Question about race and admissions

Newjack88
Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:47:51 +0000

Also, remember that racial balancing is not a compelling state interest and is in fact patently un-Constitutional.

I meant to say, “Anyways, I will take your tendencies to argue over irrelevant points while completely ignoring the relevant ones as you not having any good reason to being so opposed to having racially diverse and gender balanced student bodies.”



Please keep in mind that I have answered your question, “what is your argument for not considering race?” by noting that race is a factor irrelevant to participation in university life.

That has nothing to do with whether or not seeking diversity should be considered a social good, which is essentially my argument. I believe that you have yet to contend, or at least acknowledge, this argument. You also have not addressed the fact that considering race and gender is the only practical way for colleges to create racially diverse and gender balanced student bodies.



When you weren’t convinced and asked me how extracurriculars and essays are more relevant than race, I gave you examples and reasons why both are far more relevant to participation in university life than race is in post #71.

This proves what I was saying above. I think you may have gotten lost some where in the exchange. My argument about the ECs, essays, etc. being irrelevant was against someone else’s, or maybe your, assertion that race is the only irrelevant factor that colleges currently consider.



When you still weren’t convinced and asked me, “wouldn’t race be relevant if the school had a <insert ethnicity=”“> club or a multicultitural club?” I said no and pointed out in post #74 that your question rests on the assumption that being part of an ethnicity means being intimately familiar with that ethnicity. I gave you an example based on my experience with American Chinese, many of whom do not speak Chinese and are not familiar with Chinese history, customs, and culture.

Pointless. You have been arguing merely using anecdotal evidence to support your claims. My experiences have been very different from yours. All of the Asians I have met know a considerable amount more about being Asian than I do. It’s really not surprising, though, since they are Asian and I am not. Also, your are kind of suggesting that you do not consider a Chinese American Chinese simply because he or she may not be familiar with Chinese history, customs, etc. Is an African American not African American because he or she doesn’t know all the words to a particular rap song?</insert>



I’m not sure if you’ve applied to any colleges yet, but when I applied last year, none of the four on my list required that I list previous last names. To see if anything had changed, I downloaded this year’s application for admission at my current university and found no “previous names” box. The Ivy Leagues used to ask this question decades ago to discriminate against Jews. That you have not unequivocally denounced this seem to be OK with its being a required question surprises me.

Look at the Common App big guy.



You say that Grutter had nothing to do with the way in which Parents Involved was decided. Then, why was it referenced so many times by the Justices? If case X is frequently referred to in an opinion, then case X must have had something to do with the way in which case Y was decided. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been cited.

Or perhaps to emphasize that it had nothing to do with the case. Dude, you are wrong here. The records say that Grutter did not “govern” the Parents Involved case.



Following the removal of racial preferences in the UC system, the percentage of Asians increased. As far as I know, the other parts of the application stayed the same (i.e. holding all else constant.)

Is there a causal relationship? Can’t say for certain. Is there a relationship? Yes.

A lot of it has to do with fewer Whites applying too.