<p>^ AA has absolutely nothing to do with legacy.</p>
<p>Charisma:
I'm sorry, I left out part of my argument. It should have read if they take away AA, people would start to push for getting rid of legacy preferences which may hurt some of their (politician's) children who are legacy applicants.</p>
<p>I also forgot the word reasons after the word few. And it should be etc instead of ect. And instead of a lot of people are likely to cry foul, it should say a lot more people are likely to cry foul.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well written. What you have said is very true.</p>
<p>For example, when I started becoming more vocal here about my beliefs on this issue about half a year ago, I was dumbfounded by some of the statements I read.</p>
<p>To some people, by not looking at a person's skin color, I am actually discriminating against him based on his skin color.</p>
<p>That made no sense to me then, and that makes no sense to me now. I can only shake my head at the extremes to which racial preference defenders will delude themselves. Anything to justify "inclusion," "diversity," and "equal representation," even if it means being not-so-nice to a student who checks the Asian box.</p>
<p>Regarding your third paragraph, I respond as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Typically, legacy admissions aren't banned by civil rights intiatives. I myself am not wholly against them. For one, the very existence of "under-represented" minority legacies makes them more inclusive than "proportional representation." For another, it is the wealthy families who pay full-freight who help finance the education of disadvantaged but hard-working students at private universities.</p></li>
<li><p>As of 2005, Whites make up approximately 75% of the population. Voter turnout has been decreasing for decades. In spite of grave historical injustice against Native Americans and Blacks, voters in Michigan overwhelmingly passed Proposal 2. There was a sixteen point margin of victory for equal treatment! Indeed, there were some cries of foul play. U-Michigan, for example, even tried to defy the decision made by the voters of their state. It took the United States Judicial System to correct their wayward behavior.</p></li>
<li><p>Politicians do care more about votes, I acknowledge this. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans of Michigan endorsed Proposal 2, but it passed comfortably nevertheless. I commend the citizens of Michigan for standing up and fighting for real equal treatment.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Come 2008, there will be civil rights initiatives in four more states. The defenders of racial preferences are the reactionaries.</p>
<p>Soon, the question terrygreg asked will no longer cross the minds of high school students nation-wide.</p>
<p>i don't think i really have to become a civil rights lawyer seeing as the way i believe it should be is currently the status quo....</p>
<p>But you're overlooking what i said earlier again, i didn't say an absolute cap, just a relative proportion. It would mean, to strip away all the frills and defense, that as the proportion of one group being admitted got higher and higher, other groups would become more valuable. Which does in a sense make it easier to be admitted. </p>
<p>And when i say relatively proportional, that doesn't mean 4.6% asian or w/e. Because Asians are still going to be incredibly strong applicants they would still be in the 20%s at the top universities. But the school has the right to give a tip to the other groups if one group starts approaching the 30s or isn't coming any where close to their representation.</p>
<p>So in California it would be a good reflection if the makeup at UC Berkley and UCLA was:
30% Asian
45% White
13% Hispanic
10% Black
2% Other
---Because the west coast has a higher population of strong asian students.</p>
<p>But at like Harvard, a private university, it would be a good reflection:
20% Asian
50% White
9% Black
10% Hispanic
10% other/international
-The asian proportion is still very high because they are stronger students, but not as high as Cal because the asian population isn't so concentrated.</p>
<p>This isn't an AA discussion, lets not turn it into one.</p>
<p>And cheaters are going to abuse the system no matter what questions you ask so you can't take out something that could help colleges just because cheaters could use it to cheat. You can't let dishonest people dictate the process.</p>
<p>And certain things need to be taken under socialistic ideas. Like our health care system, welfare, and now college admissions. When you go purely on meritocratic ideas you have to start with everyone having equal opportunity or the system won't work. By promoting equal representation, it sets up for equal opportunity in the FUTURE which allows for purely merit based process.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Quotas the way you support them are not the status quo. They were, but that was before 2003. If you like them, though, hey, I think the NAACP's legal team would benefit from the "diversity" provided by a White socialist keen on reinstating quotas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the school has the right to give a tip to the other groups if one group starts approaching the 30s or isn't coming any where close to their representation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The "relative proportion" you speak of still constrains freedom. You're actually proposing a restriction of admissions on certain groups for doing "too well." I do not support punishing students for excellence, which is why I voiced approval for the hypothetical scenario I discussed earlier (viz. if the only qualified applicants to Harvard under race-blind admissions were all Hispanic, then only these students should be admitted.)</p>
<p>It is truly perverse to penalize students for achieving. Stating that mediocrity by certain groups is acceptable does no one any good.</p>
<p>"Relative proportion" is just a fancy name for an informal quota. Either way, you're reducing freedom and doing no help to the students who ask variants of terrygreg's question on this subforum every year.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>I was going to applaud you for updating your word choice, but you've reverted to the nebulous phrase "equal representation." Ai...oh, well, progress has been made elsewhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Typically, legacy admissions aren't banned by civil rights intiatives. I myself am not wholly against them. For one, the very existence of "under-represented" minority legacies makes them more inclusive than "proportional representation." For another, it is the wealthy families who pay full-freight who help finance the education of disadvantaged but hard-working students at private universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually corrected myself later on; some of my comments were incomplete. When I said some of their children will benefit because of legacy admits, I meant to say that if AA were to be discontinued, people would start to push to discontinue legacy preferences which would not benefit some politicians' children. I apologize once more for being a little scatterbrained. </p>
<p>And, fabrizio, you are right; voter turnout has been low in past elections. As for 75% of the country being white...this number depends. I've heard as high as 75% and as low at 50% (of the country being white). It all depends on the options available for one to select. For example, if it just says White, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American/Alaska Native the percentage of Whites would be a lot higher than 50%. But if it says White (non Hispanic), African American (non Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian, Native American/Alaska Native the percentages would be different. With that being said, politicians do not want to anger URMs because if they do, some groups are going to call it discrimination and very few politicians see a benefit in being seen a racist. As for Michigan's Prop 2...I don't know much about Michigan myself, but I am curious as to how many URMs voted for this initiave versus how many URMs actually live in Michigan. I am also curious as to what the voter turnout was. As you said, our country suffers from apathy when it comes to the polls. This proposal, however, is relatively new. We'll have to wait until official stats are released to see how it all plays out.</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.</p>
<p>I find it appalling it has gotten to the point people are suggesting to falsely check that you are a URM. *</p>
<p>Personally I do not agree with it either. I am only 25% Asian (and look 100% white) but I still checked the Asian box on my applications because I believed in honesty. However the OP seemed like he wanted to do what would help his chances the most, and I think that would. yes it might be sneaky, but I personally view distorting his ethnicity a bit (note - not making it up) on about the same level as paying over a grand to hyperinflate your SAT scores.</p>
<p>^ How is saying he is Hispanic only distorting his ethnicity a little? The OP is Asian and White. Hispanic is completely different from both of those races. Saying he is Hispanic is not a minor distortion, but a flat out lie. An Italian last name that may sound Hispanic to some people is still not a Hispanic last name. And who knows if there happens to be an Italian or a Hispanic on the committee that would know the difference? Then the applicant would be in deep trouble and can basically kiss their chances goodbye for getting caught in a lie. </p>
<p>Lying about your race is a much more serious offense than paying for SAT prep classes in my opinion. You're using an entire race to meet your ends, using people and their ancestors whom you don't even know, just so that you can get a leg up in admissions.</p>
<p>No one ever suggested that he say that he's hispanic, only that if he has a hispanic name to not state race and have the ad officers come to whatever conclusions they wish. So, no, it's not a lie.</p>
<p>Actually I did, hence the quote in #88, which was a quote of some previous post of mine. All I was trying to say was that, according to my Ethnic Studies prof., Hispanic is an ethnicity and can be applied to Italians (South Americans also). It is not restricted to people from Haiti and D. Republic, as the name would imply. It was made very broad by the US Congress and thus can fit a large number of people who normally would not consider them hispanic. But like I said, I took that Fall qtr, so dont quote me on it. (oh and I am pretty sure the prof was a bit zealous with certain aspects of ethnicity him being American Indian)</p>
<p>
[quote]
This isn't an AA discussion, lets not turn it into one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree. When you're talking about jiffying proportions, it's a case of affirmative action, one way or another.</p>
<p>It's a loaded word, yes, but so is "equal representation", which you consistently use. As with affirmative action, "equal representation" has many meanings to different people and many different connotations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So in California it would be a good reflection if the makeup at UC Berkley and UCLA was:
30% Asian
45% White
13% Hispanic
10% Black
2% Other
---Because the west coast has a higher population of strong asian students.</p>
<p>But at like Harvard, a private university, it would be a good reflection:
20% Asian
50% White
9% Black
10% Hispanic
10% other/international
-The asian proportion is still very high because they are stronger students, but not as high as Cal because the asian population isn't so concentrated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Somehow, I have a feeling that would mean Southeast Asians, for example, would be bumped out of having spots in those colleges. If you really want to use an equal representation argument, not taking into account more subtle differences in "race" as it relates to actual opportunities and capabilities for getting into college is going to get you a system that only reinforces current inequalities.</p>
<p>If you say that's equal and good, current inequalities is simply what we should preserve under our form of representation, then you'd probably get quite a few minorities that aren't all that well off jumping down your throat. I'm not saying you're saying that, but note that your argument would also support quota acts that take immigrants from other countries that reflect the US's "current proportions", with the real agenda of limiting immigration of "undesirables".</p>
<p>It's the same argument, just change some words--you might not realize it, but look up some of those arguments and you'll see them using the same words ("equal representation") and whatnot you use. The only difference is they are labeled with another set of strong words, like, "nativist" and "racist". I'm personally not calling you that--merely calling attention to the rather chilling similarity between your argument and theirs.</p>
<p>The problem with controlling race in admissions in this way is you'll never get it so you actually admit the ones who are disadvantaged. So you fill 20% of the college with rich East Asians, never mind the Laotian and Burmese and Hmong students that stay outside of colleges in their inner city gangs. Also, where'd Pacific Islanders go? Is their share 0%? Because they can't be lumped in with Asians--you've got a huge pile of scholarship that argues that, and even the Census paid attention and separated the categories in their most recent and all future Censuses.</p>
<p>Also, it's the same with whites. You aren't getting your blue-collars there--you're getting your high socio-economic class, Andover/Exeter students.</p>
<p>Sure, maybe you typed that quickly and didn't think of all the categories that people fall under, but can anyone really think of all the categories that everyone falls under? If they could, we wouldn't have had these problems in the first place (nor would we have an amazing shifting Census that is continuously ballooning in number of possible racial designations).
Thus, I'd argue that what you propose is far from "equal representation".</p>
<p>jissell1013,</p>
<p>No need for any apologies!</p>
<p>
[quote]
This proposal, however, is relatively new. We'll have to wait until official stats are released to see how it all plays out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Proposal 2 was on the ballot in 2006. Ten years earlier, Proposition 209 - the precursor of Proposal 2 - passed in California. The result? Higher graduation rates for "under-represented" minorities. I take that as proof that we don't need a race box to promote opportunities.</p>
<p>You're correct that politicians try to avoid angering "under-represented" minorities; no one wants a public tongue-lashing from the Venerable Al Sharpton or His Holiness Jesse Jackson. That's why neither the Democrats nor the Republicans of Michigan supported Proposal 2. Yet, it still passed. The voters of Michigan voted with their conscience, not their party identification. They voted for progress.</p>
<p>I am also interested in seeing the ethnic breakdown of voters who voted on Proposal 2 last year.</p>
<p>Allorion has done a great job dissecting the numerous flaws in Tyler's "relative proportion" argument.</p>
<p>The race box is very similar to tax law.</p>
<p>The government can impose a tax on one group (i.e. either buyer or seller), but they cannot always make that one group pay the tax. Tax incidence is independent of tax law.</p>
<p>As it is with the race box. You can design a policy that ostensibly benefits the historically oppressed of our nation, but you can't prevent well-educated immigrants and their children from taking advantage of the policy. "Diversity" incidence is independent of "diversity" mandate.</p>
<p>What disturbs me is how some racial preference defenders advocate a stronger form of the race box by asking for national origin and previous last names because the current system doesn't result in "adequate representation" of historically oppressed native Blacks.</p>
<p>I think they don't realize just how far they've strayed from the Civil Rights Act...</p>
<p>Whenever you use multiple factors to determine who will be admitted to a particular college, you are "penalizing" or "punishing" people who exhibit only some of those factors. So, for example, if you consider grades, scores, and ECs, you are "punishing" people with high grades and scores but no ECs. Similarly, if you try to get geographical diversity, or a mix of public and private school graduates, or a more-or-less equal proportion of men and women, or people with a mix of interests, etc., you are "penalizing" some people. It's the same thing if you try to achieve even a rough level of racial diversity. The question is whether it is a reasonable thing for a school to do to consider these kinds of factors. If, as many believe, ethnic diversity is a virtue in and of itself, then it's reasonable to do this. In addition, many liberal-minded people think it's appropriate for a school to factor in history of discrimination and limited access in creating an entering class. While this can be done to some extent by focusing on economic disadvantage, it can't be completely. (I would add that in my opinion, it's not necessary to distinguish between whites and Asians to achieve either of these goals.) It's not suprising that people with a lot of merits think the world should be a meritocracy, but that's not the only fair or reasonable way to arrange things.</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whenever you use multiple factors to determine who will be admitted to a particular college, you are "penalizing" or "punishing" people who exhibit only some of those factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very true. However, people are free to choose how to allocate their time between academics, extracurriculars, and service. They are not free to choose their skin color. If the system factors in extracurriculars and service in the definition of merit, then the people who have not sufficiently done either will be punished. I acknowledge this. But, you're punishing a person for not doing something, which is much different from punishing a person for being of the "wrong" skin color.</p>
<p>Race just happens to be the most sensitive issue. Picking a student because he's a state-ranked field athlete is completely different than picking a student because he contributes to "racial diversity." This is my opinion, and from experience, I know that some people think the two cases are one and the same. (To them, they both fit institutional "needs.") I was not raised, however, to treat years of brutal hard work and dedication as the same thing as an act of Allah.</p>
<p>I agree that many people believe that ethnic diversity is a virtue. But, I do not agree that many of these people will also support policies that treat people differently based on their race. As Dr. R. Nieli mentions in his paper, "The Changing Shape of the River," students my age are very supportive of diversity. They aren't so supportive of using racial preferences to create "diversity."</p>
<p>Focusing on economic disadvantage of course cannot completely address the legacies of historical discrimination. There's really only one way to do that - a combination of quotas and mandatory responses to the question, "Where are your parents from?" Only then will you be able to exclude Black immigrants and their children from taking the spots that were designed for disadvantaged native Blacks.</p>
<p>Hunt, I thank you for your compliment (i.e. people with a lot of merits think the world should be a meritocracy), but I assure you that under my definition of merit, there are thousands, perhaps even millions, of Americans who are far stronger than I.</p>
<p>My discussion with Tyler reveals that he does not share the "white guilt" that plagues some of the older racial preference defenders. That's a good thing; it shows that the dynamics of the discussion are changing. With the success of Proposal 2 in Michigan, I foresee further success in other states in 2008.</p>
<p>It won't be long before "Asian or Not?" and "URM or Not?" become simply curiosities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, people are free to choose how to allocate their time between academics, extracurriculars, and service. They are not free to choose their skin color.
[/quote]
Students are not free to choose the financial situation they are born into either. And please don't tell me that college admission is need-blind because I bet that 95% of colleges are not.</p>
<p>b@r!um,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Students are not free to choose the financial situation they are born into either. And please don't tell me that college admission is need-blind because I bet that 95% of colleges are not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They surely do not have such an luxury. I compromise by supporting socioeconomic affirmative action. I have consistently stated that it is more inclusive than race-based affirmative action because poverty does not discriminate.</p>
<p>I believe admissions officers from many universities frequently claim that their schools are need-blind, but they also remark that they consider an applicant's "extraordinary circumstances," which I don't mind as long as it doesn't include race.</p>
<p>It's similar to how admissions officers claim that they don't discriminate based on race, but somehow they still like to tout "diversity" and "fair representation."</p>
<p>If they really don't discriminate based on race, then why maintain a race box?</p>
<p>Fabrizio, I am curious about your opinion on historically black and women's colleges. If you don't mind those institutions, why can a historically black college choose to remain mostly black by effectively limiting the non-black enrollment to 5 or 15 or 40% but Harvard cannot limit Asian enrollment to 30%? Just because it's Harvard as opposed to Lincoln University?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe admissions officers from many universities frequently claim that their schools are need-blind
[/quote]
100 need-blind unis are quite a lot but only 5% of 2000 4-year colleges. And even those don't always guarantee to meet your full demonstrated need...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hispanic is an ethnicity and can be applied to Italians (South Americans also)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What definition for Hispanic is this professor using? I've looked it up on the web and asked all of my friends and teachers and they've all given me the same answer: a person who originates from a country relating to Spain or a Spanish-speaking Latin American country. Wikipedia even has a map coloring in which countries count as a Hispanic country: </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic</a></p>
<p>Notice that Brazil, Portugal, and Italy do not count even though Brazilians are considered to be Latino because of the countries location. The words Latino and Hispanic, I recently learned, are not as interchangeable as some people believe them to be.</p>