Question about race and admissions

Newjack88
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:10:25 +0000

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.

this doesn’t have anything to do with what i said. there is no such thing as an “applicant that is too black/hispanic/white.” however, there definitely is a stereotypical Asian applicant.



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

the study you keep referencing relies on the assumption that SAT scores would become more important in a system in which race, legacy status, etc. were no longer considered. in such a system, schools would probably limit their Asian population by “discriminating” against certain ECs like Math Club.



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.

using your logic, wouldn’t race be relevant if the school had a <insert ethnicity=“”> club or a multicultitural club?</insert>



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.

you do not understand what the concept of “tyranny of the majority.” the majority can terrorize the minority in any form of government; it’s just more difficult to do so in a republic.



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

you keep on referencing Justice Powell like his is some great role model. the guys homophobic and i wouldn’t be surprised if were prejudiced against minorities too.



I remind you that the Supreme Court also ruled, in Parents Involved, that racial balancing is not a compelling state interest.

we’re not talking about racial balancing. also, we are not talking about high schools; we are talking about colleges.



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.

i will be more specific. under a socioeconomic AA policy, Asians would more than likely see their representation reduced at a majority of colleges in the United States. whites, however, would see their representation increase significantly.



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 think that both system benefit whites.



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.”

lol, Justice Powell again…

anyways, you are sadly mistaken. there are many cases where equal protection means treating different people differently; for example, statutory rape laws treat men and women differently because of obvious anatomical differences, it’s considered cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally disturbed or ■■■■■■■■ individual, etc.