are colleges racist?

[bovertine]

<p>

The word “racist” when applied to processes or institutions generally means that it favors one race over another.
When applied to individuals, the word tends to carry more negative baggage.

Really? So if you belonged to a club and I called that club racist that would not be considered negative, only if I called each member racist? </p>

<p>

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>

Many people argued that eugenics was bad at the time. This distincition has been debated ad nauseum on this thread (see Fabrizio and his “positive” and “negative” discrimination). Eugenics is a belief that one group is inherently superior to another based on DNA, and that the inferior race should basically be bred out of the society. I see that as completely different and far more horrific than any possible connotation of looking to get a few percent of African Americans into a university.</p>

[bovertine]

<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

That’s why we have dictionaries, and that’s why dictionaries list words in the order of their commonly accepted meaning. </p>

<p>If you have no intention to conflate the two meanings, then it is best not to use the word. Because the intention of **many **people using that term to describe admissions policies is not to be precise and benign. They intend to use that word because of its negative historical connotation. If they did not have this intention, and wished to avoid any chance that they were associating adcoms with Klansmen they would have no problem using the term “race conscious” as another poster suggested.</p>

[soomoo]

<p>implicit.harvard.edu</p>

<p>This is a fun way to find out who is really “racist”. Go ahead and take the test! The results are fascinating even if they are not scientifically validated.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Here’s an interesting article that I ran across while trying to find (unsuccessfully) anything about internal studies showing that adcoms discount the ECs of Asians:
[New</a> UC admissions policy angers Asians - US news - Life - Race & ethnicity - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30393117/ns/us_news-life/t/asian-americans-blast-uc-admissions-policy/]New”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30393117/ns/us_news-life/t/asian-americans-blast-uc-admissions-policy/)
I think this article is germane to several of the topics we’ve been talking about–such as whether a race-neutral policy might have disparate impact on different groups. For example, in this article, Asians were angry that, among other things, the UCs were dropping their requirement for two SAT Subject Tests.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>There is irony in 'dem words. Maybe you just do not see it.
OP of this thread realized this when he said he sounded “harsh”…
Ambiguity and irony was certainly intended in my case, because it is intrinsic to the situation being debated.
Language is both a tool and a mirror. A causer and a reflector.
It is sometimes hard to escape semantics.
Words can really hurt, and can also be used to help. We are not in total control of our cultural influences, unfortunately, but my belief is that we are irresponsible if we take things at face-value.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>

Really? So if you belonged to a club and I called that club racist that would not be considered negative, only if I called each member racist? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What I’ll say is that it carries more negative connotations when applied to an individual. You’ve never heard the SAT described as racist? I’m surprised you’ve never heard institutional racism described as “racist.” </p>

<p>Describing the favoring one race over another as racism, either directly or by disparate impact, is not an uncommon usage of the word.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

There is irony in 'dem words. Maybe you just do not see it.
OP of this thread realized this when he said he sounded “harsh”…
Ambiguity and irony was certainly intended in my case, because it is intrinsic to the situation being debated.
Language is both a tool and a mirror. A causer and a reflector.
It is sometimes hard to escape semantics.
Words can really hurt, and can also be used to help. We are not in total control of our cultural influences, unfortunately, but my belief is that we are irresponsible if we take things at face-value.

What are you talking about? I’m not sure whose words you’re talking about, but could you identify those words and explain the “irony.” </p>

<p>Edit: I edited out a part that was a little sarcastic. What I really meant is that your post is a little cryptic to me. Could very well be my fault. THat’s why I asked for explanation.</p>

<p>Allow me to clarify my point with an example. I could label someone “frugal” or “miserly.” I think the words mean similar things, but connote different things. How I label the person or action would depend on my point of view. In the case of racism, at least one generally accepted definition is so insulting I believe it should be used very rarely.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

You’ve never heard the SAT described as racist? I’m surprised you’ve never heard institutional racism described as “racist.” </p>

<p>

Of course. And that’s intended to be disparaging to the designers of the SAT, as is any description of an institution as racist.</p>

<p>I personally doubt the SAT is culturally biased, but even if it was I wouldn’t use the term “racist” to describe it.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>I’ve never heard “institutional racism” used to describe anything other than something that disadvantages some particular race. I’ve certainly never heard it to describe something like affirmative action. When applied to the SAT, it’s involved things like using vocabulary words that black kids would be less likely to know.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Why is it so troubling to you that there is an Asian point of view, (or a Jewish point of view or a Baptist point of view)? It is not a bad thing. It can become a bad thing, if it is turned into a stereotype. It can be a bad thing when it leads to prejudice.

</p>

<p>A logical consequence of your belief that there are points of view by group is that “diversity” as a goal should be extremely temporary. As in one year. Period.</p>

<p>All you have to do is admit one “diverse” class and have the faculty record their groups’ points of view in a journal. The notes in the journal become the basis for future lectures. The professor can, at will, explain “the black point of view,” “the Hispanic point of view,” and so forth.</p>

<p>If you find this example ridiculous, why is that? You have been actively arguing that you are right; there do exist such points of view by racial classification. If you say my example is ridiculous because INDIVIDUALS have different viewpoints, then…you’ve proven my point.</p>

<p>I reiterate that there is no “the Asian point of view” regarding racial preferences.</p>

[20more]

<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. ……</p>

<p>So they know the legacies, 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>Yes, kids (who are applying to selective colleges) know what they have to do.
Do not underestimate the power of internet (especially, College Confidential).</p>

<p>“Why do you think they have started believing some of it comes down to race and nothing else?”</p>

<p>You’ve got it texapg!!</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

[fabrizio] can’t even admit something like the disparity in STEM majors without introducing something irrelevant.

</p>

<p>siserune’s link proves your point. I already noted that many pages back. The press release from the UCLA researchers does not. Do you have any substantive issues with their findings that I did not already acknowledge (viz. that whites may have brought the 34.3% figure “down”)? No? Then who’s in denial here?</p>

<p>Your attitude shows exactly why racial preferences are doomed. The pro-racial preference side is paternalist, as shown by your overt belief that anyone who disagrees with you is either in a “phase” or is an idiot; insular, as shown by the inability of any supporter here to play Devil’s Advocate as well as the [utter</a> lack](<a href=“http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm]utter”>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm) of any diversity of thought at Harvard’s Summer Institute on College Admissions; and deluded, as shown by the repeated (and erroneous) belief that most Americans support racial preferences.</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>"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>I can’t speak to admission policies, but I think while number one is true overall, I don’t “feel” number two, or think 3, 4, or 5 should be thought of that simplistically. I am infinitely amazed by the complexities of the human experience, and feel there is more we DON’T know than we do. </p>

<p>I feel the number of black students that end up attending top 20 schools is so small compared to the general population, and compared to the number of college age blacks, that it complicates drawing conclusions from the numbers.</p>

<p>I think a lot of the “thumb on the scale stuff” is in the category of SAT’s, I trust the colleges when they say good enough is good enough, and I think an SAT score arms race is a scary proposition, especially for “us”. I don’t fully understand why this is true, but I think it is within the scope of possibility that it could be at least partially related to decisions and policies from a very long time ago. </p>

<p>I am not particularly invested in proving this argument, but I suspect if someone tried to make sure that blacks with “wealth” above a certain dollar figure were not looked at as worthy of a special look in admissions, it would change the landscape at those schools in a way that could change things significantly. I think folks with wealth, especially blacks, deserve a special look in general. (“How did they DO that???”)</p>

<p>I think the reasons this might happen are more complex than saying “if you have x amount of money, you should be able to compete just like the white and Asian students who get accepted do”. I think there might be subtleties that are not related to wealth, and with numbers this small, there might be unexpected results. </p>

<p>I think society can survive those results, just like we have survived other choices made by those in the position to make them.</p>

<p>PS I don’t see anyone trying to make the argument that someone thinks blacks are superior to other races.</p>

[limabeans01]

<p>I think this thread has just about said it all and is now getting kind of lame!</p>

[bovertine]

<p>^^^I agree. I’m repeating myself, so I’m done.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

siserune’s link proves your point. I already noted that many pages back. The press release from the UCLA researchers does not. Do you have any substantive issues with their findings that I did not already acknowledge (viz. that whites may have brought the 34.3% figure “down”)? No? Then who’s in denial here?

What are you talking about? The UCLA release doesn’t distinguish between whites and Asians in terms of whether they prefer STEM majors or not; the previous data clearly shows that there is a large disparity. Are you denying that there really is such a disparity? If not, why did you mention the UCLA study? And if there is a significant disparity there, what effect do you think that will have on admissions at the most selective schools? That’s the question that you can’t seem to bring yourself to answer.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Shrinkrap - The problem with top 20 schools using AA (I have no evidence other than anecdotal) is that they want to choose people to fill the pool that are closer to the general pool which means the ranks are closer, the SAT scores are closer etc.</p>

<p>The kids who usually match these requirements are from already upwardly mobile families. So the question comes down to why does a kid with two physician parents require help based on skin color to get into college? Would n’t a black janitor’s kid with a lower GPA and SAT score be better served?</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

The kids who usually match these requirements are from already upwardly mobile families. So the question comes down to why does a kid with two physician parents require help based on skin color to get into college? Would n’t a black janitor’s kid with a lower GPA and SAT score be better served?

Sure, it would be better–but how much lower? Those janitor’s kids with SATs high enough to create confidence that they can do the work and graduate are thin on the ground. Indeed, the Ivies fight each other to recruit kids like that. The philosophical question is whether they should also take some black kids from more well-to-do families who have very good stats, but not quite good enough to get in without a thumb on the scale. Some of us think that’s a good idea for social engineering purposes; others disagree.</p>

[aegrisomnia]

<p>

Many people argued that eugenics was bad at the time.

The majority argued that it was good, and that’s why people did it.</p>

<p>The majority argue now that AA and race-based admissions for diversity are good, and that’s why people do it. Many people argue now that these things are bad; I’m one of them.</p>

<p>Frightening parallel? That’s your call.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

What are you talking about? The UCLA release doesn’t distinguish between whites and Asians in terms of whether they prefer STEM majors or not;

</p>

<p>I repeat what I asked: Do you have any substantive issues with their findings **that I did not already acknowledge<a href=“viz.%20that%20whites%20may%20have%20brought%20the%2034.3%%20figure” title=“down”>/b</a>?</p>

<p>

the previous data clearly shows that there is a large disparity. Are you denying that there really is such a disparity? If not, why did you mention the UCLA study? And if there is a significant disparity there, what effect do you think that will have on admissions at the most selective schools? That’s the question that you can’t seem to bring yourself to answer.

</p>

<p>The previous data (1995-2001) also said there was no disparity among whites and "URM"s. If that didn’t change between 1995-2001 and 2004, then there is no disparity among whites and Asians in STEM fields.</p>

<p>Alternatively, it’s possible that white participation in STEM fields remained constant (or even dropped) while that of "URM"s increased dramatically from ~20% to ~34%. If this is the case, then there is still a large gap between white and Asian participation in STEM fields. I do not deny this possibility.</p>

<p>Perhaps you have an explanation as to why “URM” involvement in STEM fields changed so noticeably from 1995-2001 to 2004?</p>