<p>You arguments lack evidence. You have yet to mention one way that students are discriminated based upon in the UCs on a daily basis. And you have yet to point out the “recent past” that you speak of. </p>
<p>The UCs use comprehensive review and eligibility in local context which are implicit AA. The racial controversy sparked by the BCR are because of the bill that wishes to introduce AA to the UC system. I would say the subject of AA is what inherently fosters race tensions. </p>
<p>@sakky
I was unaware of those facts. Thanks for pointing them out to me. Now I think about it, Clarence Thomas being appointed by Bush despite better qualified candidates because he was one of the few black republicans and it was necessary because the justice stepping down was black (Marshall). And people were saying that Sotomayor was chosen among the candidates because she was Hispanic. I don’t think I’m qualified to judge how their diversity impacts the court, so I probably chose poor examples.</p>
<p>I think Legacies and nepotism is wrong. But I think most people agree it’s wrong, so there’s little to discuss…</p>
<p>@ Starrynights
“Berkeley’s tempest follows a series of racial and anti-Semitic incidents across UC campuses, which prompted UC officials to focus new attention on fighting hate speech among students.”</p>
<p>Now my question is are you actually that ignorant of the political climate of the institution you decided to spend thousands of dollars and a good chunk of your young adult life at, or are you purposely being dense? I hope it’s the second. The incidents are such common knowledge I assumed you were spouting your opinion because you actually had knowledge of the situation. alas, I give you too much credit.</p>
<p>Now my question is why is there no outrage at the new admissions policy which stands to hurt asian admissions in favor of more whites “it’s like affirmative action for white people” I guess it’s only bad if minorities benefit. This is why I can’t take these things serious it’s all dog whistles for “we don’t like blacks and hispanics”</p>
<p>Yes, it’s from 2009 but the policy was supposed to take place 3 years after the article; in 2012. </p>
<p>I don’t know if they changed the policy, though, I haven’t looked into it. But there was another thread on here called “New 2012 Admission Policy” or something like that. A user pointed out that it was difficult to imagine a policy hurting Asians at the expensive of whites because their scores/credentials were near the same, as compared to the scores between, say, Asians and Hispanics or Asians and blacks.</p>
<p>'They point to a UC projection that said the new standards would sharply reduce Asian-American admissions while resulting in little change for blacks and Hispanics, and a big gain for white students.</p>
How does what appears to be 4-5 isolated incidents of hate speech suggest any systemic level of racial discrimination throughout the UCs? The UC consists of 9 undergraduate schools, 4-5 incidents doesnt even give us an average of 1 incident per school. The incidents cited in the article you linked to weren’t all targeted at a single racial minority. Asians and Jewish people were also victims of these incidents of hate speech. You claim that “[m]aybe the fact that bias and discrimination exists in an atmoshphere without AA is a case FOR it not against it.” So, pray tell, how will implementing AA help prevent discrimination against Asians and Jewish people or any other race for that matter?</p>
<p>You asked why there isn’t any outrage over the UC’s change of admissions policy, but doesn’t the title of the article you linked to answer your question? It clearly states that the policy has angered Asian Americans. The article was posted in 2009, it’s now 2011. Do you expect people to protest this 2 years after the announcement of the policy change? Sure, you can say that the policy will be coming into effect in the immediate future (2012), but unless the administration makes another announcement regarding this policy change, most people aren’t likely to remember or even know of it.</p>
<p>
You stated that with regards to LemonCat’s paraphrasing of my comment about how I found it strange that the change in admissions policy will benefit white students at the expense of Asians since both groups are more likely to have similar academic stats than other racial groups. How exactly am I blaming minorities for this projected decrease in Asians being accepted to UCs? </p>
<p>Why do we need AA? Doesn’t the notion of racial AA inherently suggest that race factors into a person’s intellectual capabilities? Wouldn’t a more pertinent measure be the socio-economic status of applicants and doesn’t the current system already take this into consideration?</p>
<p>@copperback, exactly! I agree completely;
I think both sides (pro- and anti-AA) are in agreement that diversity is good. But both sides don’t agree in HOW to reach that diversity; allow more minorities in based on skin color or gladly accept minorities as long as their stats are similar to those of other applicants?
People are attacking the issue in a totally wrong way. Race itself has nothing to do with someone’s scores or someone’s opportunities in school. The true measure of this comes from socio-economic status; I think race has been replaced as the measure of someone’s lack of opportunities because it sometimes goes hand in hand (unfortunately) with a lower socio-economic status. Why don’t we focus instead on looking at family income, neighborhoods, school ranks, $ per student in said high schools, oppurtunities like AP classes and SAT/ACT prep courses, etc? This is much better than only making race an issue because no one seems to disagree that it’s a fact that if you’re poorer, you may not have that many opportunities available. If you’re Hispanic/Black, however, that alone does not always imply lack of opportunity.</p>
<p>@ copperbak
Well your first paragraph is full of logical inconsistencies, I don’t know where to begin. I can’t address the whole thing but let me say I never claimed AA will prevent discrimination on UC campuses. Although It might in a round about way, whats most important is that it may help correct for the racism that is sure to exist.</p>
<p>I was not referring to your statements, I was referring to starrynight’s reaction to the admissions policy change article.</p>
<p>AA does not say anything about a person’s intellectual abilities. I’d like to hear how you think it does.
Do you believe racism does not exist? Do you not think that race is a factor that is likely to have an effect on a person’s life in today’s society? Not even a little bit? There is no difference between being born black and being born white in American society all other things being equal?</p>
<p>Socio-economics should be taken into consideration but that position undercuts the “take the best person” viewpoint people are arguing. In that case socio-economics should not matter, you take the highest scores regardless of if your father is william gates jr.</p>
<p>We both agree there are other mitigating factors that should be taken into account. Some believe that race is an important one of these factors. It’s not as different of an argument as I think you think it is.</p>
<p>Well, I’m white. With that introduction, you have probably already decided that you don’t care what I have to say. Now, call me racist. Why? Because I’m white and I don’t have the same opinion as you. I hope that you see the irony.</p>
<p>I will say this – I don’t actually think that AA would hurt admission numbers for white students at Cal. It will hurt, as I think we can all agree, Asian students. That’s quite unfortunate. I have an immense amount of respect for the work ethics of my Asian friends. They are here because they deserve it. They earned it. Others did not.</p>
<p>When my school stops making its admissions decisions based upon applicants’ demonstrated ability and drive to perform, it will lose its respect locally, nationally, internationally, and professionally. When I tell people that I go to UC Berkeley, they are impressed. They won’t be impressed when they think that you got in because of the color of your skin. Look at the ramifications for the school, its reputation, and its quality. It is always better to ask, “What will be the result of this?” rather than, “What would I like to imagine would be the result of this?” Reality doesn’t care about your idealized expectations.</p>
<p>@MortimerC
Instead of throwing out lines like “your first paragraph is full of logical inconsistencies”, or “you assume a lot” or “are you purposely being dense?” as you have throughout this entire thread, why don’t you try to address the points people have been trying to raise?</p>
<p>You say that we should “look at all the racial controversies at the UCs in the recent past” as a basis for considering AA and linked to the article that lists a total of 5 incidents that fall under this category. I claim that there has been no significant history of racial controversies at the UCs in the recent past. To support this, I point out that the relatively few incidents cited in the article are indicative of random isolated acts of racism rather than any concerted effort on the part of students to discriminate against others. Ergo there is no significant level of racial discrimination in the UCs and therefore your claim that the UCs’ supposed history of “racial controversies” is indicative of the need for AA holds no water. </p>
<p>When you make claims that “preventing racism” is different from “correct[ing] for the racism that is sure to exist”, you are merely arguing semantics. If you prefer the phrase “correct[ing] for… racism”, then please explain how AA addresses this? </p>
<p>
In the context of college admissions, race-based AA favors certain candidates for college on the basis of race. One of the factors of college admissions is supposed to be candidates’ intellectual capabilities which is usually measured via standardized tests. What does this suggest about candidates who are admitted under AA but who would otherwise be rejected? It suggests that they are not as intellectually capable as those who were admitted without the benefit of AA. By implementing race-based AA, we are acknowledging that certain racial groups are not as intellectually capable as others and need the help of AA in order to be admitted to certain colleges.</p>
<p>
Racism is real, I have not denied this but there has been no real trend of “racial controversies” in the UCs as you claim. I don’t deny that race can have an effect on people’s lives in today’s societies but the solution to this is not AA. I believe that race-based policies will only reaffirm and propagate bias towards minorities, and the best policy is a race-blind policy.</p>
<p>In the case of Berkeley, I am personally in favor of a “take the best person” policy. By accepting under-qualified candidates we are doing them no favors. We have other UCs which offer varying levels of academic rigor more suited to the capabilities of these students. </p>
<p>I think a person’s race may have high correlation with his socio-economic background, but the limiting factor here is not a person’s race, it is his background. By focusing on a person’s race, we implicitly acknowledge that this is the source of the difference.</p>
<p>I believe that class-ism is real. I believe that socio-economic based policies will only reaffirm and propagate bias towards the poor.</p>
<p>Why do you only care when it’s minorities that benefit. Wouldn’t that be true for any other criteria beyond hard test scores? Then Why do you call for allowing socio-economic circumstances to be factored in to admissions decisions? Your logic is not consistent. </p>
<p>Very few people accuse the mostly white and affluent legacy admits of being intellectually inferior. Maybe these arguments are used against minorities for some other reason…hmmm
Race definitely can be a source of difference just like socioeconomics. Why do you refuse to admit this?</p>
<p>All the bill calls for is letting race be A factor among many that goes into a holistic admissions process.</p>
Class-based affirmative action addresses the root of the problem, race-based affirmative action does not. A person can grow up in an impoverished environment or a nurturing one depending on his socio-economic background but his race does not determine this. Race may be an indicator but it is not the determinant. If you believe otherwise, as an example, why don’t you tell me how a person of any race is disadvantaged by his/her race when it comes to college admissions?</p>
<p>
Minorities and all other races benefit fairly from class-based AA, I’m in favor of class-based AA. Race-based AA purports that there are differences between races solely because of race that are comparable to differences in social classes. I fail to see this. Maybe you can explain to me these differences between races that would justify race-based AA? How is a black student disadvantaged over a white student that can explained solely by race and not socio-economic factors?</p>
<p>
People have made claims of Ivy League legacy admits being intellectually inferior such as in the case of former President George W. Bush. But legacy admits are discrimination based on background (not race) that do not have any tangible societal benefits imo. Furthermore the UCs don’t have legacy admits, so I don’t see how that is relevant here. If the UCs wanted to implement legacy admits, I believe most people would be against that too.</p>
<p>My claim that there has been no real trend of “racial controversies” in the UCs was in response to your proof cited which only listed 5 incidents, but I believe it still holds. I skimmed through the NYT article and only noticed 3 incidents so I’ll address them as follows. The first 2 incidents mentioned in the NYT article don’t reflect any deep-seated racism. I agree that The “Compton cookout” and the racial slur on the satirical news program were in poor taste and seem more like misguided attempts at humor but those aren’t exactly strong indicators of racial discrimination. The last incident mentioned was also in the earlier article and seems to have been perpetuated by an individual and does not reflect the beliefs of any significant portion of the student body. 3 incidents in 2010 with no reports on incidents prior or post of that hardly constitutes a significant history of racial controversies as you claim. In all cases of serious hate crimes, these proceedings were met with outrage from the majority of the student body. So I find it hard to believe that racial discrimination is prevalent in the UCs when all these isolated incidents have been denounced by their respective student bodies.</p>
<p>
Even if we assume that racism is prevalent on UC campuses, why won’t you answer my question quoted above? </p>
<p>
Why don’t you explain to me how race affects a person’s academic statistics that will be considered for admission instead of just stating that it does with no explanation whatsoever? Until I see a valid explanation for this, I am unable to support a bill that factors race into the admissions process.</p>
<p>Jesus man, you’re a Berkeley student. Take an AC class. I would literally have to fill up 5 posts worth of info to answer that. There’s a reason that the issue isn’t so cut and dry, it’s complicated as hell, and you would be a more rounded human if you learned about if at least just be exposed to another mode of thinking.
the problem begins with people existing in their own little myopic bubbles. As long as that remains, teaching the history of race relations in the US to an anonymous poster on an internet message board will be futile.</p>
<p>just some food for thought: </p>
<p>T"homas Shapiro, in his book The Hidden Cost of Being African American, states that the median white family has an average of $81,000 in net worth while the median black family only has $8,000.[10] This means that black families possess, generally, only 10 cents for every white dollar in wealth."</p>
<p>“Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) indicate that in the 1990s, nearly 1 in every 4 white families received an inheritance after the death of a parent, while only about 1 in every 20 African American families inherited in this manner.[10] The amount for whites averaged nearly $144,652 while the black families averaged, $41,985”</p>
<p>@MortimerC
I’m open to learning more about why race-based AA is a good idea and I freely admit that I’m not familiar with the history of US racial relations since I’m not an American. From the AC class I have taken, I have come to understand that race is purely a social construct. Given this, why aren’t we addressing issues in socio-economic terms? Why the need to frame things in terms of race?</p>
<p>This may across as being rude, but I have to say that if you cannot elucidate your reasoning for race-based AA in a clear succinct manner over a message board, how do you expect to convince people in everyday life who as you say “exist… in their own little myopic bubbles” of the importance of race-based AA?</p>
<p>All I can see from the sources that you quote is that in general there exists economic disparities between African Americans and Whites. If the difference is in wealth, why won’t class-based AA that takes into account socio-economic factors suffice in addressing these issues? Why the need for race-based AA? Not all black families are poor and not all white families are rich, but all rich families are rich and all poor families are poor. Isn’t the issue here purely economic disparity? Targeting this seems to be a more effective way to me.</p>
<p>I definitely CAN elucidate further. It’s just not my first time on the internet and if I spent my free time educating people on message boards I wouldn’t have time to study or sleep.</p>
<p>I don’t seek to convince anybody of anything. I just want to go to school and not be bothered by idiotic race baiting. I don’t know if the bake sale is going on tomorrow but if it is I will turn my head towards it on my way to class, check out the crowd then chuckle to myself. I think most campus activism is idiotic, this to me = the liberal kids taking over Wheeler. It signifies nothing.</p>
<p>Race matters, and pretending it doesn’t doesn’t help anyone or improve anything. There is only one anti-AA stance I am sympathetic to and no one has made it yet.</p>
<p>@MortimerC : what’s that single anti-AA stance? I’m really curious…</p>
<p>But, actually, since I started writing on this thread, I’ve opened my mind to trying to understand these racial relation because all of the minorities I’ve seen contributing ideas seem to be very pro-AA. Oh well, I still think socio-economic status would be a better thing to look at, but I would like to learn more about these racial relations.</p>
<p>@MortimerC
If you can, why did you not do so earlier in the thread? Instead, you have written paragraphs dedicated to ad hominems, making broad claims and quoting statistics that do your case no justice. </p>
<p>I would appreciate it if you could share with us the anti-AA stance that you are sympathetic to when you have more time. I would be interested in hearing about it.</p>
<p>“I’ve opened my mind to trying to understand these racial relation because all of the minorities I’ve seen contributing ideas seem to be very pro-AA”</p>
<p>Really.? Which posts? How do you know who is a " minority"? This subject has been discussed ad nauseum here on cc, and this thread might be the least “even”, or pro AA I’ve seen. If you want a better version, check out the race FAQ thread.(where race threads go to die)</p>
I’ll get you guys some</p>