<p>OMG!!!!!
I didn't check the message board for one day and I return to a flood of words. Thank you to those trying to advise me and thank you to those expressing your deepest feelings about race and society. After reading all of your posts I have come to the realization that my son and I actually have TWO decisions to make: what box to check (if at all) and do we want to fight fair in this admissions game. As much as I want my kid to get into a terrific school I want even more to be able to sleep at night knowing that I and especially he, did the right thing. My son may never get into Harvard, but I still want him to know the meaning of the word veritas.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>I've been asking you why you think "equal representation" spreads higher education, but you've simply been repeating your opinion. You have not explained WHY it "works," and you have not even defined what equal representation is to you (i.e. whether it's equal to the Census or every group's percentage is equal.)</p>
<p>I think it's misguided to think that 40% Black is somehow "bad" because it's "not reflective of society." If those students were evaluated based on a single standard and were admitted, they deserve to be there, end of story. Why should we even remotely think that because 40 > 12.12, Blacks are "over-represented?"</p>
<p>(Matter of fact, I'd like for one "diversity" advocate who likes the phrase "over-represented" to acknowledge that a campus with a Black population greater than 12.12% has an over-represented Black population. Just one.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nobody said anything about capping asian enrollment, they just try not to let the proportion get out of control.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, what is "[trying] not to let the proportion get out of control?" Isn't that the very definition of capping?</p>
<p>I find it sad that the people who claim to be the descendants of the civil rights movement have forgotten the adage that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. They are supposed to be the ones helping a poor student, Asian or not, get a chance at admission, but instead, they laugh in his face and say that he has it "easy" compared to others.</p>
<p>terrygreg,</p>
<p>I think because your family has such a rich cultural heritage, it would not be detrimental if your son emphasized all aspects of his family history, including its Korean contribution. I would check White, Asian, and Other, and write in the specific nationalities.</p>
<p>Based on my experience, you should play fair in the admissions game. As you said, integrity is very important. But, I believe it is possible to have integrity while playing the game with all its rules and exceptions.</p>
<p>But the truth is... are you morally obligated to play fair in an unfair game?</p>
<p>Unfair to your son simply because of the color of his skin?</p>
<p>It seems that one user who has posted on this thread has two standards.</p>
<p>He claims that it was justified for Natalie Hershlag to become Natalie Portman because Portman is more "star quality" than Hershlag.</p>
<p>But, he also claims that it would be "over the top" for an Asian student to change his name to protect himself from possible discrimination.</p>
<p>Does that make sense?</p>
<p>haha you're just comedic at this point. </p>
<p>I already laid it out as simple as can get. Equal representation spreads higher education EQUALLY among all racial groups which leads to EQUAL opportunity, at which point equal representation will happen naturally. </p>
<p>Equal representation: When the racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity of an area or country is effectively represented in the university student body. </p>
<p>I'm not even following half your post cause you made up 50% of it. </p>
<p>And I don't know about you, but celebrity name changes and college admissions are not even in the same ballpark, but thats just me. </p>
<p>capping=ok 12.2% black people, no more
equal representation= well we only have 3% black people, so black people are more valuable to our intentions now. </p>
<p>You keep trying to bring opinions into this, when I've been saying the whole time that i don't care much about my opinion on it. Colleges are justified in seeking equal representation in admissions. That's the one point I've been making and your selective reading seemed to have overlooked it.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Equal representation: When the racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity of an area or country is effectively represented in the university student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Definitions like these are exactly why some Asian students are wary of checking a box and why terrygreg's question is a real concern. "Effectively" represented. Does that mean that a student body can be no more than 4.46% Asian? Does that mean that a campus can be no more than 12.12% Black?</p>
<p>What do you think about CSU-East Bay, which is 34% Asian and 18% Black? Are both Asians and Blacks "over-represented" since they only constitute 4.46% and 12.12% of the nation as a whole? Are Whites "under-represented" since they only make up 14% of the campus?</p>
<p>You yourself stated that Ms. Hershlag chose Portman because Hershlag isn't a "star quality" name. Did you ever stop to think that despite her immense talent, had Natalie Portman decided to remain Natalie Hershlag, she would not have been as marketable as she is? </p>
<p>The principle is the same. She wanted marketability and possibility the prevention of anti-Semitic discrimination. You justified her decision. Some Asian students also want to more marketable and also want to prevent the possibility of anti-Asian bias. You criticize these students for being "over the top."</p>
<p>It is exactly the ideology you support that causes some students in our nation to fear checking a box as well as others to check the wrong boxes. You confuse these students with your double standards.</p>
<p>Private colleges that don't receive any tax funds from the state and federal government are justified to seek "equal representation" however they want. Fine with me.</p>
<p>"What do you think about CSU-East Bay, which is 34% Asian and 18% Black? Are both Asians and Blacks "over-represented" since they only constitute 4.46% and 12.12% of the nation as a whole? Are Whites "under-represented" since they only make up 14% of the campus?"</p>
<p>-yes, they are overrepresented. And if that university decided to pursue a more equally represented campus they would be justified in doing so.</p>
<p>"The principle is the same. She wanted marketability and possibility the prevention of anti-Semitic discrimination. You justified her decision. Some Asian students also want to more marketable and also want to prevent the possibility of anti-Asian bias. You criticize these students for being "over the top." "
-no, its not the same. I already said that.</p>
<p>"It is exactly the ideology you support that causes some students in our nation to fear checking a box as well as others to check the wrong boxes. You confuse these students with your double standards."</p>
<p>-Yes, I am the one confusing all of these students. I would like to apologize to every student by saying "my bad." I don't know why anyone would "fear" checking the box. It's just that if you don't:
1. It's just dishonest, you might as well just check black instead.
2. It probably won't help you much
3. It only hurts those who choose to be honest and proud and own up to their asian heritage. </p>
<p>What I keep telling you that you don't seem to be grasping is that what is celebrities do is completely separate from what people do to get admitted to a college. </p>
<p>Asians aren't being deprived of anything or having anything taken from them. 70% of the people that apply to top colleges probably "deserve" a spot, but that doesn't mean one is owed to them. Nobody is taking these asian kids' spots because they never had one to begin with; the university never offered them one.
It's not that being asian is a negative in college admissions, it's just that they so commonly meet a colleges standards that even white applicants become valuable to diversity. So i don't know why you have this sense of entitlement because you aren't "entitled" to a spot in any college, anywhere, especially not a private university.</p>
<p>"Private colleges that don't receive any tax funds from the state and federal government are justified to seek "equal representation" however they want. Fine with me."
-Actually i believe that public universities have a DUTY to represent their area effectively as far as diversity goes. A public universities duty is to spread higher education across all groups of the public. Which is why the Cal system is in fact doing California a disservice in excluding race in admissions.</p>
<p>For Fabrizio: heres an analogy to put this kind of thing in context.
During the 1940s and 1950s their was a lot of discrimination and racism against african americans (which i think we can agree is a lot worse than the racism being experienced by American Asians). But some african americans were born with lighter skin and whiter features and could pass as white if they wanted to. But the strength and pride of the African American community was demonstrated by those who despite having the ability to pose as white and avoid much of the discrimination, still owned up to their black roots and withstood the discrimination facing them and helped to make a change. </p>
<p>In not checking the race box you would be like those black people who posed as white in order to avoid an obstacle of their race. And it's even worse because this obstacle isn't even racism or discrimination. </p>
<p>If you were still steadfast in your belief that asians were being discriminated against you would still check the race box, but continue to protest and raise awareness, or not apply to schools that use them. </p>
<p>In conclusion:</p>
<p>Check Asian on the box, if you're asian.</p>
<p>Universities are justified in seeking equal representation in order to spread higher education amongst all groups and promote equal opportunities. </p>
<p>The "game" isn't unfair against asians, colleges want equal representation. Suppose if Harvard has a class of 2000. If one year 2000 asian students were the strongest academically, no more than like 500 of them would be accepted; because thats all of one group that they want to maintain diversity. If 2000 black students were the strongest the next year, only around 500 of them would get in too for the same reason. </p>
<p>It's a matter of having the maturity and empathy in order look beyond yourself. Colleges have a responsibility to do what's best for America as a whole. And at this moment in time equal representation, the spread of higher education, and equal opportunities for the future are what's best for America.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>I am surprised and impressed at your sudden fair application of the rules. I honestly did not expect you to label the Black population at CSU-East Bay as being "over-represented." I was almost in shock when I read that you approve of capping their admissions because 18% > 12.12%. My jaw hit the ground when I read that you support a de facto quota of 25% Black admissions at Harvard (which is higher than 12.12%) even if the STRONGEST / BEST applicants were all Black. Thank you.</p>
<p>(It is my belief that if Harvard used race-blind admissions and the only qualified applicants were Black, then Harvard is justified in admitting all of those Black students and no one else. I believe in meritocracy, not "equal representation.")</p>
<p>I am still waiting for a definition of "equal representation," though, namely whether it means equal to the U.S. Census figures or 20/20/20/20/20. It does, however, seem that you define equal representation as equal to the U.S. Census figure, but I would like confirmation from you.</p>
<p>You've stated the obvious several times. An actress's decision to change her name is different from a student's decision to change her name (despite having the same reasons) because one is an actress and the other is a student. Not only is it different, it is also acceptable because the actress needs a "star quality" name.</p>
<p>Yet, is there any real difference between an actress seeking to change her name to increase marketability and prevent discrimination and a student seeking to change her name to increase marketability and prevent discrimination?</p>
<p>You're starting to use single standards. I would be very happy if you continued and stated that it is not "over the top" for an Asian student to change his name, especially since you've already stated that it wasn't "over the top" for Natalie Hershlag to become Natalie Portman.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So i don't know why you have this sense of entitlement because you aren't "entitled" to a spot in any college, anywhere, especially not a private university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, are you like cheers' son or blood relation? You sound exactly like her except you're a guy and probably a third her age. (Neutral comment, no offense to either Tyler or cheers, just genuine surprise.)</p>
<p>It's easy to explain how you don't know "why * have this sense of entitlement." I simply do not have this mysterious sense of entitlement you have attributed to me. It does not exist. This is your claim, and I reject it just like I rejected cheers' identical accusation.</p>
<p>Tyler, I'm not sure if you've ever looked at photos of the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, but I'm sure that a person who is as sensitive to race as you are would have noticed that most of them are not, in any sense, "light skinned." (Justice Thurgood Marshall being an exception.)</p>
<p>You state that discrimination and racism against Blacks decades ago was worse than current bias against Asians. I would agree. Does that justify the existence of anti-Asian bias? Remember, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.</p>
<p>But, I must express that I am pleased with your sudden fair application of the rules. I cannot envision some of the older racial preference defenders stating that Black enrollment at CSU-East Boy is "over-represented."</p>
<p>When i say equal representation i mean based on the whole country for private schools, and based on the area for public schools.</p>
<p>I'm not going to say that the celebrity and the college applicant are the same and have the same things that are acceptable for them because they don't.</p>
<p>When i said "you" i meant the other people who complain about this. </p>
<p>And this is where we are opposed and this is why this argument won't be resolved.
You believe in meritocracy: the individual students that performed the best should get the best college spots.
I believe that American society as a whole needs to be taken into account in college admissions and that higher education should be spread equally in order to benefit all groups.</p>
<p>-These two ideas are fundamentally opposed philosophies so neither of us is going to convince each other of anything. It's just a matter of whether you're for the individual or for the society. Pesonally i believe that considering the society helps everyone achieve equal opportunities which is why i support it. A better society helps everyone. But your belief that whoever performed the best earned it, survival of the fittest has some merit to it as well.</p>
<p>Both are completely justifiable in college admissions. But ultimately you have to admit that equal representation is better in the long run.</p>
<p>Tyler, </p>
<p>Hmm, so to you, a private university can't be more than 4.46% Asian, 12.12% Black, and 5.99% Other? You would actually be denying higher education to minorities through your equal representation system. Imposing quotas on them doesn't spread opportunities.</p>
<p>For public universities, it would be the same. An area that is 90% White would have to have, under your system, 90% White students in order to "proportionally" represent the "diversity" of the community.</p>
<p>If this is in fact what you mean, then I foresee many minority applicants leaving the race box blank and changing their names. The question terrygreg would be a moot point as every minority would know that his group has a cap placed on them.</p>
<p>If you find it difficult to see how an actress's decision to change her name and a student's decision to change her name arose from the same principle, oh well, we've made progress in other aspects. I doubt that any of the previous generation's preferential treatment defenders would be as fair as you when it comes to using "over-represented."</p>
<p>
[quote]
And this is where we are opposed and this is why this argument won't be resolved.
You believe in meritocracy: the individual students that performed the best should get the best college spots.
I believe that American society as a whole needs to be taken into account in college admissions and that higher education should be spread equally in order to benefit all groups.</p>
<p>-These two ideas are fundamentally opposed philosophies so neither of us is going to convince each other of anything. It's just a matter of whether you're for the individual or for the society. Pesonally i believe that considering the society helps everyone achieve equal opportunities which is why i support it. A better society helps everyone. But your belief that whoever performed the best earned it, survival of the fittest has some merit to it as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, Tyler, that was pretty fair and well written. You have correctly described my belief on this issue. To me, if next year, the only students who are qualified for Harvard's freshman class under a race-blind evaluation are all Hispanic, then Harvard should admit every single one of them. I don't believe that we should punish them for their excellence by saying that they don't contribute to a "diverse environment." That is simply an application of my support for meritocracy.</p>
<p>I do not believe that in the long run, equal representation is better. I do not believe that capping admissions by ethnic group promotes opportunities. Rather, I believe such policies constrain opportunities.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, yes, we come from two opposing camps.</p>
<p>I'm a liberal. I believe in freedom.</p>
<p>You're a socialist. You believe in equality. </p>
<p>And, that's what's so great about America. We can each believe in different ideas and go to the polls to vote for the candidates of our choice.</p>
<p>It's pretty easy for a person who is not a member of an underrepresented minority to say something like, "if next year, the only students who are qualified for Harvard's freshman class under a race-blind evaluation are all Hispanic, then Harvard should admit every single one of them." You know that in the real world we live in, a totally race-blind admissions policy would result in admission of Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans at rates far below their shares in the population at large. For a lot of people, even people who aren't in those groups, that's not a good thing.</p>
<p>Perhaps a compromise argument--sort of implied by this whole discussion--is that admissions ought to be race-blind as between Asians and whites. I don't think the threat of too many Asians is really a danger to diversity. The threat to diversity is when there are not enough underrepresented and disadvantaged people.</p>
<p>One note: wouldn't a liberal who believes in freedom agree that private colleges should admit whoever they want however they want?</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>I think my not being a member of an "under-represented" group is not the reason why it is easy for me to say what I said. Simply put, I believe in the meritocratic ideal, and if the scenario I described happened, I would have to tell myself to work harder (c.f. blaming history for excluding my people from emigrating in the nineteenth century.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know that in the real world we live in, a totally race-blind admissions policy would result in admission of Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans at rates far below their shares in the population at large. For a lot of people, even people who aren't in those groups, that's not a good thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Far below their shares in the population at large, you say. The data in California suggests otherwise. Black admissions at UC-Riverside is 8%, which is higher than 4.46%. Hispanic admissions at UC-Riverside is 28%, which is higher than 5.99% (a number which also includes Native Americans.)</p>
<p>At every UC campus, the student body is greater than or equal to 10% Hispanic. So much for "admission of Hispanics...far below their shares in the population at large."</p>
<p>Race-blind admissions kept no one out of universities. It merely reshuffled students throughout the system, properly matching them based on their achievements. This is proof that not having a race box and thus avoiding the question of which box(es) to check does not destroy "diversity." In fact, it seems to increase it.</p>
<p>Hunt, I thank you for your fairness when you say that "I don't think the threat of too many Asians is really a danger to diversity." I find that all too often supporters of racial preferences trample on Asians by claiming that "all-Asian" campuses will occur if race is not considered. The data does not show that whatsoever.</p>
<p>I don't fully understand your compromise. Do you suggest that admissions officers should not consider race if the applicant is either Asian or White but should consider it if the applicant is of "under-represented?"</p>
<p>I must admit that if this is the case, then I do not support this compromise. You state that the threat to diversity is when there aren't enough underrepresented and disadvantaged people. A compromise I support considers socioeconomic status as a means to achieve socioeconomic diversity instead of race.</p>
<p>I do agree that private colleges can admit whoever they want however they want. There are a few but's, though.</p>
<p>First, if this private college is located in a state that has abolished racial preferences, then this private college can still choose to consider race in admissions, but they must receive no state funding in any shape or form. Not a single penny.</p>
<p>Second, if the Supreme Court rules against racial preferences in the near future, then private colleges again have the freedom to choose whether to consider race or not, but they must receive zero federal funding.</p>
<p>I believe part of Jian Li's case involves Princeton receiving some federal aid while claiming to be nondiscriminatory.</p>
<p>I guess that would be a decent compromise, to have the box look like this:</p>
<p>URM status? (check all that apply)</p>
<p>-African American
-Hispanic/Latino
-Native American
-w/e other one there is</p>
<p>----and any university that wants to use it can.</p>
<p>And do you think the governments going to EVER stop funding top colleges like Harvard with all the research, power, and benefit to society they control?? Nahhh, the federal governments going to do what THEY want to be done.</p>
<p>-Also i like to avoid titles like socialist. I feel this way on this issue, not because of w/e party i am. And I believe in freedom as well, it's just your idea of freedom isn't good enough for my idea of freedom, to put it bluntly. I believe that equal opportunity needs to be reached before true freedom can exist.</p>
<p>I was in a similar predicament, being half-Japanese and half-German. I chose not to answer. In all honesty, this isn't a huge factor in the admissions process. Schools cannot legally turn anyone down because of their race; that would be called discrimination. How did this turn into yet another AA debate? Do private colleges really get federal funding? I'm confused. I was under the impression the difference between a private and a public college is that a private college generates there own income (via tuition, donations, ect.) while public colleges receive federal money along with donations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If his last name is Hispanic what is wrong with checking off Hispanic? Based on my classes in Ethnic Studies and the articles I have read about ethnicity, this is a legit option. Dont quote me on it though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find it appalling it has gotten to the point people are suggesting to falsely check that you are a URM. I have a friend who is Hispanic, an immigrant in fact, but most people who have seen her and don't personally know her would be surprised if she told them she was Hispanic. She has a "White" last name and she looks white. If she even thought about putting down white on any form (be it a government form or the SAT or AP tests or any form which asks for race), she would be scrutinized by not only the Hispanic community, but by members of the White, African American, and Asian communities as well for disowning her own race. I'm a URM myself and I cringe at the thought of calling myself anything other than my race. My race is a part of who I am. By the OP putting down a race that is not his/her own on their application, not only is he/she being dishonest but they are denying a part of who they are. And in my opinion, anyone who is willing to compromise who they are, willing to deny who they really are as a person just to get a leg up, shouldn't get into any college. Do you really want to go to school with conniving sneaks? I know I wouldn't. I'm not blaming anyone on here in particular; it isn't any one person's fault our society become competitive to the point of corruption. Suggestions like lying about your race are merely a poor reflection upon society, I suppose.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Have you considered the potential for abuse in such a system? There's already abuse now, but that would make it even worse.</p>
<p>It's like asking people, "Hi. How many miles do you drive every month? The amount of tax you pay depends on your answer and no other source of information."</p>
<p>Do you think people will answer honestly? In all likelihood, everyone would say, "I don't drive at all." Our tax on gasoline rectifies this. Basically, it doesn't matter how many miles you claim to drive. The more gas you buy, the more the drive.</p>
<p>You're doing the same. You're asking, "Hi. Do you consider yourself an 'under-represented' minority? Whether or not you have it easier in admissions depends on your answer and no other source of information."</p>
<p>People are going to lie. It does not surprise me that you have applied an aspect of socialism in your compromise. Kindly remember the wise words of Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest."</p>
<p>Be careful, Tyler, don't misrepresent the way our country works. Our government consists of three branches. The Supreme Court, part of the Judicial branch, has no power to enforce its own ruling. It is up to the Executive branch to carry out the rulings of the Court. Frankly, in our day and age, I don't forsee a future President pulling an Andrew Jackson. If the Supreme Court decisively rules against racial preferences, which I believe it will given that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy are all ardently against preferential treatment based on race, then the Executive branch will make this ruling reality.</p>
<p>So, yes, if racial preferences are banned and Harvard decides to continue catering to the "diversity" crowd, then they are free to do so as long as they understand that they will forfeit any and all federal funding. The federal government should not fund institutions that flout the law, no matter how well respected they are.</p>
<p>I would be very surprised if we shared the same definitions of freedom. Don't worry, you haven't insulted me by saying that my definition isn't "good enough" for you. I ask you to keep in mind that by advocating admissions quotas based on "proportional representation," you are reducing freedom, not spreading it. What becomes of the Black student who wants to attend Pomona but can't because it's already 4.46% Black? Aren't you reducing his freedom? What about the White student who wants to attend Williams but can't because it's already 75% White? Aren't you reducing her freedom?</p>
<p>I'm surprised that in 2007 a young person like yourself has become so enamored with the ideals of socialism, especially since they've failed miserably in the twentieth century.</p>
<p>Quotas destroy freedom. And, they've already been ruled against by the Supreme Court, so unless you intend to become a "civil rights" lawyer to campaign for the restoration of quotas, purchase the latest diversity upgrade to purge quotas from your rhetoric.</p>
<p>I think they're on Version 2.1 now, but I hear it's really buggy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How did this turn into yet another AA debate? Do private colleges really get federal funding?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>KittyLow,</p>
<p>It's inextricably linked to affirmative action. More and more Asian students are starting to think twice about the race box because they know there's a bias against them. This bias results from the misguided belief that schools should be "proportionally represented."</p>
<p>I believe part of Jian Li's case is that Princeton receives some federal funding but because of its secretive non-transparent affirmative action policies, engages in activities that may not be so "equal" in treatment.</p>
<p>jissell1013,</p>
<p>
[quote]
...it isn't any one person's fault our society become competitive to the point of corruption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If one implements a corrupt policy, one should not be surprised to find corruption as a consequence.</p>
<p>When people know that certain races are favored, people might think twice about which box to check.</p>
<p>I believe that if one disagrees with a policy, one should at least make an attempt to offer a solution. In my opinion, the best way to end this type of corruption is to remove the race box.</p>
<p>^^ I actually don't like affirmative action at all, mostly because I am sick and tired of people saying "you got into (fill in college name here)? it's because you're a URM". Ugh. If I had a quarter for every time someone has said that to me...</p>
<p>With that being said, I think regardless of if there is race box or not, if there is AA or not, some group will always consider the system to be corrupt. You can't make everyone happy. Take away AA, or the box as you say, and you'll have entire groups consisting of every race complaining. I say every race because I know many Whites and Asians who support AA along with some URMs. This is a situation where you just can't win. Take away the box and people will scream discrimination, leave it there and people will scream the same thing, the only difference is which group people believe is being discriminated against.</p>
<p>Politicians, IMO, will not do away with AA any time soon for a few. First of all, some of their children benefit because they are legacy applicants. Second of all (and remember, this is just my opinion), since URMs make up a larger portion of the country's population, and a larger portion of the voters come election time, and due to the long history against URMs in this country (slavery, moving Native Americans to reservations, Hispanic immigrants, ect. would go under this), a lot of people are likely to cry foul if the current system were to be completely removed than if the system is left alone. Politicians care more about votes than they do about doing what is right (although there are some politicians who actually do want to do good and change the world) and they may want their children to attend their alma mater. This links back to my comment on society being corrupt.</p>