<p>I’m not quite sure what to think of it. We know so little about our family history it could be very enlightening. I just can’t quite imagine basing our ethincity on a college application from it, though.</p>
<p>That’s sad and hugely amusing at the same time, Strick. Sad because the original, legitimate reasons for “affirmative action,” as defined by JFK–a means to frontally address the legacy of slavery in this country–was turned into a multi-headed “group grievance” industry. Amusing, because the worshippers at the multi-culti altar may now reap what they’ve sown all these years–at least until everyone finally realizes how ridiculous it is. “‘Naturally when you’re applying to college you’re looking at how your genetic status might help you,’ said Mr. Moldawer.”</p>
<p>I think what says it all is the fact that a white guy thought that getting a genetic history test on his adopted kids actually made any sense. He must have been listening to too many flippant white people making smug comments using terms like “group-grievance industry” and thought they actually represented something in the real world…</p>
Kluge, I love ya. You always catch the salient point, but miss the conclusion. Mr. Moldawer appears to have caught on to the game. That is sad for the descendants of American slaves, who have historically deserved some kind of special help based on their unique status here–some kind of “adjustment”–, but just deserts for those who have benefited from or made careers pandering to the group grievance industry and turned affirmative action into farcical “gimme” game. The problem is that the claim for special treatment has diminished with each generation, and the group grievance gamers (by which I mean people not descended from African-American slaves-- haved hogged more than their share, and helped to sour the public at large on the concept of AA.</p>
<p>It is kind of weird. I wouldn’t object to a black kid with white adoptive parents getting the same admissions preference as a black family kid. But I don’t understand financial aid. It’s based on family need isn’t it? What difference does the kids’ race make in the calculation of family need?</p>
<p>I love it when your veins are bulging out, Kluge, but just think on it a little longer, and then come up with a real reply. I’d like to know what, exactly, is wrong with his concept of finding out whether or not his kids are eligible for special group grievance benefits…as prescribed by law or other policy.</p>
<p>I did read the article. I didn’t see any reference to anyone actually getting anything based on a claim of minority (or other) ancestry due to genetic testing. (I seriously doubt that the 98% white girl actually was admitted to college because she claimed to be “Asian” instead of white.) Do you think that flashing a genetics test that says you have 9% Native American ancestry is going to get you a share of your local tribe casino’s profits? Think again. Certainly a specific claim to be descended from an individual could conceivably have some actual significance, but they do not cite a single instance where it actually has. (And that isn’t part of your “group grievance industry” theme anyway.) </p>
<p>The rest is horsepuckey - particularly the idea that Mr. Moldawer’s sons would somehow be able to “hog” some of those “group grievance gamers benefits” because they tested out as having 11% “North African” ancestry". I don’t doubt that some clueless fools think it would actually work - apparently you do - but that’s a talk radio/blog-universe fantasy.</p>
<p>Kluge, I had never heard of this genetic test concept before seeing on CC–the same universe that you inhabit so often. Clueless fool? Moron? Flippant? Smug? Those are your words, in just this page. I do love it when your eyes bug out while you’re posting, but please don’t ever accuse me again of being one of those nasty name-callers from the talk radio/blog-universe fantasy. I just clean up after you, and it just gets easier all the time. Get a grip.</p>
<p>I know identical twins who applied to my alma mater. One of them realized that, since his father was Moroccan, he was “African-American.” So he checked the box. His twin, being roughly the colour of the Easter lillies on my dining room table, checked “Caucasian.” Very similar grades, test scores, ECs, obviously the same school - and the university took the twin who checked AA.</p>
<p>Maybe - ultimatley - this points to the fact that “checkboxes” should go by the wayside. If a university doesn’t use them for anything, people will speculate otherwise anyway. If they are used for something, the potential for abuse is huge. If the boxes are used for admissions status, you get problems like giving advantages to blacks of West Indies background who are immigrants instead of the descendants of slaves who were born into inner-city poverty. </p>
<p>It’s an over-inclusive and under-inclusive method of determining who fought an uphill battle to get where he is and who had it all handed to him. Perhaps a more holistic approach would be better. </p>
<p>Regardless of whether you agree that Mr. Moldawer was correct in doing what he did, or whether you think he could get anywhere, the fact that people will live, think, and act like that shows that there is a system in need of reform.</p>
<p>Ariesathena, amen. I know many people who were never Native American until they began the application process. Then because an ancestor was on the Dawes Rolls, they are suddenly Native American and want to be on equal footing with students who grew up on reservations, attended tribal schools and spent their lives immersed in the culture and their spare time trying to better the lives of fellow Native Americans. Yes, indeed a holistic approach is warranted and the system needs reform.</p>