I’m both a legal realist and a cynic, so I think that conservative judges might come out differently when evaluating a practice that appears to benefit white students to the detriment of Asians. In the real case, there probably won’t be “overt discrimination.” Rather, there will be language about holistic admissions and diversity, but an arguable discriminatory effect. If there is a smoking gun, it will be a vague one, like: “We seek to enroll a class of students reflecting the broad diversity of American society.”
What the conservatives will do, if they want to let the practice go on, is say that it’s not for the courts to second-guess the efforts of the schools to build diverse entering classes, as long as they don’t use racial quotas (or something like that). Presumably, no school will be dumb enough to use the phrase “racial balance.”</p>
<p>Fab, Lei, Canuck and Monster: I really enjoy your arguements here. However, the most effective way to end discrimination and to create a race blind and just society of America is to create a political movement just as Martin Luther King did 40 years ago. Debating the bigots here would not advance your cause.</p>
I think it’s great that young people today think that “bigotry” is what results in Asians having less spots at top colleges than their stats might suggest they have–while still having more spots than their representation in the population. It’s great because it means that the young may not understand what bigotry really is.</p>
<p>^ That could be the result of bigotry in the same way that a rather comparable situation for Jewish people two generations ago was the result of bigotry. What’s going on in the particular case of one college may differ from what’s going on at another college, but to say that there is no bigotry at all at any college just because there appears to be “overrepresentation” from the national point of view buys too much into the idea that each group has its own inherently correct number of people on campus. Why? </p>
<p>If you review the case law, you will find explanations given by the elites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I believe in the value of racial diversity because I have lived several more decades than you. I used to feel the same way as you do when I was in the thick of the application process. With the benefit of my life experience, I have reversed my position. Now I think it is vitally important for all races (and genders) to be included at all-levels of our society, especially at the elite levels, because inclusion and symbolism matter in the U.S. in order for everyone to feel validated as equal citizens.</p>
<p>If Joe/Jill Smith and James/Jane Chang don’t get into Harvard only because they are the “wrong” race, then they are incredibly amazing accomplished people who will succeed regardless, and I do not worry about them.</p>
<p>If a Black man and a Hispanic woman get into Harvard over others with higher test scores because of their race, I am fine with this because it benefits the entire country in the big picture and in the long run. (Regardless of their SES). </p>
<p>[This is just my opinion and it is irrelevant to this discussion. I gave it only because you asked.]</p>
<p>Great post Bay. You know, a lot of this anger(about 62 pages worth) is 90% applicants who are angry because there is a system in place that may give them a disadvantage. In their bitter anger, they can’t, nay refuse, to see the impacts you have outlined. Also, onto monstor’s point, how is discrimination to keep a set ratio of men and women any different than to keep a set ratio of different ethnicities and backgrounds? Both are highly valued in the U.S, and in order to make their campus more valuable, elites try to echo this. And yes tokenadult, while there is no correct “set amount” of any individual group that should be on campus, but there is an incorrect amount, and that’s why this process exists. To make sure some are not grossly over-represented while others are under-represented. Does it help everyone get into elite colleges? No. Does it help America as a whole in the end? Most definitely. And anyone who argues this clearly has a lot to learn about real life, not college life, real life.</p>
To me, for something to really be bigotry, there must be an element of animus. There was certainly anti-Jewish animus in the admission practices of the elites in past decades. Maybe I’m a pollyanna (albeit a cynic at the same time), but I just don’t see an anti-Asian animus in our culture that is anything like the anti-Semitism of the past. I haven’t seen evidence, for example of whites wanting to exclude Asians from country clubs, or wanting to prevent their children from dating or marrying them, etc. Maybe these sorts of things are happening; I just haven’t seen them happening around here. I certainly have seen stereotyping of Asians as education-obsessessed strivers.</p>
<p>But I think that the thought process that might be leading schools to prevent there being “too many Asians” (if it’s happening) has nothing to do with whether adcoms like Asians or not; it has more to do with an idea that the school should, more or less, reflect the makeup of society. Yeah, yeah, I know that “racial balance” is unconstitutional, but is an idea that there should be racial balance really bigotry? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Since our Supreme Court has long deemed quotas (i.e. ensured “inclusion”) to be unconstitutional, there is a certain irony in setting forth an argument that in effect declares racial preferences to be “American.”</p>
<p>As for “symbolism matter[ing],” my goodness, are you “validat[ing]” the practice of tokenism?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it really benefit the entire country “in the big picture and in the long run”? I once again point out the experiences of Malaysia and neighboring Singapore. Malaysia has employed affirmative action since the 1970s; Singapore has never employed affirmative action. Racial tensions range from moderate to high in Malaysia; they are virtually nonexistent in Singapore. The nominal GDP of Malaysia is greater than that of Singapore by only $40 billion despite Malaysia’s being a much, much larger country in size and population; thus, the nominal GDP per capita of Singapore is much, much larger than it is in Malaysia.</p>
<p>Now, with respect to affirmative action, is it merely associated with Malaysia’s comparatively lackluster economic performance? Or was it a cause?</p>
<p>I feel I must note that apparently it isn’t “bigotry” to think that the elite colleges should stop admitting all those underqualified black and Hispanic students.</p>
<p>It may not be bigotry, but I agree with tokenadult that such an idea proposes that “each group has its own inherently correct number of people on campus.” I disagree with such a notion. As evidenced by my disdain for the “critical mass” theory, I don’t believe that there is a “correct” number of X racial classification.</p>
<p>I admire the ideal, it’s the reality that is unfair. I have no problem that a college gives an advantage to minority groups in their student body. What I DO have a problem with is when one minority group is handicapped with a heavier saddle so that other minority groups get more applicants in. </p>
<p>Why should a disadvantaged Asian kid whose parents came to this country with little more than the shirts on their back be passed over for another minority candidate with lower qualifications? Where is basic fairness? Where is rewarding hard work? </p>
<p>If some minority groups achieve more than others do, should they be rewarded or passed over?</p>
<p>Sigh. Are you really trying to argue that inclusion is the same as quotas? Quotas are numerically defined diversity goals. (I feel like we are going back to diversity 101, here, fab.) If you are basing your argument on what our Supreme Court “has long deemed,” then Affirmative Action is most definitely “American.” Hello Bakke, Grutter and Gratz.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tokenism would be the practice of including someone in order to present a facade of diversity. I’m talking about including all races because you genuinely want them there. Having them present helps you achieve your mission. There is a difference.</p>
<p>fab, your habit of twisting others’ posts to say what you want them to say is getting tiresome.</p>
<p>What’s “inclusion” then? If you argue that it is “vitally important” for all races to be “included,” are you not “assur[ing]…some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin…”? Is that not the very practice that Justice Powell proscribed in Bakke?</p>
<p>I’m just pointing out how funny invoking a patriotic argument for “inclusion” is when the Supreme Court has long ruled against quotas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Genuinely? Did you not say that “symbolism matter[s]”? Which is it? I’m reminded of Martin Sheen’s line in The Departed: do you want real diversity (“genuinely”) or do you want to appear to have real diversity (“symbolism matter[s]”)?</p>
<p>I reinvoke Matthew 7:3. People who claim that their opponents support “GPA/SAT only” admissions should look within before asserting that others twist their words.</p>
True, you’re only arguing for kicking out the ones that don’t measure up to your standards–even if that means kicking them all out.</p>
<p>
This is the question that gets asked on these boards again and again, and almost always by Asian students. It’s based on an idea that admission to the top colleges is “earned” by achievement and hard work. And generally those making this argument are most comfortable with quantifiable measures of achievement. But that isn’t what the top colleges do (especially the private ones). It’s not even what they say they do. They compromise grades and scores to get all kinds of other characteristics, including gender balance, geographical diversity, diversity of academic interests, athletics, and more. In all those cases, a person who “achieved more” and “worked harder” can be passed over in favor of somebody who has some other characteristic the school wants. In the case of URMs, the school wants ethnic diversity, and it most likely also wants to provide opportunity to people who have been historically disadvantaged. It’s obvious that the schools manipulate their acceptances to achieve all these things. Do they also manipulate their acceptances to ensure that they don’t have “too many Asians,” or is that simply a side-effect of the other manipulations? I don’t know. But my point is that the system isn’t a meritocracy based on simply quantifiable achievements.</p>
<p>By the way, the quote in 932 wasn’t from me, although I basically agree with it.</p>
<p>“Why should a disadvantaged Asian kid whose parents came to this country with little more than the shirts on their back be passed over for another minority candidate with lower qualifications? Where is basic fairness? Where is rewarding hard work?”
The reason colleges today “put a thumb on the scale” for blacks and Hispanics today is because their parents, grandparents, and ancestors who were born and raised in this country going back hundreds of years, were blatantly discriminated against , solely because of their race, by the gatekeepers of higher education and not even considered for admission to “white” colleges in this country. Try watching the Great Debaters" to get an idea of what even the smartest black students in this country went through in the middle of the last century. Regardless of their gifts, they were delegated to “black only” colleges. That is not the case for Asian students, especially those whose parents are recent immigrants to this country.</p>
<p>Double sigh. No. I did not say this nor have I ever said this. I am fully aware of the Bakke decision. I see that it is impossible for you to visualize “inclusion” without defined numerical quotas. I don’t think I can help you with this.</p>
<p>I think there is a misunderstanding here of what the Supreme Court often does. Some of its decisions are really compromises (or polite fictions, if you prefer). Thus, on affirmative action, the court says that it’s OK to take race into account in order to generate diversity, but not if it’s a quota. Nobody is really fooled by this–what it means is that it’s basically OK to make sure that you have some unspecified critical mass of minority students, as long as you’re not too explicit about how you’re going about it. It’s pointless to drill down on this too much, because there isn’t some rock-solid principle underneath these decisions.</p>