Diversity: Explicit Example

Student Lounge College Life
61

<p>
[quote]
I'm pretty sure that if they took the SAT, they wouldn't score in the 2200+ range, but I'm 100% confident that it doesn't make them any less intelligent than a student at Exeter or Andover who scored a 2400. And I'm also certain that if I were an admissions officer trying to compose a freshman class, I'd want more of the former type of students than the latter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a sentiment seen a lot with people supporting AA, especially those apologists, like you, for poor people (excluding those with drug addict parents who I think have a legitimate excuse for not performing well). I think the idea above is that rich people have less value than poor people, chiefly blacks and hispanics. I don't see why you'd rather have the poor person who doesn't perform well rather than the rich one who was lucky enough to have parents who care about his education. The horror!!! Is there something wrong with being extremely intelligent, having one's parents notice that ability thus sending one to a school where one will be rigorously challenged, subsequently performing well on the SATs and AP courses due (almost entirely) to one's own ability, hard work, and determination?</p>

62

<p>the "black" perspective?</p>

<p>in my day the urge to leap over the desks and throttle the instructor would have been to much to bear.</p>

63

<p>I know AA is a flawed system which can sometimes advantage the already advantaged. It's unfortunate, but I'm not ready to give up on it yet. It's a multi-faceted subject, and I've wavered back and forth between the pros and cons, but I support it.</p>

<p>That being said, I understand and respect differing opinions on it. (Well...ones that don't posit the existence of a "black perspective", that is...) Doesn't ceteris paribus apply to lots of other admissions decisions as well? If two students list orchestra as an EC, but one plays cello while the other plays French Horn and the college needs to expand its brass section, does the French Horn player gain an unfair advantage? I know it's not as cut and dry for the race question, but admissions are holistic, and it doesn't seem nonsensical to me to consider the diversity of an applicant's background, community, etc. in a decision.</p>

<p>You know, I do get the argument that it's logical to question a minority student's credentials because of AA. But at the same time, I wonder how frustrating and hurtful it must be to be a minority applicant, with an excellent GPA and SAT and ECs, way above average at their school, when people assume that they got in just because of affirmative action. It's an assumption white students don't have to deal with, and it's an example of white privilege that a white student, even of a lower caliber than the minority applicant, can make it.</p>

<p>edit: In reference to my last post, it's not so much preferring the poorer student as it is preferring real world experience. High GPA and SAT scores are a formidable achivement, that's certain. But in an applicant pool where neither of those can significantly distinguish you (like at an elite school), then life experience can. Recent immigrants, applicants below the poverty line, rural applicants, and applicants who pursue a passion or interest beyond the school environment have the potential to stand out, because of the sacrifices they've made and the committment they've undertaken. I think it's possible for students of any socioeconomic status or race to distinguish themselves like that.</p>

<p>There's certainly nothing wrong with having affluent parents, or with having opportunities to excel in school. But for applicants who have neither of these, it takes more effort to achieve the same standard of work. Strong scores, grades, and extracurriculars are certainly indicators of an excellent applicant. But I think also that other factors come into play. Urban and rural schools are often of a drastically lower quality than suburban schools, and students suffer because of that. Educational quality can vary drastically even district to district.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
This is a sentiment seen a lot with people supporting AA, especially those apologists, like you, for poor people (excluding those with drug addict parents who I think have a legitimate excuse for not performing well). I think the idea above is that rich people have less value than poor people, chiefly blacks and hispanics. I don't see why you'd rather have the poor person who doesn't perform well rather than the rich one who was lucky enough to have parents who care about his education. The horror!!! Is there something wrong with being extremely intelligent, having one's parents notice that ability thus sending one to a school where one will be rigorously challenged, subsequently performing well on the SATs and AP courses due (almost entirely) to one's own ability, hard work, and determination?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>ignorant people like you hurt my heart..</p>

65

<p>i should hope the colored students - colored white - had something to say about the instructor's question.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
the "black" perspective?</p>

<p>in my day the urge to leap over the desks and throttle the instructor would have been to much to bear.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks hifi for not perpetuating the angry black man stereotype!</p>

67

<p>I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread, but it's devolved from the original topic into an AA debate. The original idea was to criticize elite universities' profuse efforts to increase racial and ethnic diversity. Basically, what these colleges are saying is that black and hispanic students enrich the campus by bringing a different perspective (note it's racial b/c even rich URM are given preferential treatment in admissions). </p>

<p>So my example was to explicitly illustrate how this may play out in a classroom. It was a far fetched example, but it criticizes, through demonstration, the colleges for implying that URMs are all alike and can speak for their race. Thus, thinking that a black person will enrich the campus culture given the fact that he's black is ludicrous, racist, and offensive.</p>

68

<p>Far fetched? Don't be generous.</p>

<p>It's absolutely and utterly stupid. I doubt anyone's ever heard any professor with ANY sense at all, much less an "Ivy League" professor say anything that ridiculous. The fact that it's completely unrealistic invalidates it.</p>

<p>Dontno? Do you read what you type before you post it?</p>

<p>Do you really think that the perspective of Bolivians will be represented at a school with no Bolivians? Will there be any Bolivian culture? Any significant/relevant Bolivian culture?</p>

<p>It's one thing to think something is useless - diversity, but it's something completely different to disregard it completely. If you don't think diversity is necessary -- that's your own opinion. If you think certain things don't contribute to diversity? You're just...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thanks hifi for not perpetuating the angry black man stereotype!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or the angry at my professor for saying something stupid? Or the we don't even know if he's black or white so this comment makes no sense? Or the I should just stop posting now before an angry white/black/asian man comes along and kicks my ass?</p>

69

<p>
[quote]

If you think certain things don't contribute to diversity?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The only thing that contributes to diversity is the individual. Every individual on this planet is a unique being. That’s all matters.</p>

<p>I ask you to remember what Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.”</p>

70

<p>Why does it matter what color you are? Racism won't go away until people stop recognizing race as the main characteristic they notice in a person. By constantly reminding inferring to the general population that some people need a boost will only continue the thinking that these people are degenerates who aren't on the same level. AA is simply reinforcing racist beliefs. Are all blacks poor and receiving bad educations? No. Are all whites rich and receiving quality educations? No. </p>

<p>I believe MLK Jr. put my argument very poignantly into a sentence, a line which singlehandedly disproves many pro-AA arguments: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."</p>

71

<p>If you agree that diversity is important, tell me, what measures would you then use to implement it?</p>

<p>Edit.</p>

<p>Ok. Let me ask you. Why can't George Bush understand your problems? </p>

<p>Partly because he's not like you. Hopefully. And partly because he just doesn't care.</p>

<p>And now I ask you, if we have a region of people, and we need their problems/opinions to be voiced -- would it not be within our best interest to have a certain number of these people selected to represent themselves? </p>

<p>I'm not asking you to judge based on race. I'm asking you to admit that diversity is a necessity.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
If you agree that diversity is important, tell me, what measures would you then use to implement it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Diversity does not need to be “implemented.” Segregation was outlawed over half a century ago. Thanks to the Supreme Court, diversity today exists everywhere. Thus, no measure is necessary because implementation itself is unnecessary.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Thanks hifi for not perpetuating the angry black man stereotype!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't you get it!? To these people, if the person is angry at a racially insensitive question, he must be an angry black man!</p>

74

<p>Yes, fabrizio, no one "deserves" a college education-it's a privilege, not a right.</p>

75

<p>Ok? Then don't take anyone from rural counties where AP's aren't offered. Don't take people from poor areas where the opportunities are limited. Let's just take dozens of homogenous people from places where they have unlimited opportunities/money to do whatever they wish.</p>

<p>Let's just continue the cycle of the elite. </p>

<p>Diversity is included in everything. Even in academics. </p>

<p>Even the way we've "diversified" academic qualifications by turning to holistic review.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]

Ok? Then don't take anyone from rural counties where AP's aren't offered. Don't take people from poor areas where the opportunities are limited. Let's just take dozens of homogenous people from places where they have unlimited opportunities/money to do whatever they wish.</p>

<p>Let's just continue the cycle of the elite. </p>

<p>Diversity is included in everything. Even in academics. </p>

<p>Even the way we've "diversified" academic qualifications by turning to holistic review.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who said the “cycle of the elite” was the alternative to not “implementing” diversity? I think it was you; it was not me.</p>

<p>Diversity is included in everything, especially academics. Is it not appropriate to call Stanford’s myriad major offerings diverse?</p>

<p>Holistic review is nothing new. I dislike how pro-racial preference people often refer to it as if it were a recent phenomenon. It is the descendant of the biased admissions system that the Ivy Leagues developed before World War II to cap Jewish enrollment. What’s new about that or even praiseworthy?</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
Holistic review is nothing new. I dislike how pro-racial preference people often refer to it as if it were a recent phenomenon. It is the descendant of the biased admissions system that the Ivy Leagues developed before World War II to cap Jewish enrollment. What’s new about that or even praiseworthy?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>YES. Thank you. This is exactly the idea behind AA.</p>

<p>Many opponents of affirmative action assume that it's a new innovation that's being used in admissions to benefit unqualified blacks, Latinos, etc. It's not. AA systems have been in place for years, used to ensure the overrepresentation of white students (predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestants) in places of higher education. Thus, white students are more likely to have had college-educated parents, grandparents, and ancestors - giving them distinct socioeconomic advantages - making it easier for them to afford the cost of living in districts with good public schools, or to send their children to elite prep schools - helping them pay for sports, music lessons, and SAT prep classes. They grow up knowing what the academic and extracurricular expectations are, and how to navigate the college admissions system. They are encouraged to view college as an option, sometimes the only option. More than that, they view it as a right. (How many times have you heard someone say, "I can't believe he didn't get into Princeton - he's an xth-generation legacy!") They believe that they will get into college and find a way to pay for it, because of their own qualifications as well as the amount of family and community support to ensure that they do so. This is privilege. Not to say that every white person grows up this way, or that every person who grows up this way is white. But the white community, as a whole, has received this distinct benefit from the admissions policies of the past.</p>

<p>The goal of AA as it's currently used is not to provide an unfair advantage to unqualified candidates. It's to acknowledge that the average white student comes to the admissions process with a distinct advantage over the average student of color, because of generations of institutional policies favoring white people. The idea is to add weight to the other side of the see-saw, so to speak - to provide an equal and opposite force that acknowledges that many students of color aren't coming from the same background, and helps ensure that future generations don't start out with the same disadvantage.</p>

<p>It is a flawed system, relying as it does on averages. But it's certainly better than doing nothing to right the wrongs that result from years of favoritism toward whites.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
The goal of AA as it's currently used is not to provide an unfair advantage to unqualified candidates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So let's say that's its goal. But what is it doing? It's resulting in individuals of certain ethnicities supplanting better-qualified individuals of other ethnicities. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It is a flawed system, relying as it does on averages. But it's certainly better than doing nothing to right the wrongs that result from years of favoritism toward whites.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not that I agree with that (we combat past racism with... racism?) but what about Asians? They're impacted even worse than whites by AA, and there's no wrong to right there, unless we're looking to punish them for their ancestors self-selecting themselves out of their home countries.</p>

79

<p>Fabrizio. I was being facetious with that elite remark. All that's happening now is that admissions review is becoming more holistic. </p>

<p>I'm simply saying, you can't have it both ways. Either applications are reviewed on nothing but merit, and we'll have hundreds of kids from the Northeast and California filling our top schools or we can consider applications as a whole. </p>

<p>Ironically when it was being done to push Jews out of the Ivies, and to allow women some of the advantages usually afforded to males -- there was little uproar. </p>

<p>Easy. That system is being implemented all over the world. There are some advantages to it, but it's not consistently better. It has not been proven to work.</p>

80

<p>What system?</p>