<p>Almost all of your examples related to Chicanos. Why, then, did I meet so many Hispanics of Cuban descent from Miami at Georgia Tech? I think I only met one Chicano (through his mother’s ancestry) from Texas. Almost everyone else was a Cuban from Miami, many of whom did not “look Hispanic” in the slightest. (For the record, my alma mater doesn’t practice racial preferences.)</p>
<p>My “complaint” remains. Hunt and Co. are talking about reparations for past sins. Yet, a rather large portion of the beneficiaries have NO connection to slavery or discrimination against Chicanos. In fact, some of the beneficiaries may perversely be the descendants of Africans who enslaved other Africans!</p>
<p>That’s not the admission rate, however … I think what you’re saying is that 17% of Harvard’s student body is Asian and 40% is white, which is entirely different from the admission rate AMONG Asian applicants and AMONG white applicants … which for both has got to be in the sub-10% range given Harvard’s overall admission rate of, what, 7% or so.</p>
<p>Because there were apparently a lot of Hispanics of Cuban descent from Miami who were smart enough to get into Georgia Tech? </p>
<p>If anything, a (relatively) strong presence of Hispanics of Cuban descent at any elite school wouldn’t surprise me – many of them came from families who were affluent and well educated in Cuba before coming here – a far different circumstance from the person escaping the grinding poverty of, say, Mexico City to come here. The Hispanic of Cuban descent that I know at P – his family were doctors and other educated professionals in Cuba.</p>
<p>I didn’t say anything about discrimination. In response to sewhappy’s post that implied her son felt sorry for a perceived disadvantage for Asians in Harvard’s admissions, I was pointing out that if you were born Asian in America, (or Jewish, for that matter), your chances of making it to Harvard are much, much greater than that of everyone else. This was true for Jewish students in the 1930s as well.</p>
<p>That article does not. I cited it to express my skepticism that there’s an additional socioeconomic component for Hispanics. If that were the case, it seems odd that at least in one year at one (top) school, they had the highest average family income among ALL minorities.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: Why do you assume they wouldn’t have been accepted for reasons other than AA?</p>
<p>Georgia Tech is a good school but not impossible to be accepted to. Middle range SAT reading is 590-690, math middle is 650-740. Lots of people can get those scores. With an admission rate of 52%, this is hardly one the universities that is a reach for everyone.</p>
<p>I accept your answer and agree that my question was poorly worded. I rephrase. While I went to a public school that does not practice racial preferences, I don’t believe my experience could not be found at private and elite institutions. That is, I believe they ALSO have a substantial number of Cubans in their Hispanic figures.</p>
<p>Where are the Chicanos, then? Presumably the people in charge of “diversity” initiatives are aware of the history twomules referred to. Presumably, they are also aware of Castro’s disastrous reign of terror in Cuba and the associated exodus of refugees.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You misunderstood because I phrased the question poorly. My apologies.</p>
<p>I do not assume that. If you think I do, that is probably because I worded a post very poorly, which I accept responsibility for.</p>
<p>Please allow me to rephrase. I don’t believe my anecdotal experience only applies to public schools that don’t practice racial preferences, like my alma mater. I believe that private elites have the same pattern with respect to Hispanics (i.e. they are mostly Cubans).</p>
<p>Yet, the people in charge of the “diversity” initiatives there are supposed to be well-read individuals who should know of the history twomules referred to regarding Chicanos. They should know that Cubans in Miami are NOT disadvantaged.</p>
<p>Where, then, are the Chicanos?</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>And I reiterate I brought this up to express my skepticism that there is a socioeconomic component for Hispanics in conjunction with racial preferences. That is why I cited a Duke student newspaper article which stated that in 2006, Hispanics had the HIGHEST average family incomes of all minorities. Yes, all minorities.</p>
<p>Accepted. I think as you graduate and travel the US more away form the southeast, you will find the number of Cubans drops off dramatically. I know no Cubans in Minnesota. Mexicans, Mex-Ams, central Americans, P Rican, but as of yet I have not run into a Cuban.</p>
<p>Many people accept this rationale for affirmative action (perhaps more so than the representation / diversity rationale) – but does it make sense to give affirmative action to white people over Asian people (as is widely believed on these forums), when, in recent history, anti-Asian racial discrimination has been much greater than anti-white racial discrimination?</p>
<p>fab,
The “reparations” justification for AA doesn’t work. Neither does the socio-economic one. You know this by now. Only the racially diverse student body benefits argument works.</p>
<p>Well I’m fine with taking all the Cubans out of the Latino population (for admission purposes). For the most part they don’t need the help. The same is true of many of those from South American countries.</p>
<p>Let’s leave AA in place for Chicanos and Puerto Ricans. They tend to be the worst off socio-economically. They are definitely the most sought after Latinos among top colleges. MIT even says this in their admissions material. I do believe colleges are able to distinguish between a wealth Cuban applicant and a poor Mexican one.</p>
<p>Well, we’re really getting into a different question here, although it’s a good one–which is, if you accept the idea that affirmative action is justifiable, who, exactly, should benefit from it? Should South American permanent residents whose parents are professionals get the same advantage as Mexican-Americans from Texas? What about Brazilians–who, apparently, aren’t Hispanics at all? And why not the Hmong?</p>
<p>As it is, AA is a fairly crude tool. Perhaps it could be made better by paying more attention to economic status–and maybe some schools do this. It should also always be noted that we never know what portion of any “hooked” group actually needed the hook to get in–those rich Hispanics may have super-high scores, or maybe some of them are rich enough to be development cases.</p>
<p>
I’m not aware that anybody has really defended this. I am simply skeptical that it’s really happening. I do think that it could be happening, but in my opinion the evidence is not enough to justify the handwringing about it.</p>
<p>Crude? It’s only crude to those who don’t benefit from it. The people who don’t benefit are the ones complaining because their admission spots are taken for “less qualified” students. This argument is really starting to get old. Colleges do what they want with their admissions processes and policies. If you don’t like it then get over it. </p>
<p>I know this, sure. Hunt knows it but thinks “diversity” is a sham argument, that the “real” argument is reparations.</p>
<p>It is a sham, but “diversity” is free of the problem we’ve seen in the past few pages of this thread. Once you enter the realm of “reparations,” you’ve opened the floodgates of “my ancestor was discriminated worse than yours.” Justice O’Connor recognized this in Croson:</p>
<p>When I say that AA is “crude,” what I mean is that it’s not tightly calibrated to give the maximum benefit to those who need it the most; indeed, it might be most helpful to those who really don’t need it that much. Although perhaps it isn’t as crude as it may appears as actually applied–maybe the Puerto Rican’s from poor families do get a bigger break than rich Cubans. After all, if admissions are really “holistic,” then those kinds of distinctions should be made.</p>
)</p>