Do you have evidence that this particular aspect of affirmative action is not true? Because it is a VERY conservative interpretation of affirmative action, generally one that even proponents will agree on.</p>
<p>You say that “the few fighters who excel despite poor conditions deserve a helping hand on the way.” I wholeheartedly agree. But how is race the best or fairest way to judge this? Breaking down the class divide along arbitrary racial lines–just because certain races on the whole do worse than others says nothing about individuals–is, to me, worse than no affirmative action at all because it only perpetuates classism. Few of the URMs who get a boost in college admissions are the truly disadvantaged–they are the middle- or upper-class URMs who don’t need any extra help. And this leads to others’ assumptions that a URM, whatever their circumstances or qualifications, only got where they did by “help.” First-generation students receive MUCH less help in admissions than URMs, perhaps because they cost the college more in FA and are lower-profile in the stats game.</p>
<p>I am not against affirmative action on principle–I firmly support socioeconomic affirmative action, in fact–but unlike you, I believe that racial affirmative action does more harm than good.</p>
Not sure where this post poofed to, but it’s a good question so I’ll answer it.</p>
<p>Racial affirmative action does more harm than good because a) it does not help those it is meant to help (the disadvantaged), and b) it perpetuates classism. Regarding the latter point–the rich who can afford full freight will always have a leg up, in admissions and in preparation, while middle-class URMs receive admissions help and are well-prepared also; the poor, of any race but especially URMs because the reason they’re underrepresented is due to the large proportion of them in this last category, remain screwed. First-generation is a slight tip if anything, nowhere close to the race/legacy/athletics. Middle-class non-URMs are well-prepared but observe repeatedly their URM peers having more success in admissions, particularly with top tier schools. This breeds resentment and leads to an unfair valuation of the URMs’ qualifications. All else being equal, someone a school WANTS will always be admitted over someone they’d merely like to have; the issue with our current society is the overemphasis on racial diversity (often to make up for past prejudices, although I have addressed that point previously) for altruistic reasons that are invalid in practical terms.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in my previous post, I also support socioeconomic affirmative action, but I still see a place for ethnic affirmative action (I personally dislike the term “race”). I actually think affirmative action is very fair. The reason we have this “racial society” as someone called it, is because for centuries the majority of educational institutions in this country employed an extreme form of positive discrimination whereby only whites were allowed access to higher education. The class disparities we see today can be traced back to a segregationist society where non-whites were excluded from higher education. I think the least these institutions can do today is to try and make up for the murky practices in their past. </p>
<p>The fact that some middle class URMs benefit unfairly is not reason enough to do away with affirmative action because in order to move more people to equal footing, more URMs need to gain access to top education. While I didn’t attend an Ivy, I think it would be fair to say that the majority of URM students at my alma mater were not from privileged families. These students may or may not have benefited from affirmative action policies, but they clearly deserved to have been given an extra boost in admissions given their backgrounds in very poor areas and dangerous high schools. </p>
<p>I find it really disturbing when privileged groups dismiss affirmative action because it is unfair to them. It is probably one of a handful of institutional practices in this country that doesn’t benefit the elite and still members of privileged groups whine about how it puts them at a disadvantage, which is just outrageous. Imagine a world where almost every institutional practice put you at a disadvantage, which is the case with the poor in America (particularly the poor URMs), and you might understand better why students from such backgrounds have to struggle to attain a decent education and might need (because not everyone does) positive discrimination to attend the high caliber colleges where they can get an education they deserve.</p>
<p>I am particularly struck by the anger against affirmative action at private institutions. These institutions should not have to answer for any of its admissions decisions. They are independent and free to allocate their resources as they please. This is not to say that I do not sympathize with students from privileged families who have worked hard their entire lives only to get rejected from the colleges of their dreams. Rejections hurt for everyone, however, these students are guaranteed to be fine regardless of where they attend college. This cannot be said for many URM students who need to get a competitive advantage over white students as they will face much tougher scrutiny by employers post college. Before we can achieve a post-racial society, we must first attain a post-racist society, and today the U.S. is far away from that goal.</p>
This would make sense if not for immigration. The US is not the same country it was half a century ago (considering descendants the “same”). Not even close. How has the Mexican or Peruvian or true African been hurt by -historical- racism? And if you try to separate out the immigrants, you have to define what makes a person American enough, how many generations–it’s an impossible slope. Even disregarding this issue–let’s pretend that the US is entirely made up of oppressed African-Americans and comfortably middle-class whites–is it fair to punish the -new- generation for the -old- generation’s wrongs? No matter how “positive” affirmative action is depicted, by definition it will be “negative” for the flip side of the coin because the number of spots available is finite.</p>
<p>
Then they would have benefited from purely socioeconomic affirmative action. And why are these disadvantaged URMs inherently more worthy of help than a poor white or Asian (e.g. Vietnamese refugee)?</p>
<p>
Again: why -particularly- the poor URMs? On the whole, URMs do make up a large proportion of the poor. Why does this make individual URMs somehow more poor or more disadvantaged than their non-URM counterparts? </p>
<p>
This is a generalization that I will rationally refute using myself as an example. I am Asian, yes; I’m also quite attracted to LACs in the Midwest like Oberlin and Macalester where I -am- an URM. My family is also no longer poor–note the qualifer–and I would not benefit at all from socioeconomic affirmative action. Still, I support such because I agree with you, disadvantaged students deserve some help. But I think ethnic affirmative action is utterly the wrong way to go about it.</p>
<p>
Because affirmative action IS positive racism. And I believe that the method is just as important as the ultimate goal or result. A truly post-racial society can never be attained through racial discrimination, be it positive or negative. It may be diverse on the surface, but you can’t practice racism to create a post-racial society and then expect everyone to suddenly ignore race now that it’s supposedly no longer relevant.</p>
<p>
I agree entirely. Private institutions can do whatever they like, although the public and the government are free to pressure them as well. But public institutions ARE otherwise beholden.</p>
<p>Is it fair to punish the new generation for the old generations wrongs? I don’t think affirmative action punishes anyone. I think it is the best way for colleges and universities to make up for the systematic discrimination of non-whites that they helped perpetuate. It’s their way of paying back. Because non-whites have historically been denied a decent education, it has been hard for them to climb the social ladder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The URM term doesn’t necessarily have to exclude Asians. It varies from institution to institution: at many rural LACs, Asians would be considered URMs. URM students are not more worthy of help than poor whites, they need it more. I believe poor whites are better off than poor African Americans. While both groups are materially poor, the latter group also has to deal with racism, which is still a real problem in this country. I am not only referring to blatant KKK racism, but to the everyday discrimination black people in the U.S. have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, they’re more disadvantaged because of racism. Ever heard of racial profiling? That’s just one example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wish it was that easy. Unfortunately, the president can’t just go on air and say: “Fellow Americans, from this day on you will quit being racist.” The first barrier in overcoming racism is for subjects of racism–non-white Americans–to acquire positions of power in society to counterbalance the traditional white power elite. I think the only way to end racial thinking is to force diversity upon people. Sharing a dorm room with a person from a widely different part of society than yourself will help you understand better their issues and appreciate them not only as a demographic but as real people who have names and faces. I believe college is a great venue for this multicultural education. To address your concern: I don’t believe affirmative action is racist because it doesn’t involve NEGATIVE discrimination of any group based on ethnicity. Look around the campus of any top ranked college and you will see that affirmative action obviously doesn’t mean negative discrimination of whites (and often also Asians) because there are many of them populating the tables in the library and strolling across the quad. In fact, they’re in the majority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We can agree on this. However, let’s not pretend that the affirmative action debate on CC concerns Ohio State. People’s negative comments re affirmative action tend to pertain to the Ivies and other top unis and LACs.</p>
<p>Hi! I’m applying as an Indonesian living in U.S. Should I put my race under the optional section, or should I leave it blank? I’m applying to Princeton, Yale, Williams, and Swarthmore. I’m not sure if these colleges have particular quotas on certain ethnic group, and whether my admission decision is going to be affected. I can’t even say that I’m underrepresented (?) because of the typical Asian stereotypes in admission. What do you guys think I should do?</p>
<p>Are you a United States permanent resident, or do you have some other visa status? If you are not a United States citizen, and not a permanent resident, you are categorized as “international.” </p>
<p>If you are a permanent resident, answering the ethnicity question is OPTIONAL. You don’t have to mark any category. </p>
<p>Here are the most recently reported ethnicity figures (entering class of fall 2007 until a short while from now, when each page will be updated to fall 2008 figures) for each college you mentioned. (Scroll down on each page to see the ethnicity figures.) </p>
<p>On positive/negative discrimination, we will have to agree to disagree. Affirmative action is discrimination, and discimination on the basis of race is racism. I don’t mean to invoke all the negative connotations of “racism,” but that is still fact. Discrimination, by its very nature, will “punish” a group–in this case, a historically privileged group (although that is debatable, as Asians have the education-emphasis privilege but are noticeably absent from positions of power in society). Perhaps you believe that this “punishment” is justified, but it is still, as you said yourself, disadvantaging them. The moral question behind affirmative action concerns this disadvantage, and while I have no problem with disadvantaging the privileged on principle, I believe that race does not–indeed, cannot–fairly encompass the disadvantaged. A poor African-American may be more disadvantaged than a poor white student (compared to a poor Asian student it’s impossible to generalize because the education privilege is not universal by race), but what about the middle-class AA vs. that same poor white student? Or any number of other, less simple comparisons. You can make statistical generalizations on race, but the generalizations fall apart on the individual level. And to offer or deny anything on the basis of such generalizations is, I believe, racism in the perojative sense.</p>
<p>Indeed, URM sometimes includes Asian students, as I said in my anecdote. But at most schools–not only top privates but also top publics like UMich or the UCs before California’s constitutional amendment–they are overrepresented and “needed” even less than white students. Here your social ladder theory falls apart because while Asians on the whole have a family focus on education (not guaranteed, like any such generalization), they have equally failed to climb the social ladder and face the same minority discrimination. “The everyday discrimination black people in the U.S. have to deal with on a day-to-day basis”–trust me, Asians are not exempt, and this particular fact I believe I cannot be more qualified to assert.</p>
<p>With the exception of rural LACs, Asians are not considered URMs and they are generally not treated as such. Yet if elite education aids in climbing the social ladder, shouldn’t more attention be focused on them to learn the qualities of leadership and figure out why (then strive to correct), if Asians are overrepresented at elite schools, they still remain underrepresented among the social elite?</p>
<p>
I am looking at these campuses and manifestly not seeing an Asian majority, except at the UCs where due to this majority Asians are mocked and derided in some of the most blatant racism I’ve encountered among otherwise-civil people. You might argue that white majorities are to be expected because America is majority-white; thus, in in claimed diversity, almost every top-ranked college perpetuates white privilege.</p>
<p>
Perhaps not Ohio State, but the University of Michigan? The University of California at Berkeley? Michigan’s points-based affirmative action system (under which, I remind you, Asian students LOST points) was declared unconstitutional, but their current policy remains the same in principle, albeit with holistic review. Just because you aren’t subtracting or adding quantitatively doesn’t mean you aren’t making the same subjective judgments holistically. </p>
<p>The UCs are an example of what happens when you forcibly remove race from consideration. The rigid academic review process is also part of this, I grant, but the sudden jump in Asian enrollment after racial affirmative action was prohibited cannot be attributed entirely to better academic preparation. It implies that previously, Asian enrollment was capped (consciously or unconsciously) in order to maintain racial balance (e.g. white majority).</p>
<p>In any case, shall we now claim that the education privilege is equal to or greater than the poverty disadvantage? Shall we now claim that since Asians are overrepresented at top schools, they have merged with the white majority and face no disadvantage thereafter in society? That is how affirmative action as it stands affects Asian students. If you don’t consider that racist, in the fully perojative sense, I’m not sure what else I can say. (And yes, I am biased in the matter, but I hope that my previous intelligent discussion will stand surety to the fact that I am not -blindly- claiming racism as does my ethnic peer community.)</p>
<p>Affirmative action is discrimination. It devalues the accomplishments of the people (URM’s) who are chosen because of their social group rather than their qualifications. Now, isn’t America a land of equal opportunity, with “equality” for all? I think that, regardless of racial or social status, we, as citizens of the United States, should all be treated equally. Therefore, affirmative action should not exist. I don’t know about LACs, but when you look at the statistics, why are the majority of the students in Ivy Leagues white? (40% in Princeton, 46% in Yale, 40% Brown, 42% Harvard) Even though the majority of the population in America is white, does that mean it should be the same proportion in universities? No, we all have equal rights, and Asians, as well as other races, should be considered equal to the white race, in college admissions. Yes, I am asian, and I have studied and learned, personally, about the asian cultures. We cannot generalize and say that ALL asians have a family focus on education. I know that the Chinese, the Koreans, and maybe the Japanese all hold great interest in education. The majority of these people value education, as it is a part of their culture (for the Chinese, it is a part of their 5000 year old culture). This is the reason why my parents push me to excel academically, because they believe in the value of education, as handed down from their parents. Now, because of this, should I be limited because of my past culture? Of my roots? I believe that education and academic success is directly correlated with one’s culture and traditions. (which in turn, affects their environment that they grew up in, their views, opinions, etc.) Just because one child did not grow up in a suitable environment, or just because one child is not part of an “educational” tradition, does that mean they should have it easier when applying for colleges? </p>
<p>In my school, every year, the only people who are ever sent to Ivy League schools are URM’s. They only have moderately high GPA’s and grades. Their test scores are mediocre. However, they all come from wealthy parents. As a result, they had more opportunities than others, and went to better colleges. This isn’t fair at all. Everyone should be treated equally, and admissions officers should not discriminate. They should treat everyone the same, objectively, and determine who would have the best chance at succeeding in their university, who would have the most potential and likelihood of benefiting America and the world, and who would most fit in into their university, regardless of race. </p>
<p>A great example of this would be RSI (Research Science Institute), a summer program for students who show promise in math and science research. They do not consider race a factor, nor any other discriminatory factor (gender, economic status). They merely base their choices on passion and interest; the students who show the most passion and interest in research based on their essays, recs, scores, activities, grades, etc. are chosen. Now don’t attack my views, however weak they are (I’m not in speech and debate :P), but I’m just saying, affirmative action is not justified; everyone should be treated equally in terms of college applications, and if they want more URM’s at their colleges, well they are going to have to wait it out a few generations and see what happens. If the URM’s want in, well they should focus less on using affirmative action to get into college, and more on building values of education and academic success in their culture, however hard it may be within the culture of America.</p>
<p>Please answer one question for me. If AA is “necessary” to unwind past discrimation in the US, why are Asians not benefitting from it? Asians were treated just as poorly as other people of color. They were treated like slaves to build the transcontinental railroad. They were targetted for exclusion by federal immigration laws. The list is long. But AA somehow overlooks Asians at most schools. In fact, some research indicates that Asian scores are even devalued somewhat. </p>
<p>The answer is obvious: Asians do very well academically and therefore do not “deserve” to be included in AA. In other words, the only races that should benefit from AA are those who don’t do well academically. Doesn’t that seem absurd? If your race does well academically, then past discrimination is forgotten. But if your race doesn’t do well academically, we as a society will conclude that past discrimination is to blame. That makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>I’ll say it again: This is 2008, not 1958. Anyone can do well if they work hard enough. Discrimination doesn’t stop anyone from achieving academically in today’s world. It’s all a matter of who is willing to work hard and who isn’t. AA no longer has a place in our society.</p>
<p>edit:^^that article up there is from 2002. since then Cornell has been actively recruiting minorities. i’m pretty sure they have more than 4% blacks now.</p>