This has been beaten to death, but at least in terms of test scores, there very much have been, and continue to be, cases where one person with a (sometimes much) lower SAT score is granted admission in lieu of someone else, of a different color, with a higher test score.
Granted, there are other factors in the app process, but the test score department is not without racial discrimination.
Here we go again!
“Some scholars say that it is OK, because it 1) promotes diverse student body 2) addresses past injustices.”
A quick correction: this isn’t just about past injustices. It’s about CURRENT injustices. Racism is not over. Rich black kids don’t have the same experience growing up in America as rich white kids. Affirmative action is one way to try and counterbalance the societal challenges that keep underrepresented groups underrepresented.
That said, this Supreme Court doesn’t recognize either current or past injustice as a justification for affirmative action; campus diversity is UT’s only permissible argument. But the underlying theory is still there even if you can’t rely on it in federal court.
I think those are not under a veil at all. Getting either of those kids is a major coup for a university. It gets their name in the papers, it makes them more desirable because everyone wants to go where powerful people send their kids. That’s not behind a veil, that’s just good business.
Hanna,
<"Some scholars say that it is OK, because it 1) promotes diverse student body 2) addresses past injustices. … A quick correction: this isn’t just about past injustices. It’s about CURRENT injustices.>
Agreed.
However, I still think that consideration of race in admission is a discrimination, based on race. In other words, society is trying to remedy one discrimination (racism) with another discrimination (race-sensitive college admission). Is it fair?
<it gets="" their="" name="" in="" the="" papers,="" it="" makes="" them="" more="" desirable="" because="" everyone="" wants="" to="" go="" where="" powerful="" people="" send="" kids.="" that’s="" not="" behind="" a="" veil,="" just="" good="" business.="">
I’ve heard (please, correct me if I am wrong) that in China all college admission is merit-based, exclusively. Offspring of a powerful person would be treated the same way as any peasant. Yet, the reputation and desirability of their Universities is very high, and continue growing.
Another example: Oxford / Cambridge. Great Universities. Great reputation. Yet they do NOT give preferences to famous, rich, connected, or minorities (at least, officially).
Talking about GWB or Obama’s’ daughters gaining admission, yes, this is discrimination. Just like we discriminate between chocolate and carrots (I pick chocolate) or Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston (I’ll pass), we discriminate all day long. We choose our preferences based on various tastes and preferences. Not illegal. You can boost a celebri-kid over other kids bc the are famous.
You can discriminate based on race too. It’s not illegal…as long as you have a compelling rationale, and that rationale cannot be met in any way that does not involve the discrimination if the discrimination is of a protected class (race, religion, sex, orientation, etc.)
To date, so called reverse discrimination is legal, as it generally stands up under strict scrutiny as a compelling and only way to achieve the racial diversity they desire.
I’m white. I think it is a good thing. I think the only reason you may be seeing URMs having lower scores is bc of the competition for them. There are plenty of black kids with 4,0/2400/36. But not enough to make all 25 top schools diverse! It’s not like these schools are admitting URMs with 1200/2400!! Plus, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is not all about scores. As Cali pointed out, Black kids with higher scores were passed over too.
It’s time to just accept the concept that you have to master the soft skills too. The passion. The charm. The personality that a 2400 can’t show (or hide). People who want “scores only” seem to be begging to belong to club that just doesn’t want them. Bc lets be honest, it’s not like UT is rejecting all the white kids, and Harvard isn’t rejecting all the Asians (20%?)…
Was there some minimum % of whites/Asians that have to mix on the bus before we are happy? Bc trust me, whatever that % is, someone else won’t be happy with it!!
I’m a white woman, as a kid, low SES…I’m not pulling up the ladder just bc I made it. Come on up!!!
HRSMom,
Agreed. However, I would like to highlight your own words:
<to date,="" so="" called="" reverse="" discrimination="" is="" legal.=""> Yes, it is legal. Yes, it is discrimination. Just lets be honest about it. OK?
Fisher was discriminated by UT because of her race. She was evaluated based on the color of her skin and she was rejected. The issue (before Supreme Court) is whether such discrimination is justifiable for the good of the society.
Almost all of the top universities outside the US are solely merit-based. Even though the English would like to see more lower-SES kids at Oxbridge, they find stuff like legacy preferences and even racial preferences in US colleges to be shocking if not corrupt.
Youre an example of why preference should be given to low SES irrespective of race.
Why should a high SES URM being given preference just for being a URM? The benificiaries of racial preference in college admissions are disproportionately the high SES URMs.
The lawyer for UT in Fisher1, explicitly argued that UT needed to reserve the use of racial preference in its holistic admissions round to get high SES URMs so it could have diversity within diversity.
California: bad facts make bad law. That student probably was NOT discriminated against, even if you ONLY look at scores. I’d say she had a 40% shot to begin with. It is sad that a black kid with a 4.0/2400 who did get admitted to Harvard has people look at them as though they were a charity case.
Discrimination:
A) is not always bad (or illegal)
B) is not the reason all URMs get into top 50 schools, and
C) should not be cried by those already well or overly represented, IMO.
Hey, I’ve told myself I was passed over for a man before. But that’s an excuse I won’t use as an adult. Women make up half the workforce. It’s up to me now to make my own way.
FYI
Transcript of SCOTUS oral arguments from Fisher1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Foral_arguments%2Fargument_transcripts%2F11-345.pdf&rct=j&q=transcript%20fisher%20v%20university%20of%20texas&ei=1dWVVarsBYW6uATfn43wDA&usg=AFQjCNF5TSuWu3LWHWlYVA22UHBlWvS84g
Kids who did “all the right things” (student body president, 4.0 average, 3 sports for 4 years), and 2300+ SAT think they are discriminated against because someone else with lower GPA, lower SAT, wasn’t student body president… got accepted and they didn’t. Point is, those colleges would be ridiculously boring places if they only accepted those “strivers” who did all those “right things”. I remember an admissions person saying “we can’t only admit one kind of person; that’s not a good way to build a class.” So I will absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt that admitting kids who came from an different background who showed that they are eager learners regardless of their SES background (and I absolutely believe that they are smart enough to understand that whites can come from impoverished backgrounds as well) is a good thing.
I am no fan of the President but anyone who thinks his daughter should not be admitted to any school she applies does not understand the value her presence in the college brings to that college. I am betting that Stanford President will ensure she lands there as his retirement gift to the school. He will do everything in his power to do so and so should every other president of any well known university.
Again, @californiaaa Stop with the analogies and comparisons. Oxford has been around for more than a millennium. Not to mention the diversity of the UK is nowhere near the racial diversity of the US. Surely they cannot employ the same policies.
What does length of time have to do with anything?
France is almost as diverse as the US and yet doesn’t have ethnic preferences in admissions in higher education.
Didn’t think I’d ever make up my mind on this, but I’m for affirmative action now.
It’s easy to paint everything with one color and say fair is fair. It takes thinking to realize that it is in fact discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad and should be shot down. If race shouldn’t be used as a factor, then also ban public colleges from looking at extra curricular activities, sports, and other things because not all schools have those.
Malia & sasha aren’t going to get preference because they are black, they’re going to get preference because their father is POTUS. That falls under the admissions category of superhook, just like if your mama is the queen of england.
@stugrace
Colleges already assess students on the basis of the opportunities available to them. Adcomms know poor kids wont have access to private tennis coaches.
Racial preference is already banned at public universities in CA & Mich, and that hasn’t stopped colleges from reviewing candidates holistically.
Of course. That is the whole point.