Question about race and admissions

Newjack88
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:08:52 +0000

There’s no such thing as “too black” or “too Hispanic.”

you’re wrong. you were saying that being “too Asian” meant conforming to Asian stereotypes. using your logic, why wouldn’t being “too black” or “too Hispanic” mean conforming to African American and Hispanic stereotypes, respectively?

i hope you don’t think that Asians are the only group in this country that have to face stereotypes…



I don’t quite understand your question, “how can you dispute the fact that the ‘50pt deduction’ significantly impacts colleges’ admissions decision?” I don’t dispute it. As Espenshade et al. wrote, “Nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students would be filled by Asians.”

my bad. i meant to say, “how can you make the assertion that the “50pt deduction” significantly impacts colleges’ admissions decision? the only way to make that argument is to assume that SAT score is the most important component of an application, which just is not true.”



What is my argument for not considering race? Race is a factor that is irrelevant to participation in university life. My being Asian doesn’t mean I have any fewer or any more rights than my non-Asian peers.

this is irrelevant to this discussion. Affirmative Action has nothing to do with certain races having more rights than others; it’s about legitimizing the goal of creating racial diversity.

anyways, using your logic, race-blind admissions is synonymous with “highest stats only.” how are ECs, essays, etc. any more relevant to “participation in university life,” whatever that means, than race is?



A handful of states have restricted their use via initiatives, yes, but overall, the standard practice today is preferential treatment.

is this right, though? can you say tyranny of the majority?



There is no reason why race-blind admissions does not allow for the consideration of inequity at various levels. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “the purpose of helping certain groups…perceived as victims of “societal discrimination” does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent…”

the circumstances are TOTALLY different. the medical school had created an entirely separate admissions track for minorities. unless you are saying that schools still do this today, the Bakke case is irrelevant in our discussion.



Thus, historic discrimination is not an appropriate rationale for racial preferences. As somedumbnoob correctly observed, socioeconomic affirmative action can address inequity without considering race.

the purpose of Affirmative Action is not necessarily to address inequality. it’s more about allowing schools to legally consider race so that they may create a racially diverse student body. whether or not you think this is a legitimate goal is an entirely different discussion. (i would like to point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is.)

also, colleges look at the background of the applicant’s high school which is probably more useful in determing how many opportunities were available to the applicant than how much money his family made.

lastly, i would like to point out that Asians would be severely hurt by socioeconomic AA due to the fact that they are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country. in addition, numerically, there are not very many poor/working class/lower middle class Asians. however, the opposite is true for Caucasians. under socioeconomic AA, Caucasians would benefit the most since, numerically, they make up most of the country’s poor/working class/lower middle class people. if you can’t already tell, a socioeconomic AA policy would not help colleges achieve their goal of creating a racially diverse student.



As research by Espenshade et al. has shown, that’s not true. The elimination of racial preferences barely affects whites.

Affirmative Action does not affect Whites, so what is your point? this actually reaffirms IsleBoy’s argument. socioeconomic AA, race-based AA, race-blind, etc. admissions policies will remain neutral to Whites because they are the ethnic group with the power right now.



In many UC campuses, white enrollment as a percentage of the total student body declined after 1996.

that’s because Caucasians always leave when minorities come along. it’s called white flight. haven’t you heard about how more and more suburban White parents are sending their children to private high schools instead of their local highly ranked public high school so that their kids don’t have to go to school with Asians?



I do, however, believe that every person is equal under the law.

what does this have to do with AA and how colleges use it today?

anyways, this doesn’t have much to do with AA, but i’d like to point out that sometimes equal protection under the law means treating different individuals differently.