Question about race and admissions

fabrizio
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:29:29 +0000

Newjack88,

I wrote Admissions officers fear asking whether an applicant is “too black” or “too Hispanic,” but too many officers have no qualms asking if an applicant is “too Asian.” They know that asking whether someone is “too black” or “too Hispanic” is racist, but for whatever reason, it’s acceptable to wonder if someone is “too Asian.” In actuality, asking whether an applicant is “too Asian” is no different for it is also a racist question.

My answer to your revised question is the same as the one I gave to the original question. See Espenshade et al.

I stand by the statement that race is irrelevant to participation in university life. My sentence about rights was meant to illustrate my point. How are extracurriculars relevant to university life? Well, consider the following: if I were editor of my high school’s student newspaper, the chances of my being selected as staff for the university newspaper could increase because of my experience. If I were an active participant of high school mathematics competitions, I would be more likely to volunteer at my university’s math competition than if I had never participated. As for essays, please keep in mind that writing ability is essential to success in university coursework. It’s far more relevant than race is.

We live in a republic, not a democracy. There is no issue of “tyranny of the majority,” for while the majority rule, they cannot take liberties away from the minority.

The principle behind Justice Powell’s argument is very relevant to this discussion. Historical discrimination is not acceptable as justification for racial preferences.

The Supreme Court did rule, in Grutter, that diversity was a compelling state interest. I remind you that the Supreme Court also ruled, in Parents Involved, that racial balancing is not a compelling state interest. Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion noted that depending on the definition, diversity is very important. It’s unfortunate that he wasn’t more clear as to what definition is acceptable, but I highly doubt that Justice Kennedy would view any form of racial balancing as diversity.

It seems that you used percentages to argue that Asians would be hurt by socioeconomic affirmative action but magnitudes to argue that whites would benefit from the same policy. It may be true that Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country. Does that mean that there are more wealthy Asians than wealthy whites? I don’t think so. Under your logic, whites would be negatively affected because numerically, they make up most of the country’s wealthy people.

What is my point of stating that “the elimination of racial preferences barely affects whites?” IsleBoy claimed that race-blind admissions would benefit whites. I cited Espenshade et al. and UC data to disprove his assertion. Obviously, you weren’t aware of the context of the statement.



…i’d like to point out that sometimes equal protection under the law means treating different individuals differently.



WHAT?

NO. NO. NO.

Please refer to Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke, where he clearly states that “The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.”