<p>It may be that you hang around with different people from the people with whom I hang around. I hope that all forms of ethnic animus are less intense than they once were </p>
<p>and that the days of that kind evil conduct in the past are gone. In general, I agree with policies of inclusion and equal opportunity precisely because they allow all of us to meet many kinds of people whom we might not have met in earlier periods of United States history. (Chinese immigration was severely restricted in number into my lifetime.) Anyway, whatever you see where you live, and whatever I see where I live, don’t surely indicate what happens in college admission offices. But there may be, and I say this on the basis of actual publications, ways to do statistical studies </p>
<p>that result from scholars or journalists having some access to college admission office files and procedures not usually granted to the general public while still maintaining the confidentiality of individual applicants. In the toughest and most doubtful cases, perhaps only complaints to the federal Department of Education Office of Civil Rights </p>
<p>If I believe that “my” standards should apply to students of all racial classifications, is it “bigotry” to argue for “kicking out the ones from any classification that don’t measure up”?</p>
<p>I’m not saying that admissions should be purely based on GPA and SAT. I’m for numerous subjective criteria, just not racial classification. If race-neutral admissions resulted in fewer admitted Asians and more “underrepresented” admits, you better believe I’d still support it. Yea, I’d support it even if it resulted in “kicking [Asians] all out.”</p>
<p>This is why the supporters of race-neutral admissions are destined to win and the opponents doomed to fail. The supporters can accept all outcomes, but the opponents can accept only some outcomes.</p>
<p>The “historically disadvantaged” argument is as unconstitutional as the “racial balance” rationale. As Justice Powell wrote, We have never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations.</p>
<p>There is only one acceptable argument for affirmative action: “the attainment of a diverse student body.” I point out once more that despite being over a quarter century old, Bakke’s proscriptions still go unheeded.</p>
<p>“I’m not saying that admissions should be purely based on GPA and SAT. I’m for numerous subjective criteria, just not racial classification.”
Asians have not historically been racially discriminated against with regards to college admissions in this country. That is the 'WRONG" that is colleges are trying to rectify. No matter how you try to twist the reasoning, this is the basis for treating native born black and hispanic students differently than Asian students. The long past history of injustice and racial discrimination toward these minorities in this country is the reason they are treated differently.</p>
Pardon my skepticism that most people who have the same opinion hold it in such a pure fashion as you. But I believe you–it explains why you feel you must so strenously resist any suggestion that current disparities in white and Asian admissions might be due to something other than ethnic balancing.</p>
<p>I doubt that you really mean to suggest that Asians weren’t blatantly discriminated against in admissions in the middle of the last century. </p>
<p>That any group of Asian origin weren’t a large enough population for long enough in the U.S. to support predominately Asian colleges in the United States should hardly be a check mark against them.</p>
<p>I’m sure people don’t want to debate the old ‘psychological and culturally wounded/impaired’ argument and neither do I. We can all have a viewpoint as to how long wounds need to be licked. However, just an open question, is the ‘sins of the father’ argument valid over another discriminated minority group? Should a minority candidate be cast aside for another minority candidate because of what happened to that minority group’s great-grandfathers? </p>
<p>Should a minority candidate be at a disadvantage over another minority candidate because he or she is the last arriving to this country?</p>
<p>I am twisting nothing. The “histor[ical]…injustice and racial discrimination” argument is not constitutional.</p>
<p>As I wrote in the post directly above yours, *We<a href=“The%20Supreme%20Court”>/i</a> have never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations.</p>
What about all men being created equal, judged by content of character not skin, etc? Without affirmative action, we still remain inclusive. We hold consistent standards that eliminate any consideration of race, and hence there is no exclusion. If by inclusion you mean a forced equal distribution of races, however, then you are not truly being objective and, in a sense, not inclusive. First, you are enforcing the notion that men should be divided by race, a phenomena that is single-handedly responsible for racism, and yet continues to pervade society. Also, with forced inclusion, you are not just favoring blacks/Hispanics over Asians/whites; you are favoring individuals over individuals, and for a nation that once prided itself on being the land of equal opportunity, this is simply hypocritical.</p>
<p>
But it is not necessarily the success that is the issue at hand; it is that they are being discriminated against by a federally-funded institution, one which is legally obligated to neglect racial considerations for admission.</p>
<p>
Are you so sure about that? It might be good for the purpose of encouraging future black/Hispanic applicants, but ask: why does it encourage them? Because they, along with society altogether, still sees people in terms of their ethnicity and not the content of their character. What happened to the ultimate goal of eventually neglecting the boundaries of race altogether? I have long stated that I have no personal stake in this issue, but as someone who is multiracial, it disheartens me to see that affirmative action is only further limiting the way we continue to systematically categorize people.
Not really. It is actually very relevant because it’s important to ask what legitimizes affirmative action. Thanks for responding though.</p>
That’s what they say, sure, but come on–that’s exactly what they approved in Bakke, and everybody knows it. They just gave the signal that you have to use the codeword of diversity if you want to do this. This is what the Supreme Court often does–reach a compromise decision, and then provide principles that supposedly support the result. When a new case comes along where a different result is called for, the principle will be “refined.” It’s not pretty, but it’s the way it works.</p>
<p>I would just like to reiterate that I think the question of affirmative action for URMs is a different issue from that of “negative action” against Asians–and that the arguments in favor of the former do not really apply to the latter. But let me follow this up with a question: do folks here think that the disparity in admissions of Asians at top schools is, in fact, based on prejudice or bigotry against Asians? If so, what is your basis for thinking that, other than the disparity itself?</p>
<p>Edited to add the following:
All that sounds great, but a lot of people can’t get over the feeling that it would be a bad thing if there were only a tiny number of black and Hispanic students at the top colleges. People with some understanding of the history of the U.S. know why this would be a bad thing. So, the Supreme Court tweaked the principles so that wouldn’t have to happen. Now, there may be people who think it would be a bad thing for Harvard to be 50% Asian, and maybe that’s behind the fact that it isn’t 50% Asian. I don’t know. But that’s a very different issue.</p>
I think what menloparkmom was trying to say was that Asian struggle and discrimination hasn’t been glorified by the media/news/schools etc, and so there is no political obligation to reconcile Asians.</p>
I don’t think adcoms are racist; I do think however that they have a role to play in a larger political agenda. Though these schools as elite havens and above typical American politics they are still very much controlled by how society as a whole runs, how media acts, etc.</p>
<p>Do some research. Take a look at the % of Asians admitted to colleges in the last 25 years and compare that to the % of Asians in the general population in the US. Asians as a whole are overrepresented percentage wise in college populations in comparison to the general population and compared to blacks and hispanics .</p>
<p>‘I think what menloparkmom was trying to say was that Asian struggle and discrimination hasn’t been glorified by the media/news/schools etc, and so there is no political obligation to reconcile Asians.’
No, what I’m saying is simply the Asian population is over represented in the college population compared to other minorities in this country. As far a colleges are concerned, Asians as a minority have NOT been discriminated against in the college admission process. Take a look at the % of Asians at UCB compared to the population of Asians and other minorities and whites in Calif if you want an example.</p>
<p>One more thing: even if there are people who think it would be a bad thing for Harvard to be 50% Asian, I think it matters why they think that would be a bad thing. YMMV.</p>
In fairness, I think the complaint fabrizio and others are making is that the degree of representation shouldn’t matter–that admission should be based on qualifications. Asians are overrepresented (this argument goes) because of their superior qualifications, and there would be even more of them admitted if their qualifications weren’t discounted.</p>
<p>“I think the complaint fabrizio and others are making is that the degree of representation shouldn’t matter”
So the fact that qualified Blacks and Hispanics were historically shut out of higher education opportunities, solely because they were the wrong color, is irrelevant today? Others want to forget the past, and the ugly consequences of racial discrimination that permeated this country and focus only on the present. URM stands for Under Represented Minority. So fine. Asians have no claim that they are an underrepresented minority in college populations today . The same cannot be said for blacks and hispanics.</p>
<p>Thank you. This is indeed a correct assessment of my view.</p>
<p>I add only that to me, qualifications can include subjective criteria; they should not be limited merely to quantitative factors.</p>
<p>The argument is that yes, the degree of representation does not disprove any discrimination, and there could be even more Asians than there currently if their qualifications weren’t discounted (i.e. “negative” action). As Espenshade’s presentation in the opening post shows, under a race-neutral admissions simulation, Asian enrollment increases by over 15 percentage points. As I wrote a few posts back, though, I would support race-neutral admissions even if it resulted in Asian enrollment decreasing.</p>
<p>Whether you consider it relevant is your personal choice. Simply be advised that the Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional to offer the “injustice” rationale as a defense for affirmative action.</p>
Yes and no. African-Americans that have found their way up already do not need the extra leg up. African-Americans that are in the lower socioeconomic tiers deserve a boost, but so do the other ethnic groups living in the same tier. We are meant to help those disadvantaged, not to help only those that the US disadvantaged (and in turn help some that aren’t disadvantaged at all).</p>