<p>I would be surprized if the word had its origins traced to the UC system, as it existed long before the debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not propose proportional enrollement, because it would mean that a holistic view of an individual applicant would be less likely to occur. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Strange how you can tie the use of a word with support of a quota, since you use it more often than I do. Again, the words over- and under-represented are sociological terms used to decribe the sub group within a larger population. It’s a descriptive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is true. Asian are under-represented at LACs, especially southern ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As for the term, you’ll have to take that up with dictionary publishers, sociologists, economists, and staticians. Again, it is an inference that you feel is supportive of your stance regarding quotas (which the Supreme Court has ruled on), rather than what it is, a relational. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I brand East Asians as over-represented, and Southeast Asians as under-represented in the UC system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is also true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, a holistic admissions process works best when ethnicity, gender, geographic region, home state, special talent, legacy status, grades, test scores, recs, essays, portfolios, family income, etc…are considered. </p>
<p>The selective private college admissions process and the people involved do make judgement calls. Even if gender, ethnicity, income, etc…were excluded, there would be judgement calls. </p>
<p>The purpose of the college application, recs, essays, additional ifo space, extracurriculars, awards, etc…is so that the applicant can reveal his or herself to the adcoms. What the student choses to reveal is a judgement call. </p>
<p>The adcom does not look at an applicants ethnicity first and make judgements based on that by itself. The adcom considers what the teacher and counselor recommendations say, work history, extracurricular invovement, number in the household, highest degree earned by parents/siblings, immigration status, length of time in the country, etc…to establish whether an applicant has overcome circumstances to excel in high school.</p>
<p>Adcoms cannot predict by looking at ethnicity by itself what the household is like, unless it reads the section that asks about parental information, siblings, education, etc… Just like it cannot tell if an applicants test scores were earned by paying someone else to take the test. The adcoms have to rely on teachers, applicants, GCs, etc…to give them context. That is the nature of selective private college admissions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it’s not a secret.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I did read the article. Here’s the upshot of the WP article I posted:
</p>
<p>And from your reference:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Washington Post, Globe, and Reuters articles (the ones I posted, along with yours) refer to the need for increased funding to ensure that kids (‘average’ and otherwise) know how to plan for college (including taking the tests). It is funding and commitment (in terms of time) that are required to make the programs a success. The articles talk about the inequity present at the secondary school level, as well as how that affects low-income and minority students and their college choices. As scores are a part of the holistic process, I have no problem with looking at them–and at gender, ethnicity, et al.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please point me to where that conclusion was in the articles. I must have missed that, and now I’m curious.</p>
Indeed, a holistic system that fails to account for race is simply not that holistic, since race influences nearly everything. What anti-AA proponents aim to do is treat race as if it’s as insignificant as hair-color. Well, it isn’t. We can ignore hair-color because no one has enslaved anyone on the basis of hair color, no one discriminates or has ever discriminated against anyone because of hair color. No one denies or has ever denied loans, or homes, or the best insurance rates, or jobs, or education, based only upon hair color. But all of these things, and more, happen because of race. They have happened in the past to a pernicious degree, and they still happen today – all because of race, particularly in response to the black race. Because of this, being black is highly significant, regardless of how wealthy a black person is, and regardless of whether he wishes to acknowledge this. The fact is, a black guy, regardless of his socio-economic class, has a built-in downward pressure against him that other races do not have to contend with. Race, unlike hair color, is just that significant. That is why it makes no sense to ignore it in the admission process. If we wish to ignore race and be fair about it, we ought to FIRST make race a non-issue everywhere else. This also applies to gender. Women STILL are discrimminated against, and this has been going on for centuries. We can’t be holistic and yet completely ignore an applicant’s gender because gender is still terribly significant in nearly all our dealings.</p>
Well, even he NBA goes out of its way to hand pick the people it is interested in. And its not like the NBA ever had millions of Chinese who longed to practice basketball but who were, for centuries, denied the chance, by law. That has happened in the case of blacks. Only recently, in the last thirty years, have blacks been free to access education, and now they are in many cases stripped too far by realities left by the past to actually do it. When you have to start from scratch compared to others, you don’t tend to have the same resources as everyone else, either economically or culturally.</p>
<p>But they are not in all cases stripped too far. Some blacks are quantitatively, athletically and socially as good or better than most of the kids at the elite schools, yet the odds are quite against them of ever being selected by those schools. And this means in a process that ignores something as significant as race, few of these schools will ever have anyone around who knows what it is like to be black and who can articulate it.</p>
<p>We may do nothing about the situation and just hope for the best, but I don’t think this is very wise, and neither is it fair. You don’t just let the trembling flame flicker on its own. You don’t treat it the same as you would a forest fire. You feed it, nurse it, give it oxygen. It is wise and good for everyone in the long run for colleges to take everything into account when it judges the chutzpah of its applicants. If despite the past a black guy meets the standard set by everyone else, including personality and whatever other criteria a college uses in its assessment, then it only seems reasonable for that college to take into account the meaning of that guy’s race in America.</p>
<p>A few yes / no questions to make sure that I am not attacking a straw man, as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Does affirmative action as currently practiced in this country extend preference based on race?</p></li>
<li><p>Does affirmative action result in students who attempt to dissociate themselves from their ethnic group or attach themselves to a group that they do not identify with?</p></li>
<li><p>Does affirmative action foster racial tension by creating the thought that “he only got in because of preference”?</p></li>
<li><p>Should every student consider a wide variety of potential-fit colleges?</p></li>
<li><p>Are any racial groups negatively affected by not attending an Ivy League university?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>If the answers are no, then I should stop writing right now.</p>
<p>But, are they, in fact, all no’s?</p>
<p>The first question is the most important one, by the way. If the answer to that one is “no,” then I have nothing to write about.</p>
<p>I simply believe that the personal qualities factor is too subjective. Everyone here knows that Jews were discriminated against in decades past under that category. It was a stronger factor then than it is now, but people are still being typecast. There are preconceived notions, and these notions shouldn’t be in the minds of the readers.</p>
<p>Really, you don’t propose proportional enrollment? Then, why label Asians as over-represented in the UC system?</p>
<p>It’s not so strange at all. When you stated that Asians are over-represented in the UC system, that means you think there are too many. What else does over-represented mean? If I have misunderstood your description of Asians as over-represented, then please correct me. Because when people use the word under-represented, I think they want MORE students from those groups there to a certain point, and when they use the word over-represented, I think they want LESS students from those groups to a certain point.</p>
<p>That conclusion is not found in the articles. However, if you would like a source, on page 35, of “The Changing Shape of the River,” Dr. Nieli writes</p>
<p>If there’s one thing that I get from Drosselmeier’s posts, it’s self-oppression. Blacks and only Blacks have “built-in downward pressures against them”? There’s no way I can believe that. No way.</p>
<p>The thing is, my parents didn’t raise me to believe that I should judge a man by his race. I was never told that it was acceptable to treat someone differently just because he looks different from me. That’s a very bad value, and I certainly won’t teach that to my kids.</p>
<p>Has our nation treated Blacks terribly before? Yes. Were they discriminated against on account of their race before? Yes. Should they be discriminated for on account of their race now? No.</p>
<p>You didn’t like it when your race was treated negatively before, but it’s acceptable for your race to be treated preferentially now?</p>
<p>And, what makes academics just a difficult place to start being race-blind, anyway?</p>
<p>Well, if there is one thing I get out of almost all posts against Affirmative Action, it is a careless treatment and effective ignorance of the events and effects of history on human populations. We, of course, often choose to believe only what we wish to believe, but merely because we choose to believe blacks are “self-oppressed” does not make it so. It is a profoundly simplistic explanation for the situation we have here. It is to say that the reason blacks are at the quantitative bottom in academic performance is because they wish to be, ignoring the intense pressures that have been focused deliberately on this people unlike any other. Even were there no racism at all, the nature of the past pressure was such that it has left blacks with severe problems to overcome today, much of it structural. But the fact there still is literal racism, and lots of it, simply intensifies the problems.</p>
<p>The whole OJ Simpson fracas, for example, should have been a simple matter of a guy who was alleged to have murdered two people. But it wasn’t that at all. The whole issue of race flowed all through that thing. The fact OJ was black, his wife and her friend white, was a significant factor in every single aspect of that case – and we all know it was, regardless of how we ourselves were raised regarding racism. Also, because law enforcement across the country has historically treated blacks unfairly, and because this treatment has taken place since slavery and lasts to this very day (unlike with any other people), blacks have a much higher degree of suspicion than other groups when it comes to law enforcement. It was history that released O.J., history that reaches right back to slavery.</p>
<p>I didn’t like the verdict anymore than whites did, but it is interesting that poll after poll showed an amazingly sharp divide between blacks and whites on this issue. It was something like 90% of blacks for OJ, and 90% of whites against. I sided with the whites here. But the fact is, I know blacks didn’t side with OJ because of any “self-oppression”. They did it because many of them have either been mistreated by cops or have friends and relatives who have been. I also knew they could not hear LAPD detective Mark Furhman calling them racist names on tape and still be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no tampering with evidence, especially when Furhman claimed cops routinely planted evidence on blacks. I am convinced OJ is guilty, but even I have serious doubts about it. I sit here now ready to convict the man, but were I in that court room, hearing the evidence presented there, and feeling history bearing down on me as I listened to it, I could easily have done exactly as the rest of the black jurors did. I struggle to be fair and reasonable, but when I know for a fact how really nasty cops can be toward blacks, it does not take much for me to question whether the same thing happened to OJ. And there is your reasonable doubt, and it is not coming from “self-oppression”. It is an understandable response to pressures around me. I know what it feels like to have cops ragging on you without cause, and I cannot help but have those experiences influence my thinking. History that reaches right back to slavery influenced that verdict. It is influencing everything, how blacks approach work, how they approach academics, how they approach family, citizenship, politics, the SAT – everything.</p>
<p>One of the complex forms of racism takes place in the form of profiling. Let’s really just face the thing straight up – oftentimes, profiling is understandable. I still don’t like it. It is racism, especially when people mistreat me by it just because of my race. But I do understand it. In the same way I have an understandable response against cops, due to the way cops have mistreated me, many people who have been mistreated by blacks are having an understandable reticence to extend themselves toward blacks. Again, I don’t think it is justifiable because it is wrong to mistreat folks like me when I haven’t done anything wrong. But I do understand it. But here is the thing, blacks are profiling too. In the vast majority of cases, the blacks who have done wrong are acting in response to a history that tells them they have no real interest in preserving the social order in this country – that this is really not their home, that America hates them, and that they may as well just do whatever they can get away with because they have no real chance in this place. They are looking at their fellow Americans and determining that they are not one of them. It is highly complex, and history and racism are flowing all through it. We cannot legitimately treat it as if it only existed in the past. It exists right now. Again, even I am being negatively affected by it, and I have never even had a traffic ticket, not even one, have never held a cigarette, let alone smoked one, have never done drugs – not even once. I have only known one woman, my wife. It has easily been twenty to thirty years since I have even said a curse word, and I work very hard to help people in my community.</p>
<p>If I am being negatively affected, then surely many others are too. I am still holding to the law, and still trying to teach hope to my kids because I do not wish them to fall into the defeatist alternative I see around me. I do this because I have just enough hope to wait and see how the chips fall. But, my goodness, it could easily have gone the other way for me– easily. For many blacks, it already has. They just didn’t get the influences, the culture, the perspectives that I received, and now they have very little to live for except “The Now”. It is acceptable to give a leg up to a studious, hardworking black kid coming out of this because history is against him, and has always been against him. It is in fact acceptable to give a leg up to any hardworking black who meets the standard because history has always been such that his entire lineage in this country was held down by law. We need as many blacks living for something as we can get.</p>
<p>Now the reason I am hammering against starting a race-blind society with academics is because academics is one of the two places that is likely to FORCE the cultural change I think blacks need to make to generally sense they have a real stake in American society. It is just nearly impossible for some hardworking black kid to fall into drugs and defeatism if he can keep seeing the path to the American Dream. And it is impossible that that kid is going to grow up and fail to teach his own kids what he has learned by experience. My concern is that we’ll take a kid who is hammering ahead and doing very well in school, despite being called a “House Nig**er” by his own community, despite being called an “Oreo” because he is learning to speak “standard” English, despite all of the racist pressures that that kid is taking on generally in the country, and then have his achievement go unnoticed because the numbers are against him. I want to see him reach as high a place as he can so that he can counteract the cultural pressures that threatened him for so many years. He is unique. If he gets swallowed up by thousands of Asians and Whites, and his work does not gain the attention it deserves, then he may be prone to think the same thing will take place when it comes to graduate school, and when it comes to getting a job, and a home, and everything else. That kid does not need a hand out. He actually meets the standard set by everyone else. He just needs a way not to get lost in the crowd. And he ought not get lost because he is truly unique-- and he is unique because of his race and all that it means in this country.</p>
<p>Now my interests aren’t really personal here. If America deliberately decided to turn against all of us Drosselmeiers, we would still hang in there and fight as hard as we can-- and we’d do it just because of the fun of fighting against the odds. In fact, some of that is going on even now because the odds are quite against us on many fronts, and yet here we are, still standing and even sittin’ priddy. So this ain’ about us. It is about what is decent and good. I would be pulling JUST as hard for whites and Asians were I aware that their circumstances were like those of blacks. But I just cannot see this. Well, of course it just ain’t so – and we all know it ain’t so.</p>
<p>tell me something. what the FUDGE (but i didnt really mean fudge) is wrong with getting high test scores and doing well in school? it isnt because your asian, its because youre motivated. If some minority kid needs parents to force him to study that just shows he’s not what they call ‘intellectually curious’. And whats this nonsense about not having equal opportunities? In pakistan we barely have ten teachers who can speak english much less teach it, SATs are cost about a hundred dollars more than they should, and the average person makes in a year what the average american makes in a month. Does anyone know how many people are admitted to yale every year from pakistan? 6. Do you know how many people apply to yale from the country? its somewhere in the thousands. What happened to taking into account backgrounds and whatever. Its hypocrisy, pure and simple.</p>
<p>I think a studious, hardworking Black can and should be admitted by his merits. To me, his being Black shouldn’t be a factor. His meeting / exceeding the standard, on the other hand, should be a factor.</p>
<p>I think an implicit assumption by many advocates of race-based affirmative action is that Blacks can become successful only by attending a few select universities. The hardworking, determined, motivated Black student you describe can be admitted by his own merits to the hundreds (thousands?) of good colleges in this nation that admit more than they reject, the very colleges that we Asians are advised to consider.</p>
<p>And, if this same student attends a university where he is appropriately matched, he is likely to earn high grades relative to his peers and develop the self-confidence that he can succeed in graduate school. If he has strengthened his work ethic even further, it is likely that he can be admitted to a top graduate school by his merits.</p>
<p>But, I must disagree that this student is unique because he is Black. His being Black does not make him unique. His individuality that he has developed throughout his life makes him unique.</p>
<p>Extending racial preference to Blacks does not correct the historical injustices Blacks have faced. It does not alleviate racist mentalities. It does not create stronger, more motivated students.</p>
<p>All it does is promote inequality and foster racial tension.</p>
<p>Ahhh…so I did read all of the Washington Post article.</p>
<p>As to your source:
</p>
<p>The author makes an assumption, that Black and hispanic students would behave in this way. Where is the proof?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, an inference that stems from the idea that pre-college education is similar (no difference in funding/time involvement by school systems). That ignores the outdated textbooks/facilities/few EC opportunities that some face, yet somehow it is the kids that are not working as hard (as others in the majority who have better facilities, textbooks, teachers, opportunities, etc…) rather than anything lacking on the part of the school system, voters, teachers, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The author had to recognize that there are harmful cultural and psychologcially factors at work brought about by social norms. The performance gap developes because there is a gap at the pre-college educational funding, teaching time, income, etc… Why would he ASSUME that it is due to ethnicity? That is a supposition he makes. </p>
<p>As for cultural and psychological factors within Black and Hispanic communities, they are impacted and influenced by social issues outside their communities as well. The arguement, at least for the author, depends on non-recognition of the larger social, economic, and political power of the majority and how that impacts subgroups (including how they see themselves as individuals). The arguement also deppends on what the definition of cultural means, as he is taking a segment (micro) of the group and defining them. His definition of the black and hispanic norms are used as representative for all others in their respective groups (macro), even as they are in the minority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, still does. Political gerrymandering still takes place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, some blacks are still being dicriminated against in housing, for mortgages, for insurance, for bank loans, in public school systems, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They should not be discriminated against. That would necessitate closing the pre-college gap with respect to funding, teaching time, and opportunities. Last time I checked, the gap has widened (see articles posted above). To eliminate ethnicity (and gender) discrimination, you would need to start pre-college. By ignoring the gap by pretending that it does not affect equality as a whole (and in the college system) increases inequity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you get that idea? As an ethnically East Asian/European American, my race is not generally treated preferencially unless we are speaking of LACs in the South. Since, my identity as an individual is made up of different parts (sometimes in opposition and sometimes not), ethnicity is but one part of it. Do I identify most strongly with my ethnicity? Not really. I identify more with particular beliefs, activities that I participate in, and my peers who share the same interests. My ethnicity is a much smaller part of my identity, because it was never much of an issue.</p>
<p>I also do not think that I’m oppressed by not being able to get accepted by every HYPS or Little Ivy. I much prefer LACs, but one of the Ivies gave me a better package. I doubt that my education would have been lesser at my first choice college. To see East Asians treated preferentially in college admissions would be a disaster for Southeast Asians and all other URM groups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Becuase it generally ignores pre-college inequity that dispropotionately affects low-income applicants, Southeast Asians, recent immigrants, and other URMs. The problem is preperation at the primary and secondary school levels. The problem starts with inequity (i.e. funding/teaching time) in public school systems. If the funding gap was minimal at the pre-college level, that test could not be prepped for, that private college counselors were not used, that public school GC did their jobs better, that kids would not have to worry about poverty or hunger, et al…then I’d agree with you.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the belief that some Blacks and Hispanics should not be given a chance, at the college level, because of systemic problems created by the majority (seperate housing, political gerrymandering, social segregation, low levels of public school funding, etc…) does not sit well with me.</p>
<p>The idea that the inequity can just be erased because the majority suddenly became “enlightened” in some way and will be benevolent to those different than themselves (including Asians) is somewhat odd. Odd because in college admissions, no one would want to give up their place, if accepted to several Ivies. Odd because elderly communities tend to not want to increase funding for public schools. Odd because creaping gentrification displaces low-income families. Odd because status and rank in society is still important to the majority of the population. Odd because several states (CA, TX, MI, etc…) believe that diversity is not necessary to a multicultural society, and that white kids are being punished. Odd because many Americans pu themselves before their community.</p>
<p>The one thing that I learned from my East Asian side of the family is that the community should come before me, as much as is resonable (even those that live in Hawaii–that surprised me as they are in the majority).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was taught not to judge a person. I was taught to look at context to understand the world. That is what I’m passing on to my kids.</p>
<p>Why would you quote someone that believes blacks and hispanics don’t deserve to get into the better selective private colleges based on test scores (which can be affected by pre-college education and individual experiences particular to a candidate), since it is only one part of the holistic admissions process? </p>
<p>By weighing the test scores more heavily (and knowing which groups that will hurt), isn’t that making a judgement as to who is most fit to attend (knowing that it helps East Asians more than any other group)?</p>
<p>Since the courts have said diversity (including gender, scores, ethnicity, income, state, special talent et al.) is a social good that can be used in college admissions, why would you single out one particular characteristic (test scores) as more important? Why discount gender, ethnicity, and low-income issues? Isn’t that a judgement call?</p>
<p>That is a personal inference. A holistic admissions process and AA policies does not only apply to a few selective schools. Diversity is not only a goal of a few schools, but of many. Where is the source of that information?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is true. Just as they can be admitted to other top schools as East Asians are. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just like Asians and non-URMs can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, just like other minority and non-minority groups can. Of course, such a statement assumes (based on his ethnicity) that he is lacking a strong work ethic to begin with–which is faulty. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor does ignoring the social, political, historic, and economic realities that some Blacks face. The racist mentality was here before the move towards AA. It does create opportunities for Blacks (and women) that would not have been available to them before AA. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, AA has succeeded in uncovering the racial tension that already exists in American society. </p>
<p>I do conceed, however, that AA has unfortunately enabled some in the majority (including some East Asians) to play the role of victims, even as they enjoy social, political, and economic power. Those that have it want to retain it (even if it means casting themselves as a marginalized group). Hording power by distorting AA (which prevents gross discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, race, etc…in the workplace and in schools) as unfair is an unsavory, but sometimes effective, debate tactic.</p>
<p>Please, spare the circumlocutions. When you stated that Asians are over-represented in the UC system, did you mean that there should be fewer Asians enrolled there? Is that what you mean by over-represented? Yes or no?</p>
<p>If they are over-represented, at what level would they be “fairly” represented?</p>
<p>If you want proof, read the remainder of Dr. Nieli’s article.</p>
<p>Of course you and I both agree that Blacks should not be discriminated against now. But, that is not what I wrote. I stated that they should not be discriminated for. Do you agree?</p>
<p>Oh, and as far as “debate tactics” go, I’m surprised you didn’t realize that those statements were addressed to Drosselmeier. I’m sure a person of your intelligence would have noticed the context (the statements referred to Blacks, not Asians) if you didn’t notice that I directed the post to him.</p>
<p>And, I have never advocated preferential treatment for East Asians based on their ethnicity, thank you very much (c.f. Drosselmeier, who has consistently and openly stated that he supports preferential treatment for Blacks).</p>
<p>May I kindly ask where I have stated that Blacks and Hispanics should not be given a chance? Define “chance,” anyway, if you please.</p>
<p>I have no comment with respect to your statement that California, Texas, and Michigan do not value diversity. The people in those states voted at the polls, and a majority voted against racial preferences - NOT diversity. The two are quite different. The former states that one person should be treated differently because he is of a certain race. The latter states that each person is by definition unique regardless of his race. See the difference?</p>
<p>Indeed, I value the community over myself. Which is why I would never support a system that treated people differently based on race.</p>
<p>Also, as far as I know, Dr. Nieli does not believe that “Blacks and Hispanics are undeserving of admission to elite colleges because of their test scores.” Based on the paper, he believes that they are very deserving of admission to universities that fit them.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand why Asians are advised to look beyond the Ivy League and consider other good colleges while Blacks are told that it’s “Yale or jail.”</p>
<p>Well, given that you have branded my thought as a personal inference, I don’t believe I need to provide you with any sources.</p>
<p>Since you agree with me that the hardworking, determined, and motivated Black student can be admitted by his own merits to the other top schools that Asians are so fond of, then why give him preference based on his race?</p>
<p>Let’s reconsider the phrase you deem faulty. “If he has strengthened his work ethic even further…”</p>
<p>Strengthened. That’s comparative. Which means that his work ethic was already strong, but he can make it stronger even further. Understand?</p>
<p>Actually, the idea that no one should be negatively judged by his race, creed, color, religion, or background has certainly created opportunities for everyone. Unfortunately, that’s not what affirmative action is now.</p>
<p>Here we go with the debate tactics again! As much as I have to thank you for repeatedly congratulating my use of them, they do still pale in comparison with those classic straw men you conjured up a while back.</p>
<p>The reason I personally wish to see blacks in the elite schools is because it establishes a very high expectation of others in the community. Also, it seems blacks do better at the elite schools than everywhere else.</p>
<p>*“A host of findings proved to be surprising to us,” said Bowen. “Who would have predicted that black graduates would earn professional degrees at a greater rate than white graduates?” </p>
<p>“We were very gratified to discover that black graduates are more active than whites in community service activities,” said Bok. “You heard so much about how blacks who make it turn their backs on their community.” </p>
<p>“We were surprised by the degree of support for diversity in these universities,” said Bowen, who admitted that even he and Bok had been affected by media reports about the supposed separation of races on campuses. </p>
<p>Among the myths demolished by Bowen and Bok is the main argument by critics of affirmative action - the notion that affirmative action hurts black students by pushing them into schools they’re not prepared for. </p>
<p>In fact, said Bok, “the more selective the institution, the better they did.” </p>
<p>This is exactly what needs to take place. As blacks prosper and then return to their communities as this study suggests is happening, they create a pressure against the defeatism created by history. Currently, the number of these blacks is dwarfed by the numbers of defeated blacks. But I think over time this sort of thing, combined with other approaches, can turn the tide.</p>
<p>When you compare the percent of Asian CA residents with the percentage of the UC population, our group is over-represented. Did I mean that fewer Asians should be enrolled there? Nope. I believe in holistic admissions practices, which includes looking at gender, ethnicity, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not for me to decide, but the adcoms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, his assumtions are quite clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, by weighing test scores more heavily, as you have advocated, you are discriminating against them and for Asians. Likewise, according to your reasoning I’m discriminating against Asians for Blacks. Both positions require a judgement call. So, the answer is dependent on the context chosen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the thread is open for comment by anyone. Again, you make an assumtion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do appreaciate sarcasm…but, like I said this is an open forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By advocating for heavier use of stats, you, while not open about it, want preferential treatment for Asians. How are Drosselmeier and you different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You reduce their chances in college admissions by the desire to use test scores more heavily in the process, not recognizing the inequity that they may have faced pre-college, that you exclude ethnicity (and perhaps gender) but include other holistic measures. That is discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The majority voted to retain their power, under the mask of being “fair”. The votes are not a surprise, as every group wants to keep/gain power socially, politically, economically, etc…</p>
<p>Why would those states and their residents be any different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The latter means that those in power (in the majority) retain it through political means–thus they can be individuals no matter the outcome. Diversity, by contrast, enables colleges to look at individual applicants holitically–meaning that ALL factors are considered. Holistic admissions is what recognizes individuality. </p>
<p>Those in the majority (by virtue of their numbers) want to protect their power base, so it is not a surprise that they vote for supposed ethnic-neutrality, when in society as a whole, they define the norms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s great. So how do you propose to close the funding gap between affluent and poor public schools? How would you combate the political gerrymandering that goes on in voting districts? How would you curb the high mortgage, loan, insurance rates of different communities?</p>
<p>By not looking at gender, ethnicity, income, et al. you are treating people differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, just as Asians are deserving. He is making the enthnic distinction in a holistic admissions process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many Blacks (and other minority and non-minority groups) are told to do the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t say I’m surprised.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As not all Black applicants are the same, so to does ethnicity (like gender, test scores, ECs, etc…) some times affect opportunities at the pre-college level. Hence, it is important to a holistic college admissions process. Like Southeast Asians who sometimes get a bump with respect to their ethnicity, a poor, white rural kid sometimes gets a bump in admissions. Kids from the same HS sometimes get compared to one-another, rather than those from different states. Context is important. And, since ethnicity is a factor that contributes to how a person views him or herself, and how society treats him or her, it is not neutral–as the white majorities in CA, TX, FL etc…assume.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Strengthened meas to make stronger. It does not define the starting point. The context of the full quotation does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually AA is still supported by the Federal Courts. The reason society does not approach the ideal is because those in power (i.e. in the majority) fight to keep it. Americans do make judgements based on religion, gender, ethnicity, background, much like pro- and anti-affirmative action supporters make judgements as to how to treat inequity in the workplace and in school.
Being competitive is what creates some of the distinctions as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is interesting that the straw men have been little present here, except when you bring them up. I have not resorted to referencing your straw men tactics (from another thread) here in this discussion, but rather your current arguments. If you would like to resort to he said, he said…well, I can’t help you.</p>
<p>Both sides have a particular way of looking at the issue. That much is true. That is why a holistic approach to college admissions can have a different outcome based on the adcom and what the college deems is important to it. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. Likewise, by sticking to one point-of-view, without recognizing that there is another side, is to be less than diverse.</p>
<p>Since neither of us can be totally objective, it’s good to know that there is a diversity of opinions on CC. Thank goodness.</p>
<p>Your reason supposes that these Black graduates would be viewed as role models as opposed to Uncle Toms, house [protean n-word]s, and Oreos. Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn’t.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, do you think that Black applicants should look at a wide range of colleges that potentially fit them? Do you think they should consider the other fine institutions this nation possesses beyond New England?</p>
<p>Can they “make it” if they graduate from a college where their stats meet or exceed the average stats as opposed to being below?</p>
<p>“Actually, by weighing test scores more heavily, as you have advocated, you are discriminating against them and for Asians.”</p>
<p>This is also my perception. I haven’t answered any of fabrizio’s questions yet, because again I lack the time at the moment, & I’ll dedicate myself to that later. However, I’ve been noticing for awhile now that fabrizio seems to be encouraging a kind of AA for Asians. Special rules for them. Special inclusions for them. Special understanding for their cultural norms (unlike for black cultural norms), a kind of weighting/preference for scores (vs. other elements in an app.) Special consideration of their expectations. Special rewards for their “hard work.” </p>
<p>Thank you for answering one of my questions. </p>
<p>You agree with me that Blacks should not be discriminated against. But, I would still like an answer to the following question: Do you agree with me that Blacks should not be discriminated for? It’s a simple yes or no question, and I have received neither yes nor no as of yet.</p>
<p>The thread is open to comment from anyone, but you took a question out of its context and answered it, even though it was not addressed to you.</p>
<p>I am different from Drosselmeier in the sense that I would never support racial preference for my group or for any group.</p>
<p>It’s discrimination when I exclude ethnicity? WOAH! Wait a minute, wait, please. Let me get this straight. It’s not discrimination when I use ethnicity, but it is when I don’t? Huh, I never thought of it that way. Maybe I should start judging people based on their skin colors instead of their characters. I mean, according to you, when I look at them as individuals as opposed to members of racial groups, I’m discriminating against them. I should correct my poor behavior as soon as possible.</p>
<p>Not.</p>
<p>Close the funding gap? The funding should come from the state and federal levels in addition to the local level. Combating gerrymandering? That’s a tough one, actually. I’d like to think that a federal agency oversees this, but I don’t know. Differences in rates? I don’t know how the banking and investment systems work in this regard. I’d like to think that if a person has good credit history and health background, then he is eligible to take out a loan or purchase a policy at the advertised rates.</p>
<p>And, I do not see how extending preference based on race closes the funding gap. Poverty knows no race; it can affect anyone and everyone.</p>
<p>Of course I’m not objective in this matter. I only see one benefit of affirmative action (ie. a campus that has higher percentages of certain races). You can’t convince me that treating someone differently based on his race is the right thing to do. You can’t convince me that institutionalized racism benefits society. You can’t convince me that the playing field becomes more level when some groups are deemed preferred groups.</p>