s intended to suggest that if I live in an affluent suburb (which I do), I don’t have the “cred” to support AA because, supposedly, I’ve fled from diversity. Any mature person can see the absurdity of this argument. Look, I have great health insurance, but I think poor people should also have health insurance. Should I give up my insurance in order to think that? And I’ll note that I support affirmative action even though it has the potential to harm my own kids’ prospects of getting into the programs they want.</p>

<p>And since you seem to think that my experience in my suburb should shape my views–I’ll note that it’s pretty diverse in some ways. For instance, it’s full of Asian families where the parents are professionals and recent immigrants who are pushing their kids into STEM majors and making them practice the violin and piano all the time. But you don’t like it when I observe that, so I’m not sure what you want, exactly.</p>

[sm74]

<p>Sad to me that it seems that “educational responsibility” now means that schools must define people not just as people but by any and all definitions of race/nationality/sexual orientation etc. and they must admitt a representative enough members of that group.
I used to think it took athletic ability to get into HYPS but I am rethinking that now-maybe the key is to define yourself within some sort of unusual background and demand admittance based on the school’s “educational responsibility” and if they don’t admitt you sue them.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. It is their option to use race if they feel their student body would benefit from admitting a particular candidate who might not otherwise make the final list. I imagine that HYPS probably get the cream of the URM candidates, so it is certainly possible that they don’t use race as a compensatory tool to the degree that other colleges who don’t attract the top candidates do.

</p>

<p>But why wouldn’t this particular candidate have made the final list? Even if his SAT scores were not the “best,” so what? The SAT isn’t everything.</p>

<p>Why couldn’t this candidate have been admitted on the basis of “intellectual vitality, talent, character, and promise,” to quote former Stanford President Casper? Are you saying that those criteria are related to racial classification?</p>

[Bay]

<p>

But why wouldn’t this particular candidate have made the final list? Even if his SAT scores were not the “best,” so what? The SAT isn’t everything.</p>

<p>Why couldn’t this candidate have been admitted on the basis of “intellectual vitality, talent, character, and promise,” to quote former Stanford President Casper? Are you saying that those criteria are related to racial classification?

</p>

<p>I don’t know, fab, and I don’t profess to know better than HYPS why they select particular students over others. I’ll bet all admits have “intellectual talent, character and promise,” as do the other “alternate” class of admits that HYPS talk about and probably a majority of the applicants.</p>

<p>Our high school had a Black student and a Hispanic student admitted to Harvard, and both of them were at the top of their class.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

You know very well that the numbers of URMs at elite colleges would drop significantly without preferences. So why play this game? While SAT isn’t everything, it’s pretty important.

</p>

<p>That’s what Bowen and Bok concluded, yes. On pages 41 and 42 of The Shape of the River, B&B wrote</p>

<p>*
Race-neutral policies would force most of the black students currently attending SEL-1 schools such as Swarthmore and Stanford to attend other institutions. Some would enroll at SEL-2 schools, but because there would not be sufficient places in this tier to accommodate all of those who would have been rejected by SEL-1 schools, some would move to SEL-3 schools or attend schools outside the C&B universe entirely.
*</p>

<p>But if the SAT is limiting “URM” enrollment, then why don’t these schools do something about it? They can make Bay and others happy and decrease the importance of the SAT. Or, they can, y’know, use their endowments to finance test prep for "URM"s. Instead, they take the cheap way out and shroud their support for racial preferences with references to “intellectual vitality, talent, character, and promise,” none of which have anything to do with racial classification.</p>

<p>

It’s intended to suggest that if I live in an affluent suburb (which I do), I don’t have the “cred” to support AA because, supposedly, I’ve fled from diversity.

</p>

<p>I’m putting things in perspective, Hunt. You decry “injustice” but you do so from the comfort of an affluent suburb that’s full of Asian families but probably not “URM” families. If you really want diversity for you and your children, nothing’s stopping you from living in a more “diverse” neighborhood. You can do that instead of speaking platitudues about the diversity tax that everyone has to pay.</p>

<p>

But you don’t like it when I observe that, so I’m not sure what you want, exactly.

</p>

<p>I’m fine with your observing that. I’m not fine with your arguing that what you see in your affluent suburb is generalizable to the rest of the country. I recall, again, your example that in your area, South Asians are more likely to pursue journalism ECs than East Asians. I have no reason to doubt that it’s true for where you live, but is it true for the rest of the country? Probably not.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Sad to me that it seems that “educational responsibility” now means that schools must define people not just as people but by any and all definitions of race/nationality/sexual orientation etc. and they must admitt a representative enough members of that group.

</p>

<p>There is no requirement that colleges do this, and most of them do not. The top ones do, though, and why do you find that sad?</p>