are colleges racist?

[IndianParent]

<p>

I think Thomas is out of his depth on the Supreme Court, which explains why he never asks questions from the bench. His opinions are probably written by his clerks.

</p>

<p>Is that a result of AA, Hunt? If yes, is it a good outcome?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I am talking of the hundreds of cases of racial discrimination lawsuits which I would presume John knows all about. I am asking him to take those as reference, and tell me if he feels private institutions should be allowed to discriminate based on race. He won’t answer that, for obvious reasons. As, he wants racial discrimination in favor of URMs.

</p>

<p>Could it be that he won’t answer the question about private institutions being allowed to discriminate based on race because he knows they are not allowed and simply do not engage in discrimination. I also doubt he wants racial discrimination in favor of URMs anymore than you do. Nobody wants … discrimination. Some of us want to have racial preferences which is not the opposite of … discrimination. </p>

<p>As far as the hundreds of cases, it would simple to count the cases that have SUCCESSFULLY established racial discrimination against Asians at their conclusion. Do you happen to know how many there might be? A handful? Or perhaps … ZERO! </p>

<p>And, NO, do not quote the easily fooled Golden!</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>Xiggi, Don’t get agitated. It’s a simple question that has nothing to do with colleges or Asians. It simply asks, should private institutions be allowed to discriminate based on race? An yes or no answer is all that is needed, but very, very hard to extract.</p>

<p>I wonder why. :-)</p>

[xiggi]

<p>I am not agitated. It is Sunday after all.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

should private institutions be allowed to discriminate based on race?

</p>

<p>That is a broader question than the one that is relevant to this thread. Should private colleges be allowed to use race as a factor in admissions? is the concise question.</p>

<p>According to the US Supreme Ct, the answer is <em>yes,</em> because racial diversity is a compelling interest that benefits the entire student body in the college campus learning context.</p>

<p>You, like fab, can disagree that racial diversity adds anything unique to the college learning environment, but according to the US Supreme Ct, HYPSM, and the bulk of research on the subject, your opinion would be wrong.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

the bulk of research on the subject

</p>

<p>One of the reviews you cited viewed Gurin et al.'s research design more favorably than Rothman et al.'s, but it didn’t consider Gurin et al.'s findings to be all that persuasive. I asked you whether you read his language differently than I did, and you didn’t answer, preferring to appeal to authority instead.</p>

<p>

your opinion would be wrong.

</p>

<p>Opinions can’t be wrong. Whether racial “diversity” has educational benefits is an empirical question, and Gurin et al.'s results are hardly convincing.</p>

[Bay]

<p>You are right, fab, I did not defend Gurin, but rather deferred to the US Supreme Ct’s review, which found her research to be convincing.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>Which AA defenders on this forum are URMs? I want to apply Hunt’s criteria for choosing whose opinions count more and whose less, because some have much to gain personally than others, on the AA supporters on this forum.</p>

<p>I suspect no one would disclose it though.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Clarence Thomas had the unmitigated gall to be a black man appointed to the supreme court who is a conservative. Hence, he must be dumb.</p>

[Bay]

<p>^Lol, I totally agree, sewhappy. If Clarence Thomas were a liberal, it would be the conservatives who think he is dumb! AA scapegoating at its finest.</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>“Which AA defenders on this forum are URMs?”</p>

<p>Raises hand…cautiously… Screwing up courage. . “You’re not the boss of me!”</p>

<p>Not sure “defender” is the best word, but I don’t see it as a bad thing. Also, not sure if I have a “horse in the race”. I think you said you don’t because you already know where your kid wont apply?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

^Lol, I totally agree, sewhappy. If Clarence Thomas were a liberal, it would be the conservatives who think he is dumb! AA scapegoating at its finest.

</p>

<p>I don’t disagree with your counterfactual. But the case of Justice Thomas does reveal hypocrisy or at the very least inconsistency in how supporters of racial preferences view qualifications.</p>

<p>Many supporters of racial preferences insist that without the policy, "URM"s will virtually disappear at private elites. Nonetheless, they are quick to insist that "URM"s are as qualified as their white and Asian peers. Many dismiss the “achievements may be discounted” criticism and argue that the problem lies not in the policy but in the people who make such judgments.</p>

<p>I have long noticed an irony: those insistences and dismissals are only done for "URM"s who tow the racial preferences line. Buck it like Justice Thomas, and your achievements will be considered “weak,” and you will be labeled a beneficiary of racial preferences. Only if you openly endorse the policy will you be considered a strong candidate who would’ve made it without affirmative action.</p>

[soomoo]

<p>

Which AA defenders on this forum are URM?

</p>

<p>Well, I’m married to one and have “URM children” too :)</p>

<p>I think those who discount the achievements of URM graduates of elite institutions are very misguided and probably haven’t worked closely with these individuals. </p>

<p>In my husbands experience, having a Princeton degree has allowed potential employers, bosses and clients to see beyond his very ethnic name. He is quite certain he would not have been as successful in his line of business if he had gone to State U.</p>

[Bay]

<p>fab,
I say those who pull the “AA” card are the ones who are racists. Any HYPS grad can turn out to be a bust. I also say to URMs: If you can’t stand the heat, don’t check the box.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I say those who pull the “AA” card are the ones who are racists.

</p>

<p>Then plenty of supporters of affirmative action are racists, for it is the supporters of affirmative action who argue that Justice Thomas would not be where he is without the policy, not the opponents.</p>

<p>

I also say to URMs: If you can’t stand the heat, don’t check the box.

</p>

<p>But see, how would anyone know that they declined to self-identify? Yes, the INDIVIDUAL “URM” would have a clean conscience and the confidence that comes with it, but others are not deterred from “pull[ing] the ‘AA’ card.”</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>

@IndianParent

This is completely false. The industrial revolution is what enabled emancipation of slaves as machines replaced labor.

</p>

<p>Interesting that you should say that, because, it is widely accepted that the advent of the cotton gin (an industrial revolution invention if there ever was one) actually resulted in a strengthening of slavery in America, not the opposite:</p>

<p>

The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth of the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, making plantation agriculture the largest sector of the Southern economy.[7] In addition to the increase in cotton production, the number of slaves rose as well, from around 700,000, before Eli Whitney’s patent, to around 3.2 million in 1850.

[Cotton</a> gin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin]Cotton”>Cotton gin - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Yes, it’s Wikipedia, but there are many other sites that express the same historical observation. I distinctly remember learning these facts in my high school American History class as well.</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>

I have long noticed an irony: those insistences and dismissals are only done for "URM"s who tow the racial preferences line. Buck it like Justice Thomas, and your achievements will be considered “weak,” and you will be labeled a beneficiary of racial preferences. Only if you openly endorse the policy will you be considered a strong candidate who would’ve made it without affirmative action.

</p>

<p>Of course, one may also observe the flip-side of this phenomenon, whereby opponents of AA often consider the achievements of virtually all URMs to have been the mere results of AA (unless, of course, those URMs tout the anti-AA party line, ala Justice Thomas). To wit, a URM is assumed to have been academically “weak”, despite the fact that he graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard Law —unless and until he “releases his transcripts.”</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>poetsheart, the North won the Civil War because of the wealth created by the Industrial Revolution. That is how I read my American history.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Of course, one may also observe the flip-side of this phenomenon, whereby opponents of AA often consider the achievements of virtually all URMs to have been the mere results of AA (unless, of course, those URMs tout the anti-AA party line, ala Justice Thomas). To wit, a URM is assumed to have been academically “weak”, despite the fact that he graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard Law —unless and until he “releases his transcripts.”

</p>

<p>Which opponent of AA on this thread has claimed that virtually all achievements of URMs have been due to AA?</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>A great game. I really enjoyed it.</p>

<p>

Merit, to me, is 99% hard work, and 1% ability. Success, to me, is 50% luck, and 50% merit.

</p>

<p>I think you are a lot more optimistic than I am. At most I would give hard work 50% , the rest is ability. My belief is consistent with identical twin studies and adoption studies on intelligence. My personal experience reinforces the same.
I think you are also optimistic with respect to the law and charitable giving. The law, more often than not, is a handmaiden of power, not that of the downtrodden. Charitable giving would help the family that do the giving, but not Asians in general, I don’t believe.</p>

<p>

I think Thomas is out of his depth on the Supreme Court, which explains why he never asks questions from the bench. His opinions are probably written by his clerks.

</p>

<p>I remember Sowell said the same about one of his black critics. He called the man an “education” PHD, and from a second tier institution at that.</p>

<p>

In my husbands experience, having a Princeton degree has allowed potential employers, bosses and clients to see beyond his very ethnic name. He is quite certain he would not have been as successful in his line of business if he had gone to State U.

</p>

<p>I am sure Asians would agree with you, and not those who suggested they would be just as successful at state U.</p>

<p>All in all, we are back to personal self-interest, isn’t it?</p>