Some people don’t quite seem to “get” this. I do think some of them are people who would like to forget the past, but I think others–perhaps those who are more recent immigrants to this country–don’t really see themselves are responsible for it, and can’t understand why they should have to sacrifice in order to make it right. I guess my answer to that would be that when you choose to immigrate, you have to take the country as it is, including its historical problems. The frustration is understandable, though.</p>
But if that’s one of the goals, not looking bad by having a small black/Hispanic representation at elite schools, then how does affirmative action bode well for the future of this goal? If you lower admissions standards you aren’t inviting increased ambition, which is ultimately what must happen for a representation that is both equal and objective. And that issue, which I believe primarily resides in differences in cultural values and cultural segregation, is something that affirmative action is only exasperating.</p>
<p>This is precisely the starting point for my position. If all men in America are created equal, but only Whites and Asians end up at Harvard, what does that tell us?</p>
<p>Either our country has failed to provide other races with the tools they need, and failed to cultivate in them the desire to attend, or all of those other races just don’t care about Harvard and are not trying.</p>
<p>I am operating from the former position and I do not believe the latter, because the latter position contradicts the premise.</p>
<p>“We are meant to help those disadvantaged, not to help only those that the US disadvantaged”
Ah, but we are discussing US colleges admissions practices, aren’t we. US colleges have no mandate to rectify past discrimination against minorities that occurred in other countries.
Think about this- WHY do you think there was so much emotion in this country anomg blacks about Obama, a black African American, being elected President ? In large part it is because until the very recent past, blacks, no matter how smart they were, were not present on the best “white” college campuses. As Hunt said, those who want to live in this country or go to college in this country need to understand the historical context of racial discrimination that occurred in this country.</p>
<p>The above shows that there is apparently substantial racial bias beyond the application of AA in elite admissions. So the real question is, why the extra prejudice against Asians, which doesn’t seem to be the result of helping the disadvantaged (URM)?</p>
<p>Playing devil’s advocate to my own discussion points, there is no perfect solution to applicant acceptances. Is it acceptable for me that the idea of balance is important and not fully achieveable? Yes. Do I understand that there is both a positive and healthy aspect to diversity beyond the political? Yes. </p>
<p>Do I understand how (in the long term) getting some jocks on campus could ultimately help and improve the academic achievements of the school and its students? Yes. So am I fine with that? Yes. So, how is aiding one group permissible to me yet I have a problem with the topic at hand? To me it’s about holding one group back because of their success. That’s the fundamental difference as well as I can think to state it. The recruited athlete is being rewarded (in a way) for his hard work and success. Conversely, Asian applicants are being handicapped saying (virtually) ‘be better than other Asian candidates because we are only going to take a certain number of you.’ </p>
<p>Having said that does this mean that accepting all Asian candidates that out-perform other applicants is the way to go? No but eventually it should move that way - so that people are treated as people and not by their national origin.</p>
<p>“So the real question is, why the extra prejudice against Asians, which doesn’t seem to be the result of helping the disadvantaged (URM)?”</p>
<p>If a pie has to be sliced up in some manner- in this case to compensate for past discrimination against under represented minorities in this country, then those who are not URM’s are going to get a smaller portion that they want or think they deserve.</p>
<p>^ You are still missing the point. According to the data in my earlier message #966, the lion’s share of discrimination against Asians (15.1- 2.2= 12.9 %), occurs <em>beyond</em> applying AA in elite admissions. So merely repeating your historical argument is moot, because that is already taken care of with the application of AA.</p>
See, here again, you don’t really get this. It’s not about looking bad, it’s about actually being bad for our country–and especially for URMs–if there are essentially no URMs at the top schools. A lot of people–me included–think that the admission of those URMs into those schools is an important investment for the future–they will have access to the advantages that diplomas from those schools grant, and their kids are more likely to be able to succeed without any help. </p>
<p>
As I’ve said before, this disparate result doesn’t necessarily show bias. Racial bias is one hypothesis, but there are others that could explain at least part of the disparity.</p>
<p>““As I’ve said before, this disparate result doesn’t necessarily show bias. Racial bias is one hypothesis, but there are others that could explain at least part of the disparity.””</p>
<p>So denial is a more politically-correct viewpoint? Nevermind. :-)</p>
<p>Why is it denial for me to say that there are several hypotheses that can explain a result, and not denial for you to say that there’s only one? I notice that nobody has answered my question of what makes them think schools are racially biased against Asians, aside from the disparity itself. Wait, monstor did answer–but he or she said it was part of a bigger scheme to preserve dominant power.</p>
<p>^ It is denial for you not taking the data as it is ----- a substantial racial bias against Asians in elite admissions. It is another matter how you want to explain or justify the data.</p>
<p>It shows NO difference between the % of Asians admitted under two conditions-
Current policy- affirmative action with and achievement gap versus NO affirmative action and no achievement gap.
Hmmmmm…
Or as the old lady in the hamburger commercials used to say- “where’s the beef”?</p>
<h1>974, ““how about you look at the chart on page 10.””</h1>
<p>Your chart is apparently on Page 30, Table 9.8. The sample is different there. It is a combination of private and public institutions. What we were talking about in Table 9.1 instead, referred to discrimination against Asians in <em>private</em> elite admissions.</p>
<p>This is a thoughtful and valid rationale for supporting affirmative action. I hope you don’t mind if I give my own personal opinion/counterargument: Though I haven’t the benefit of decades of life experience, I have immersed myself in the anti-racism activism sphere as a whole (not just affirmative action) and most of my friends from that sphere believe the same as you—“inclusion and symbolism matter in the U.S. in order for everyone to feel validated as equal citizens.” And yet, a niggling question remains in my mind. Elite college admissions is a zero-sum game. How can everyone feel validated as equal citizens if some of those citizens are being discriminated against? If Joe/Jill Smith and James/Jane Chang don’t get into Harvard only because they are the “wrong” race, then that is racial discrimination, and I find that I cannot morally support racial discrimination on any grounds. Does the benefit to society of a high-SES black/Hispanic student being admitted over those who are otherwise holistically more qualified (i.e. the “different” admits in race-blind vs. race-sensitive scenarios) outweigh the benefit of an egalitarian society free from discrimination? My answer to that question is a firm “NO.”</p>
<p>
You describe the de facto rationale behind AA quite admirably. Unfortunately, I must disagree with your assertion that “there is an incorrect amount” of representation. Just as there is no “correct” representation, there also is no “incorrect” representation. If no black students next year are holistically most qualified—competing among students of all races—for admission to Harvard, then no black students should be admitted. In reality, I doubt this would ever happen because black people are not stupid (or even necessarily disadvantaged) by virtue of being black. But if the representation drops to 4% instead of 6%, to make up some numbers? If the college is dissatisfied with this representation, they should try to find more top-qualified candidates who happen to be black, rather than admitting lesser-qualified candidates. (And as I have said before, there is evidence that such granular distinctions in “qualification” can be and is made at the elite level.)</p>
<p>Menloparkmom – You seem to have trouble distinguishing between under/overrepresentation and discrimination. One is not correlated with the other. If you want to look at UCB, look at the Asian percentages before and after racial affirmative action was prohibited there.</p>
<p>
This is also a correct assessment of my views, with the usual addition of non-discriminatory holistic measures of qualification.</p>
<p>
Yes, it is irrelevant IMO. Arguably Asian students succeeded where blacks and Hispanics did not due to cultural differences, certainly not to different degrees of discrimination or racism.</p>
<p>“Asian students succeeded where blacks and Hispanics did not due to cultural differences, certainly not to different degrees of discrimination or racism”
Spoken like someone who has not lived in the US for 50+ years and hasn’t seen or experienced real racial discrimination…</p>
<p>Here are some “data” I mined on one of the topics we’ve been discussing. I recognize that these data have all sorts of issues. I looked here on CC at two threads: the Yale SCEA and RD results threads. I looked at students who identified their intended majors and their ethnicity. I did not include those deferred SCEA, because I didn’t want to double count them (and it was too much work to see if they were in the RD thread). Here’s what I found:
White students identifying math/science major
applied/admitted: 14/7
Asian students identifying math/science major
applied/admitted: 17/8
URMs identifying math/science major
applied/admitted: 7/7
White students with other majors
applied/admitted: 25/13
Asian students with other majors
applied/admitted: 17/17
URM students with other majors
applied/admitted: 8/5
Where two majors were identified, I counted it as math/science if one of them was math/science.
I counted anthro, soc, archeology, psych and history of science as other.</p>
<p>While it’s a pretty small sample, what do you notice?</p>