<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>I’m just curious. Do you actually think you are prevailing in this debate? That is not my take at all. </p>
<p>Resorting to the “you’re just too young to get it” tactic is really not persuasive. It undercuts your argument. As did the “you’re too ignorant of the subtleties of admissions to get it” argument. What is next? </p>
<p>This is getting painful to read this thread.</p>
<p>
Thank you for proving my point so quickly.</p>
<p>And you might wish to consult a dictionary.</p>
<p>
In the Merriam Webster dictionary, two definitions are given. Yours corresponds to the first and is what is probably intended most often when people use the word “racism”. However, an older and less political/social definition - the second one listed - makes it very clear that supporters of AA are practicing “racism” in the traditional sense of the word. The question, then, is not one of word choice - it’s certainly correct to say that colleges which admit based on race are practicing racism - but one of what people understand by the word “racism”; perhaps a less charged term could be used, e.g., “racially-based” or “racially-aware” or “racially-biased”.</p>
<p>
By the second (and, from what I understand, more historically accurate definition) definition, yes, they are.</p>
<p>
Now you’re not even being consistent. Companies can get into trouble if their hiring practices result in or lead to a situation in which minorities are at a disadvantage. That’s part of the reason there are laws about Bona-Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs). It’s easy to implement hiring policies that keep e.g. black people out which do not say anything about race… but these are still illegal. And colleges get a free pass?</p>
<p>By the way, berating people and condescending does not mean you’re winning an argument. If anything, it means you lack the intellectual capacity for anything you say to be relevant.</p>
<p>sewhappy, I no longer think that I am in a “debate” with fabrizio, since he declines to engage on the merits of most of the arguments I raise. He doesn’t answer questions, but goes off on a tangent on some minor element of the post to try to discredit it. He can’t even admit something like the disparity in STEM majors without introducing something irrelevant. He also likes to switch from the Asians vs. whites issue to the AA for URMs issue when somebody is trying to pin him down. So, if he’s going to argue like a kid, I don’t feel too bad about calling him on it.</p>
<p>Somebody asked whether anybody’s opinion has changed in the course of this discussion. I guess mine has. At the beginning, I was receptive to the idea that selective colleges might be discriminating against Asians vs. whites in order to keep their numbers down. I wanted to know what evidence there might be that this is happening, or suggestions on how one might find out. In a thread of almost 2000 posts, though, I have seen almost nothing that really supports that hypothesis other than anecdotes. I’ve also come to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to study, and that people who are invested in the idea that discrimination is happening don’t want to even consider any other possible explanation for disparities. So I’ve come to the conclusion that Princeton’s approach was probably the right one–clam up and wait for the issue to go away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See my post #1843. Also, you might want to consult a dictionary… or, at least, try not to be such a tool. Think of the children.</p>
<p>Just as a brief follow-up… those of you who are arguing that “racism” is not a word that applied to e.g. AA are making a fatal error in reasoning - you’re conflating the word’s meaning with its connotation. We all know racism is bad, so if we think something is good, then it can’t be racism, right? Well, not really.</p>
<p>If you want to argue that AA is “good” racism, by all means, that’s a position one can argue for. Lots of people have argued in favor of racism. You need to let go of your knee-jerk reactions to trigger-words if you want to make any signficant contribution to a discussion… after all, we’re all adults here (even fabrizio).</p>
<p>
Since you didn’t post the defintions, I’m assuming you are using some definition which conflates racsim with any dsicrimination based on race.</p>
<ol>
<li>What does “historically accurate” mean? “Accurate” according to whom?</li>
<li> What is your basis for this assertion?<br></li>
</ol>
<p>In general, racism has a particularly nasty and inflammatory connotation in our society. Though technically correct under some precise but seldom employed definition, it should probably not be thrown around loosely when alternative terminology is available.</p>
<p>If you choose a spouse of the opposite gender, I could technically call you “sexist” under your definition. You are discriminating based on gender.
Target marketing a product or a film to a certain race would be racism.</p>
<p>
This is funny, coming from the person who posted, “How is AA not racism?”</p>
<p>This idea that support of AA is racism is a meme used by people to confuse the kind of racism that is based on racial superiority with race-conscious policies designed to help minority groups. It’s a rhetorical trick, essentially, intended to make unlike things seem more similar.</p>
<p>Hunt, </p>
<p>I’ve tried to read all of your posts and those of Fabrizio. I’d say both of you are running out of steam a bit. I have not seen Fabrizio engage in some of the lowly tactics that you have, ie, you’re just to young to get it. </p>
<p>And I think you have it completely wrong about Princeton’s “clam up and wait until it blows over” stance.</p>
<p>Ironically, that’s the sort of stance we equate with the evil corporate interests trying to hide something nefarious in a thriller.</p>
<p>No, it’s not going to go away. Not at all. </p>
<p>And as for Bovertine’s accusation that I’m questioning the use of race in selecting for colleges because I’m afraid URMs will take away a spot from my second kid. LOL - I’m a lot more worried that an Asian kid will. But I would defend with my life the right of that Asian kid to compete for that spot. There is no shame in falling short if the fight is a fair one.</p>
<p>And please, no lectures on “who said this is fair?” and SAT rises with income, et al.</p>
<p>@Hunt: Did you read a single word I wrote? Discriminating (i.e. differentiating or taking into consideration when making a decision) on the basis of race is, by definition, racism. How is what I wrote funny? It’s a simple question: according to at least one definition (the one I prefer - see #1846), AA is clearly racism. Like I said, you might think it’s admirable, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent.</p>
<p>@bovertine: I feel like post #1846 addresses your post. I feel like “definitions” of “racism” which include wording that alludes to “superiority” are fatally flawed. Do we define “premarital sex” as “When two unwed children sin in the eyes of God and fornicate like unwashed heathens”, or do we define it as “When unmarried people have sexual intercourse”? It’s a question of normative vs. positive definitions.</p>
<p>
I disagree that approaching a sensitive issue in a disinterested and dispassionate way is a “rhetorical trick”.</p>
<p>That being said, I don’t have a problem with using a different term, if you will suggest one. You use “race-conscious”? Alright…</p>
<p>I believe that AA and race-based college admissions are dangerous “race-conscious” mistakes on which future generations will not look kindly, and for which we ought (normative) to be ashamed.</p>
<p>
I know facts seem to mean little to you, but perhaps you could point to the post where I mentioned anything about you and your kid specifically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it doesn’t. If it did, you should be able to answer my questions. What does “historically accurate” mean? And from where do you draw your conclusions that your definition is the more historically accurate?</p>
<p>To me, “historically” being a racist has a particularly odious and malevolent meaning. THe generally descriptive term applied to the Ku Klux Klan for example, would be “racist.” I’m assuming you would not lump Harvard admissions with the KKK. So if you are interested in civil debate, why not use a less ambiguous term, with a less inflammatory, more precise, generally accepted meaning?</p>
<p>
Okay. That would be more accurate.</p>
<p>
But it is. Because there’s no proof, and there isn’t going to be any proof.</p>
<p>The word “racist” when applied to processes or institutions generally means that it favors one race over another.</p>
<p>When applied to individuals, the word tends to carry more negative baggage.</p>
<p>^ “Historically accurate” probably weren’t the right words. “Racism” has not always carried with it a negative connotation. Certainly there’s nothing in the etymology of the word “racism” to link it to anything negative. For instance, early in the twentieth century, eugenics was generally considered a forward-thinking and “good” area of scientific inquiry. I doubt anyone to day would argue that eugenics isn’t inherently racist.</p>
<p>I’ll admit that the “historical/not historical” distinction is probably less meaningful than the “normative/positive” and “etymological meaning/connotation” distinctions. I have nothing against using a different word… I just wanted to point out that, in a very precise and well-motivated sense, AA and “diversity-based” college admissions are examples of racism. I suggest we follow Hunt’s lead and use the term “race-conscious”.</p>
<p>Do I feel like “race-conscious” policies are as evil and “odious” as the KKK’s philosophy? Clearly not. However, I feel like race relations will never fully heal until “race-conscious” policies are a thing of the past… that is, they need to go away first, not the other way around. The ugly logic underlying “race-conscious” policies is this, and if you don’t agree, please let me know:</p>
<ol>
<li>Certain racial minorities in America have different levels of academic achievement.</li>
<li>These different levels of academic achievement translate into different socioeconomic classes.</li>
<li>We don’t want socioeconomic categories to be dictated by race.</li>
<li>It’s easier to fix the problem by intervening at (2) than at (1).</li>
<li>Intervene at (2) to achieve (3).</li>
</ol>
<p>What’s dangerous is (4). Any responsible society should address (1). Should we intervene at (2) in the meantime? Is it a necessary evil? Perhaps so, but it is an evil nonetheless. People who argue that “race-conscious” policies are good are either not thinking clearly about the situation or very evil people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read awhile ago that Harvard did an internal study and found that the ECs of Asians were viewed through a more critical lens than whites. In other words, the same EC profile was looked at as not as impressive when an Asian name was attached to it. I don’t have the citation though, so feel free to disbelieve it.</p>
<p>
So are you saying that we should never have had affirmative action for URMs, or just that we’ve had enough?
Assuming this is true, what should Harvard do about it? I suppose they could block out the names from the applications–but then the losers could just be the people with “obviously Asian” ECs (who might not all be Asian).</p>
<p>“RACISM” is obviously a culturally laden word now, fraught with negative implications and valorizations. It now “automatically” refers to the EVIL practice of group people by their race and assuming inferiority in some cases, and discriminating (selecting preferentially) based on racial distinctions.</p>
<p>Yes, it may appear to be splitting hairs. BUT it is actually valid and ethically useful to go back to the generic meaning of the word: being aware of racial differences and grouping individuals into racial groups, even oneself, is “racist” in its basic sense.</p>
<p>Yes, there is IRONY here in this thread:
<p>Why is it so strange to go back to the original semantics of this word???
The word “discrimination” has also become a trope - it really just means looking at differences. Not even categorizing and generalizing!</p>
<p>What do Asians want? URM’s want? Whites want? (besides getting into the college of their choice LOL)</p>
<p>Do you want to be considered a member of a racial group and have that be an important aspect of who you are in competitive situations?</p>
<p>Or do you want to be an individual who CHOOSES to identify with the group you belong to with pride, but also the freedom to be who you want to be, to think outside of your racial “box”?</p>
<p>"When I hear stories like this, I always wonder if these kids realize that sometimes what a kid does outside school may be far more impressive than their school activities. My older son won his share of Science Olympiad medals, but really the true measure of his intellect were the projects he was working on that the school (and most of his friends) knew nothing about. "</p>
<p>Believe it or not, the kids in your son’s class will know exactly what he did to improve his credentials. They are all doing things outside too to shine. When people get admitted, they do enough research to figure why someone got in ahead of them in a school they thought they should have been picked.</p>
<p>So they know the legacys, race based admits, athletes, someone who did outstanding work outside of school etc. Why do you think they have started believing some of it comes down to race and nothing else?</p>
<p>frankly, some of these kids scare the heck out of me because they know so much more in high school than when I graduated with a masters.</p>