<p>I think Fabrizio can see the argument better if the example is not race or URM but rather a real physical handicap. Imagine a blind or deaf student applicant who excels academically. This applicant should and would hop over many others who may have similar or better academic credentials. </p>
<p>The problem is not whether race or ethnicity should be used as a factor but whether an applicant, especially an Asain American, is victimized by the stereotype view of his/her race.</p>
<p>I may add that unless you have been at the receiving end of racial stereotype, you would probably not understand why asian americans such as Fabrizio or I are resentful of it.</p>
<p>Personally, I have encountered so many instances in which people talking to me would slow down their speech or point to words in a document that I now lose my patience and tell them that if they are unconfortable with English, we could always converse in Italian or French.</p>
<p>“I may add that unless you have been at the receiving end of racial stereotype, you would probably not understand why asian americans such as Fabrizio or I are resentful of it.”</p>
<p>I may add that unless you know a very wide variety of educated, cultured, informed, & aware people who are <em>not</em> Asian American, who can understand & know people who are “resentful” of stereotypes & racial assumptions, then you would probably not understand how non-Asian Americans, including those in Admissions Offices, are not stupid, inexperienced, naive, or unaware of varieties of racial misunderstandings. </p>
<p>It’s not my problem that fabrizio cannot see that race can be a handicap, but can see physical disabilities as a handicap. And it’s certainly not the problem of admissions committees that he can’t see it, or that anyone else can’t see it. It just shows that his fuller experience outside of his own high school (where there appear to be more racial tensions than racial harmony, as he describes it) is limited.</p>
<p>The issue for race with <em>admissions</em> is not equivalent to merely race and societal misunderstandings, prejudices. The issue with regard to admissions is that I can promise you that the typical East Asian family does not have vaguely the same assumptions & expectations when it comes to education from cradle to grave that an African-<em>American</em> family does (as opposed to being recently from, and educated in, the African continent). Certainly the typical <em>urban</em> black student (as opposed to middle class suburban black student or black immigrant) is absolutely not raised with the kind of educational expectations & overwhelming community support that an East Asian student enjoys, even an Asian student from relative poverty. There are black American families that do expect that, & thankfully there are more of them now. (Which is why they form & support charter site schools which stress high expectations.) But it is still not the widespread, common, normative experience. </p>
<p>The issue is not just general prejudice & racism. The issue is, “How is that linked to education”? I’m sorry that people shout at you & point to words. A very educated, sensitive, traveled, & cultured person would generally not do that, particularly if they have lived, do live, in diverse cities themselves. I have lived in Asia for 2 years, so I would hardly be one of those.</p>
<p>And I’ll add that no, admissions is not perfect – not only because so often there are “toss-ups” where one student could easily be admitted over another – 2 students of the very <em>same</em> background, who look roughly equivalent, but also because several posters, including fabrizio, have noted that black immigrants & black American middle-class students are more likely to get admitted as URM’s than an urban African-American is, & their percentage representation at Elites is small. But that doesn’t negate the dynamic of race as a factor regardless. I think it was the poster Bay who pointed that out – so that even when a black is raised in an educationally supportive middle class environment, there are obstacles to him that exceed those of other minorities in our society.</p>
<p>padad,</p>
<p>You’re right. It would be foolish of me (not to mention pretentious) to believe that I can change the opinions of redemptive liberal and grievance elitist parents. They were raised in an era where Whites had to prove a negative - that they are not racist - in order to be viewed even neutrally. I am glad that this era has ended.</p>
<p>Our nation has followed the policy suggestions of these people for too long. It’s good that they are retiring soon. If we continue to cave in to their demands, this country will resegregate itself.</p>
<p>I can only hope that my generation will undo the damage that the previous generation did in the name of “social justice.”</p>
<p>I never thought that a simple question would be so difficult to answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m against the use of race as a factor, but I’m not against compromise. If it can be shown, and I mean really shown, that students aren’t negatively affected by the use of race as a factor (i.e. are not victimized by a stereotyped view), then I’ll be happy.</p>
<p>I don’t get why comments like that are accepted by redemptive liberals but comments like “my football team isn’t as good because we have fewer Black athletes” are instantly met with criticism from the same group.</p>
<p>One parent here has truly brought smiles to my face. He made a thread questioning whether racism played a role in the tenure decision of Dr. James Sherley. A Black academic doesn’t get his way, and boom - this parent responds with a rallying cry of “racism.” When I told him an anecdote involving a police officer, an Asian, and four Blacks, he needed to see the smoking gun, ballistics, and DNA before he could be convinced that racism was involved. He went so far as to say that the police officer was justified for being rude to my friend and ignoring four Blacks in a speeding vehicle. Talk about a double standard!</p>
<p>The redemptive liberals who won’t criticize Blacks are similar to the conservatives who don’t dare to speak against Israel. They have the same reason - fear. Redemptive liberals fear being called racists. Blindly pro-Israel conservatives fear being called anti-Semites. I say, drop your fear, then it’ll be easier to answer my question.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>No, you have not answered that question. Not even once. You have, however, given many, many evasive and long paragraphs. Frequently, I have read sentences like “You don’t understand how it works” or “It’s not like that.” You haven’t even tried to answer the question, much less give a direct response. An evasive paragraph about another issue does not constitute an acceptable response. I know you wouldn’t give full points to a student who differentiated ln(x) when the question asked to integrate it. Or would you if that student were “under-represented?” Maybe amid all the downward pressures he just decided to write down (1/x) instead of x*ln(x) - x. The just thing to do would be to take that into account and give him full points. Right?</p>
<p>My lunchroom anecdote is evidence that double standards have arisen as a result of misguided activity following the civil rights movement. Those students used several racial epithets against Whites in the span of a few minutes. Yet, none of my friends dared to respond back with racist rhetoric. They understood that doing so would result in their being branded as racists (even though they were receiving racist remarks) immediately.</p>
<p>I’m going to stop asking you that question because I know you will never answer it. I now know that this is the question that can show just how ridiculous support for racial preferences is. You refuse to acknowledge that granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin is wrong. You claim it doesn’t happen and isn’t affirmative action, but you just won’t be against it. I think the reason is obvious - your conception of affirmative action relies on preferential treatment.</p>
<p>You can say I’ve misstated your opinion all you want, but until you explicitly state that you are against preferential treatment, my statement holds true.</p>
<p>I’ve told you many times that I am against “preferential treatment” (as you define it). The colleges do not practice preferential treatment, as momwaitingfornew has also told you. My paragraphs are not evasive, but explanatory; they provide context for the questions that you ask and the answers that I offer, as I understand admissions policies explained in books & online & by CC admissions officers or adrep posters. I provide fuller explanations out of respect for the sense of debate & further discussion. Obviously it annoys you, so stop asking me already. </p>
<p>You prefer to name-call than to truly debate in an intellectual fashion, I see. And you prefer to change the subject from how admissions <em>does</em> work to how admissions does not, or might, or theoretically could, work - and debate those theoretical points instead.</p>
<p>And do not confuse me with other posters, or attribute to me phrases other posters have initiated, such as “downward pressure.” Do not try to manipulate me by asking me to refute or support statements that others have made. Take responsibility for your own statements, and ask people to take responsibility only for their own views, not the views of others.</p>
<p>Believing that your “statement holds true” does not make it so.</p>
<p>Hmmm, I’m still trying to figure out if I’m a “redemptive liberal” or “grievance elite,” whatever those mean. I’m neither liberal nor elite, so how about this: I’m just one of those “world-view, racial-diversity-loving Americans, who believes the best educations of the 21st century are to be had in environments rich in racial, cultural, and international diversity.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, no. But if we cave into a SAT/GPA meritocracy, America may easily resegregate itself.</p>
<p>What is meant by preferential treatment? And to whom does it apply?
Does it mean sure-fire admission? A hook? A tip?
Who gets to be considered URM? Only some groups? Or does it depend on the particular institution, its location, and its general success in attracting certain demographic groups?
My own opinion is that face diversity is a very blunt instrument with which to seek real diversity. Is there a better way to achieve real diversity–of income, of life experience (both personal and familial)? Could we perhaps shift the discussion to this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Finally! I was wondering whether it would ever come. This is, in fact, the first time you’ve explicitly and clearly stated in one sentence that you are against preferential treatment as the state of California defined it a decade ago. Thank you.</p>
<p>I will stop asking you because I have finally received the answer to my question. We’ve made progress.</p>
<p>For a person who claims that I prefer to name call instead of debate in an “intellectual fashion,” could you please tell me why you frequently choose to ignore my consistent support for an admissions system that includes factors beyond grades and standardized tests (while omitting race)? It’s not very intellectual to repeatedly ignore that, you know. I am a big supporter of standardized tests, that’s true, but I do not feel that they should be the only method of evaluation.</p>
<p>I do take responsibility for my own posts. That’s why I can easily refute some of the claims you’ve made before, as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>“I support a different kind of affirmative action for Asians (i.e. special treatment for Asians).”</li>
</ol>
<p>I’ve never stated anything like that. I’ve asked for race-blind evaluations, not preferential treatment.</p>
<ol>
<li>“I’m against admitting the children of African and Carribean immigrants.”</li>
</ol>
<p>I’ve never stated anything like that. I am against their receiving preferential treatment, however, especially since they are often highly qualified.</p>
<ol>
<li>“I’m for a standardized tests-only type of evaluation.”</li>
</ol>
<p>I’ve never stated anything like that. I highly support them, but I’ve never stated that they should be the only thing considered.</p>
<p>That’s just what I remember.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll clarify.</p>
<p>You’re not textbook redemptive liberal in the sense that you haven’t expressed support for affirmative action as a way to redress historic injustices. You do, however, support racial diversity through preference as a much needed goal. That, along with being White, makes you a redemptive liberal, but not to the same degree as other parents here. I could name a few, but that’d be against TOS.</p>
<p>Grievance elitists are Blacks who are from the upper middle class. They claim that they are victims and require amends via preferential treatment. They’re against race-blind admissions because it makes them obsolete.</p>
<p>Of course, this is just my understanding based on what I read from A Dream Deferred. I do not claim to be the authors of these terms. Dr. Shelby Steele came up with them, and his essays describe some of you to the tooth.</p>
<p>"…I’m just one of those “world-view, racial-diversity-loving Americans, who believes the best educations of the 21st century are to be had in environments rich in racial, cultural, and international diversity.”</p>
<p>Can your racial, cultural, and international diversity be obtained without preferential treatment as the state of California has defined it? If it can, hey - I support you.</p>
<p>I have never made statements #2 and #3 in Post 1010.</p>
<p>“You’re not textbook redemptive liberal in the sense that you haven’t expressed support for affirmative action as a way to redress historic injustices.”</p>
<p>Nor am I, btw. That is not my reason/rationale. Again, stop arguing with absent debaters. He’s not online right now.</p>
<p>As to your “finally” comment about me, I will repeat what I also told you in a PM several weeks ago: I’ve said this often, over & over. You just didn’t see it, or didn’t want to see it. It’s been on other threads. Stop being dramatic.</p>
<p>“My own opinion is that face diversity is a very blunt instrument with which to seek real diversity. Is there a better way to achieve real diversity–of income, of life experience (both personal and familial)? Could we perhaps shift the discussion to this?”
Marite, according to admissions folks, it is definitely not limited to “face” diversity. However, the reason face is included as a separate indicator of diversity can perhaps best be answered in the very long thread discussing this in the Admissions Forum. AdOfficer in particular weighed in on this.</p>
<p>I will repeat, again, for everyone. Because I happen to ALSO support a race-aware admissions policy does not mean that I think it’s the only kind of important diversity, or even the most important kind. It is just one kind. There are other threads on CC, esp. on PF, which address the economics question, & partly that’s because the Elites themselves have put a premium on diversity of economic background.</p>
<p>And I will also repeat that I think consideration of diversity, whether it includes all variants of diversity or just one or two variants, is imperfect. It’s just better, i.m.o., to consider many backgrounds, as we are a country that’s supposed to stand for inclusion as part of our basic principles. </p>
<p>I also think that the whole subject would be much less a factor in the admissions scene were there a much smaller pool of applicants at the Elites. At other private colleges, less wildly popular or having more particular niche attractiveness, the campus is often not very diverse at all. There are campuses that are very very unbalanced toward one race or one class. I know that sounds like a big Duh, but my point is that the Elites do this partly because they are in a position to</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>Yes, you have in fact made both statements two and three. You made the second one only once and the third one too many times to count.</p>
<p>I got lucky. I found your use of statement two after a one-minute search.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3548543[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3548543</a></p>
<p>So, yes, you have in fact made statement two. To clarify once more, I do not object to Black immigrants being accepted. Not at all. I object to their receiving preferential treatment. Quite different.</p>
<p>The finally was necessary, accurate, and not an example of theatrics. You were very, very reluctant to make a clear statement against preferential treatment. Previously, you opted to write long paragraphs that completely sidestepped the question. Like I said, those don’t constitute acceptable responses; they didn’t answer the question. But you have now, finally, so I’ll stop.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Other instances where you have decided to discuss in a decidedly un-intellectual fashion include your frequent claim that I believe “under-represented” minorities are inferior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3546433[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3546433</a></p>
<p>Here’s a difference between us. When you make a false claim, I can easily refute it. I do not believe that “under-represented” minorities are inferior. I have never made any claim like that. I simply believe that they deserve equal treatment and not preferential treatment.</p>
<p>I don’t have to evade your claims when I can answer them head on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No Fab, I support “considering race as a factor in admissions” to achieve the goal of racial diversity.</p>
<p>Regarding California’s parameters, to the extent they are not working to achieve racially diverse college campuses, then no, I do not support them.</p>
<p>Would I support some other process that would ensure racial diversity other than “considering race as a factor?” Absolutely, if there was one!</p>
<p>You are quoting me out of context, fabrizio. The statement of mine, addressed to you, was made in the context of your most definitely objecting to black immigrants being considered in the URM category. (You objected to their “acceptance” as a URM, not acceptance per se.) The statement is meaningless without the context, & I’m not going back there & re-arguing what I & others already argued.</p>
<p>“I do not believe that “under-represented” minorities are inferior. I have never made any claim like that.”</p>
<p>Very, very many of your posts on other threads were based on the assumption that URM’s must be, or probably are, less qualified than non-URM’s. But again, I’m not going back there again & re-arguing this, because the evidence on those threads & on a different forum, is abundant. Your arguments will speak for themselves when others revisit them. Further, a PM of yours to me indicated surprise that URM’s could actually be qualified for an Elite.</p>
<p>"When you make a false claim, I can easily refute it. "</p>
<p>You have not done so yet. But what troubles me more is that your stalking of me on this thread is becoming really unpleasant & destructive, & serves no genuine intellectual purpose & is actually quite immature.</p>
<p>I think this is becoming an obsession on your part – this whole issue, & not, it would seem, for genuine intellectual or societal reasons, at least how you express it. Maybe you believe that you have internal principles that are being clearly expressed to all your listeners, but I don’t see it. It’s one thing to disagree with others; we all do that; that’s what CC & other forums are about. But I think you take this a bit too far. </p>
<p>You seem more than dissatisfied that the college admissions process is something that you cannot completely predict, control, understand, or agree with, but perhaps it would be better if you got used to imperfection. I’ve made my peace with the imperfection of admissions, which has certainly not universally favored posters & people I personally know with outcomes I would have wanted every time. You have very little to fear. You will so outdistance most of your URM rivals within your own State, that your admissions prospects look quite rosy. What more do you want? Guarantees? A rose-strewn path to success? You are probably so far ahead of so many other Georgians applying to Georgia Tech, for example, most especially the lunchroom crowd you encounter at your school.</p>
<p>I think you are personalizing this process way too much. Since you say you are honored to be in the U.S. & don’t seem to wish to trade our system for some other political, economic, or educational system, I suggest you start taking the good with what you perceive as the bad. Because the thinking behind the aspect of diversity is endemic to U.S. beliefs & will not go away because of hotly contested discussions on CC or Ward Connerly or various authors you like to quote.</p>
<p>And for the umpteenth time, there is “bad” along with the good in admissions. Much of it, however, is not related to URM admissions at all, but is in regard to other factors such as people over-using other kinds of advantages. Are there people who exploit the system? Sure. Some of those are URM’s, and plenty are non-URM’s. Just ask AdOfficer about that. There were 2 recent cases he/she mentioned, of having to telephone candidates & rescind offers because of dishonest claims of disadvantage in one case, & I forget what the other case was about.</p>
<p>There were students who came on either this or a thread in Admissions about Am I A Minority? who pointed out that mixed marriages have already complicated the attempt to self-identify racially or ethnically, as predominantly one or the other. And I agree with this. Those mixed marriages are also often benefiting the economic prospects of the children of those marriages. A person with parents from different backgrounds has a joint heritage & is not clearly in one group vs. another group. As this becomes more of a factor in the admissions pool, there will be a lot more overlapping of ethnic categories, which will both make the diversity question more mainstreamed & also make it more complex when it comes to admissions.</p>
<p>But there probably will remain a core group of URM’s whose opportunities are decidedly not those of a mixed-marriage biological issue, & which the colleges will still like to see represented. As an educator I hope that such students naturally are fewer & fewer.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, I do believe strongly in affirmative action. A set quota of places in all universities should be set aside for such use. This is especially important for elit colleges and flagship universities. If that clssifiy me as a redemptive liberal, I am proud to be called as such.</p>
<p>I do, however, oppose setting quotas, explicitly or implicitly, to exlude certain groups, be they blacks, women, Jews or Asian Americans.</p>
<p>And I agree with post 1016, padad. From everything I have read, and from everything admissions reps have posted on CC, I do not see that having happened anytime recently. Given that each pool varies with each cycle (including geographically, which is a major diversity factor these days), I do not see how it would be pragmatically possible to set a quota or ceiling on any particular group. Like you, I would oppose that vigorously, & I also doubt that the U’s would see such exclusionary quotas as in their best interests. They see their best advantage as keeping their options open & competing for the same candidates applying to sister schools.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting, but old (1996) piece on choosing colleges aimed at mainority kids & families. Thomas Sowell wrote it. He talks about mismatches created by affirmative action policies. For example, on average, MIT blacks have SATs that place them in the top 10% of the nation, but in the lowest 10% of the MIT class. Half of MIT’s blacks don’t graduate. Again, this is ten years old, so I don’t know if that still holds true. <a href=“http://www.leaderu.com/alumni/sowell-choosing/chpter07.html[/url]”>http://www.leaderu.com/alumni/sowell-choosing/chpter07.html</a></p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I object to their receiving preferential treatment. That is all. I’m personally against the use of the phrase under-represented in general, which is why I often place quotation marks around it.</p>
<p>“Further, a PM of yours to me indicated surprise that URM’s could actually be qualified for an Elite.”</p>
<p>Please show me this private message again. I’m very interested to see what I wrote and how it could possibly be construed that way. In other words, I’m taking responsibility for my posts. So, please show it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent question. I absolutely don’t want some “guarantee of success.” Success is earned; it is not bought. Now, to answer your question directly, I want equal treatment for all and preferential treatment for none. Is it that much to ask? It’s not like I’m asking for world peace or a cure for the common cold.</p>
<p>“Because the thinking behind the aspect of diversity is endemic to U.S. beliefs & will not go away because of hotly contested discussions on CC or Ward Connerly or various authors you like to quote.”</p>
<p>It’s become a part of the academic establishment following the 1960s. It is a very young belief. Its grace period of gospel without challenge has ended long ago. Sooner or later, the belief that we need to judge based on color instead of character will die.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>padad,</p>
<p>I can only speak for myself, but I do believe that most people who are against affirmative action are willing to compromise.</p>
<p>If it can be shown that there are no implicit quotas as a result of “diversity goals” and that these implicit quotas do not exclude certain groups, then I’ll be happy.</p>
<p>We all know that explicit quotas are a thing of the past. But, if implicit quotas still exist, then that is a problem.</p>