<p>Oh well I didn’t get that part. I thought you were referring to parents of that race in general. I retract that.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is switching subjects. You were talking about immigrants. You then switched to slaves. Not “totally relevant.” In fact, mostly irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was actually thinking about the relationship between the Han and the Manchus in Qing China, Indians and the British in the British Raj, and Algerians and the French in French Algeria. In Qing China, Han were not allowed to visit Manchuria. In the British Raj, Indians did not have the same rights as the British did. Ditto for the native Algerians.</p>
<p>My claim isn’t baseless. You just don’t know much world history.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I should address your earlier statement, as follows: “Why would you even bring up the strict scrutiny test? Considering race passes the strict scrutiny test because pursuing diversity is seen as a societal good and thus a compelling government interest.”</p>
<p>Your statement is misleading. You say “…race passes the strict scrutiny test…” Is this always true? Clearly not. The Supreme Court struck down Michigan’s undergraduate admissions system in Gratz. The Supreme Court struck down a Seattle school district’s racial balancing plan in Parents Involved. Race can pass the strict scrutiny test, but it certainly doesn’t pass it all the time. Race will forever be a suspect class because of its history in our country.</p>
<p>Second, strict scrutiny answers your question, whether you like it or not. Socioeconomics is a perfectly valid and legal consideration. It’s not necessarily a suspect class whereas race always is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No problems. It’s possible that I hadn’t emphasized the location.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fail. Please, read the posts before responding.</p>
<p>I was actually comparing the success of minorities who immigrated prior to the civil rights movement the the success of those who immigrated after it.
Obviously, it seems as though the effects of slavery have proven harder to correct than the effects of colonialism–you might not see it that way if you don’t think critically about it though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true but only if you believe that all second-class citizens are equal. Some are more subjugated than others. </p>
<p>When I think second-class citizen, I think African Americans in the early 20th century–prior to that they weren’t even citizens. Compare that to the treatment of most West Africans, Indians, etc. and it seems as though “second-class citizen” means two completely different things in each case. The level of subjugation and the uniformity of it is much worse than what was seen in most colonies–depending on the time period. That is not to say one is worse or more acceptable than the other though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I posted this before, from the MIT website. I believe it was overlooked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you not consider race a factor that “shaped the student’s experience” as much as any other context mentioned above?</p>
<p>I don’t understand why that’s so hard to process.</p>
<p>Fabrizio. You seem to believe that simply being black gives you an advantage not held by others. I have never supported that. As I’ve said countless times, race must be viewed along with other subjective factors, but only within a certain context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How it is being used at elite/Ivy League institutions–which is what most people have been talking about in this thread–passes the scrutiny test and is lauded as the most ideal implementation of affirmative action in regard to college admisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure if that is true. In this case, you would be assuming that because a person belongs to a specific socioeconomic class that he or she had limited access to certain opportunities and resources which is not always the case. It makes more sense to just look at the applicant’s school and such than their class–but for some reason many people do not consider this socioeconomic affirmative action.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How am I supposed to know that? Did you write that earlier? No, you did not. You wrote, “The advantage is that these immigrants do not/did not know they were considered to be inferior to whites…” I don’t see any reference to the Civil Rights Movement, but I was somehow supposed to know that you were referring to it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for admitting that my claim is not baseless. I disagree that my statement is conditionally true. I think it’s unconditionally true. Whether or not all second-class citizens are equal is not relevant. What is relevant is that “in any colony, the natives are at best second-class citizens.”</p>
<p>Agent of Sense,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re going to define it this way, then race does shape the student’s experience in a way that similar to the other contexts. However, defining it this way ignores the unique history of race in our nation as a factor. History is part of the reason why race is a suspect class, subject to strict scrutiny, whereas “educational context” is not.</p>
<p>Bourne,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not how I read that sentence at all. For convenience, I will repost the sentence as follows:</p>
<p>* A large body of research has shown that students of color are more likely to be excluded from classes for those deemed “gifted” in primary school, and from honors and advanced placement courses in high school.*</p>
<p>The authors said “more likely.” That is not causative language. It’s correlative language. “More likely” doesn’t connote cause.</p>
<p>You’re arguing semantics. The point is – from that sentence we can conclude that students that were capable minorities are being excluded from such and such classes – somewhere down the line.</p>
<p>And I ask why?</p>
<p>Bourne,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering that Espenshade and Chung found that being black is worth the equivalent of 240 extra SAT points, yes, I’m inclined to believe that “simply being black gives you an advantage not held by others.”</p>
<p>You have said that “race must be viewed along with other subjective factors, but only within a certain context.” However, prior to that, you said “You can’t take into account different factors for one applicant – and refuse to do the same for another.” Well, if you only view race “within a certain context,” doesn’t that mean you’re taking into account different factors for one applicant and refusing to do the same for another?</p>
<p>Bourne,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not semantics. Concepts. There’s a difference. You don’t use the word “effects” when you’re actually talking about correlation. It’s inappropriate and confusing, for correlation makes no conclusion about either cause or effect.</p>
<p>Causative language is very strong. For example, A causes B. That means we can definitely say that A is the reason why B happens.</p>
<p>By contrast, correlative language is nowhere near as strong. If A and B are correlated, then the best you can say is A and B happen together.</p>
<p>The authors didn’t use any causative language. That sentence I quoted implied that there is correlation, not causation.</p>
<p>You’ve mixed up correlation and causation so frequently that I don’t even remember what type of research you first talked about. If you were talking about correlation research, then this is appropriate, and I thank you. But, if you were talking about causation research, then this doesn’t fit the bill.</p>
<p>Regarding your “why” question, I don’t know. There could be many reasons.</p>
<p>Ok. Because I’m pointing out simple concepts that you can’t comprehend you begin to talk about language? Let’s not forget your Harvard/Local U analogy. I don’t think I’m very confused here.</p>
<p>You refuse to acknowledge that race could possibly play a part in one’s development – academically. This occurs along with a myriad of other factors. I just don’t understand how that isn’t obvious. I don’t understand how you wouldn’t either admit you could care less about racial and class differences, or understand that allowances can morally be made. I think I’m done. Good argument though.</p>
<p>Bourne,</p>
<p>As I said, it’s not a matter of semantics. It’s a matter of concepts, and the “simple” concepts you’re pointing out are wrong, to put it bluntly. “More likely” indicates correlation, not causation. I’ll listen to your opinions, but why should I listen to your factually incorrect statements? Talk about hubris. You make the mistake, and then you blame me for not indulging your mistake!</p>
<p>Apparently, I made an error by comparing Harvard to a local university that you’ve never heard of. So, to placate you, I gave Cornell as another example of a school that has a higher acceptance rate than Harvard (i.e. is “easier” to get into) but has a lower four and six-year graduation rate (i.e. is “harder” to get out of.) I guess that example was also not good enough for you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering that I don’t believe race exists biologically, I don’t think it’s surprising that I refuse to acknowledge that race plays a part in academic development. On the other hand, I think racism could very well play a part.</p>
<p>This is why I prefer discussing affirmative action and its synonym “diversity” in a legal context as opposed to a moral one. My morality differs from yours in one key aspect: I don’t think it’s ever right to discriminate based on race. That the discrimination could be benign does not matter to me. Whether you do it out of kindness or malice, it’s wrong. Of course, you disagree. You think it’s OK if you do it out of kindness.</p>
<p>The law is more concrete than our differing morals. That’s why I base most of my arguments from a legal framework.</p>
<p>I also enjoyed this discussion. Thanks for making me defend my points, positions, and examples and giving me opportunities to criticize your points, positions, and examples.</p>
<p>Haha. You’re rhetorically sound if nothing else. Good use of pathos. Take care. GL at Gtech.</p>
<p>Thanks, best of luck at Stanford.</p>
<p>damn I honestly wish someone asked me that cause then i’d really let them have it</p>
<p>Well, there certainly has been a lot of debating on this issue, parts of which I just glanced over quickly.</p>
<p>If you want to see a change in quality of the applications of many black and other URMs, changes have to be made before these applicants are even born. Parents need to choose more nutritious food, no drugs, etc. Once born, the applicants need a seriously stimulating environment. When reaching age of 3 or 4, they need to LEARN TO READ, and then do lots of reading at home. Limit the amount of tv being watched–it is ridiculous that the average kid watches 5 hrs of tv a day–which means that some kids watch tv non-stop when not in school. What benefit can come from this practice except keeping the kids quiet? It’s certainly destructive enough to their futures. (a big secret is that a better way to keep the kids quiet is to teach them to read early and then constantly replenish their stack of library books. You won’t hear a peep out of them as they ride off on their adventures! I know this from first-hand experience.)</p>
<p>And these improvements can all be done without much change in cost, either, on the part of the adult in that poor family. Sure doesn’t cost anything to borrow library books, or toss around a basketball, etc. White people on a budget know how to maximize their children’s experiences. </p>
<p>All this talk of rectifying the past. Why not just make minorities more competitive as applicants by improving their youths? Toss out rap, which has just enriched certain ‘musicians’ and done zero for the listeners–that stuff has a rhythm but just appeals to the basest instincts. Maybe it accurately describes the black environment, but then I say, rise above that depressing reality. Bring some library books into the home and give those kids something more positive to dream about. </p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>P.s. Just noticed above that Bourne apparently commented on race playing a part in an applicant’s academic development. Of course it does. If your culture doesn’t emphasize academics, and it’s obvious most slum dwellers do not, then an applicant from that environment sure isn’t going to be as competitive for college. So changing the focus in that slum is the better way to improvement these applicants’ chances.<br>
Not easy to do, though.</p>