<p>
Who’s implying? Black Americans suffered far more than any other minority group in this country. To think otherwise is simply ahistorical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really hate to argue sob stories over who got screwed over more, but Native American’s definitely got it way worse.</p>
<p>Good point. I wasn’t really thinking of them. I’m not sure they had it worse, overall, than black people, but both were treated abominably.</p>
<p>And Native Americans also receive a “thumb on the scales” in college admissions, comparable to blacks, because of the treatment their ancestors received at the hands of whites.</p>
<p>This thread isn’t about affirmative action. Even though I’m against it, it can still exist without negative action. Who would’ve thought about that.</p>
<p>And so African Americans and “Native Americans” go “way” back…</p>
<p>
This thread has been about both affirmative action and negative action…it has been a problem to be clear about which was being discussed.
Well, sure they do. The practices that harmed them went on for centuries, and the consequences were horrendous.</p>
<p>As much is it makes sense to some of us, (and someone else also pointed this out earlier in this thread), the U.S. Supreme Ct addressed and specifically concluded that reparations for historical injustice is not a legal basis for using race as a factor in admissions. The only legally supported basis is the state’s compelling interest in creating a racially diverse student body.</p>
<p>"The only legally supported basis is the state’s compelling interest in creating a racially diverse student body. "
And the admissions offices at private colleges have the flexibility to decide what a “racially diverse” student body will look like at their school. No matter how they decide to select each class, someone will be disappointed.</p>
<p>menloparkmom - So what’s the difference between a low-income Mexican immigrant’s child (US-born, so a US citizen) and a low-income Asian immigrant’s child? You can substitute African immigrant for the former if you like.</p>
<p>Also, each admissions office has the flexibility to define a “racially diverse” student body–however, they do NOT have the flexibility to decide HOW to achieve said student body. For example, quotas are strictly prohibited.</p>
<p>Disappointment, of course, has no correlation with discrimination. Neither does representation vis-a-vis national population.</p>
<p>Hunt, what are you defining as a “black American”? African-Americans are, by definition, people of black African descent who are also American citizens (or eligible non-citizens, i.e. permanent residents and possibly refugees). NOT all of these people were descended from slaves; they could easily be descended from an African immigrant a few generations back, even if not recent. How do you qualify such a thing?</p>
<p>It also makes no sense to “tax” people–i.e. Asians–whose ancestors did not perpetuate institutional racism. Why should recent minority immigrants be automatically lumped in with the dominant racial group, when in life aside from college admissions they still suffer from contemporary racism? (Please, please don’t argue that modern-day African-Americans somehow suffer “more” than modern-day Asians. Substitute any non-white ethnicities you like in that statement. Because different types of racism are not, will never be comparable.)</p>
<p>The difference, as has been pointed out numerous times, is in the definition of what constitutes an UNDER Represented Minority. Asians are not UNDER represented either in applicant pools or the general college population at the elite colleges, relative to their population in the US, and Mexican Americans are.</p>
<p>^Did you miss my statement above, substantiated by previous discussion in this thread (and a point conceded by some proponents of affirmative action) that the concept of a “right” or “proper” representation is flawed? If more Asians are truly better-qualified, then more should be admitted–with no cap on how high that percentage can go. </p>
<p>You are also using a “bait-and-switch” argument. (Forgive me, I haven’t taken logic either, so I’m making up the fallacy names as I go.) With regard to reparations for historical injustice, how have Hispanics suffered more than Asians? IIRC both groups are recent immigrants to America, demographically.</p>
<p>You can, of course, legitimately debate whether more Asians are truly better-qualified. Hunt, in particular, has been an lively opponent on this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lots of people would agree with you (including, I’m sure, some supporters of AA) if the conditional in that sentence were substantiated. The problem is, that is the entire crux of the issue: there is no existing substantiation that “truly better-qualified” Asians are being denied in greater proportion than other equally qualified students of other backgrounds – or for that matter, that “truly better-qualified” are being denied at all. That is the point I made earlier, and it is a point siserune has made. The qualification factor is decided by those in possession of all the applications and relevant documents with those applications, so that comparisons can be made. Nobody on this thread has such information. No one.</p>
<p>All that is known is that hundreds of well-qualified students of both Asian backgrounds and white backgrounds are denied admission to Elites every year, due to inability to contain them all. And siserune’s analysis of the favoritism or advantage factor for Asians is compelling, given my reading over the last 7 years minimum.</p>
<p>You have no problem with caps on white representation (when there clearly is), only with caps on Asian representation.</p>
<p>“If more Asians are truly better-qualified, then more should be admitted–with no cap on how high that percentage can go”
That is your opinion, and others do have different opinions regarding the “ideal or fair” makeup of elite US college populations.
“how have Hispanics suffered more than Asians”
Have you ever hear of the term “wetbacks”? Have you hear of the United Farm Workers or Cesar Chavez?
Poor, uneducated illegal Mexican Americans constituted the bulk of the original “Hispanic” immigrants to this country. Originally, most Mexican-Americans immigrants worked illegally in this country as migrant farm workers, bussed from field to field to pick the crops, because that was the only work available to them- doing dirty, back breaking work that no one else wanted. This went on for decades. They were housed in shacks under awful conditions, paid only what the “bosses” could get away with, their children often forced to work in the fields alongside them instead of going to school, because they weren’t here legally. They were little more than low paid slaves. Most “Hispanics” did not or could not qualify to come into this country legally through US Customs, as most Asians could, because they either lacked jobs waiting for them, because they were uneducated and / or they lacked legal sponsors/ family who were prepared to take them in and be financially responsible for them. Most Hispanics began their lives in the US at a distinct disadvantage compared to most Asian immigrants, in great part because most were illegal immigrants- and were “invisible” to many in this country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let us revisit the evidence:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite the nuanced arguments you are using here, is it?
Of course you did what I “accuse” you of.</p>
<p>I find your response to my observations interesting too. The initial response was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I notice the “disparity”, without even looking at the previous thread. Then, on second thought, you decided it a better strategy to take the offensive and to deny, deny, and deny:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Notice the backpedaling (“cheat”, “falsify”, and “issue fake IDs” suddenly become “should be investigated”, “suspicion of the actions of”, and “criticism” )? This was then followed by a quick change of topic or other diversionary tactics. When that doesn’t work, you resort to relativism and counterattack. What happen to the “cheat”, “falsify”, and “issue fake IDs” of the other thread?</p>
<p>Isn’t history grand?</p>
<p>Just admit it. You think the Chinese government cheated because they are Asian, and the elites can’t possibly do such a naughty thing because they are, well, not Asian. Right?;)</p>
<p>Canuckguy, your selective quoting of my posts in the other thread is reprehensible. Either your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said in the other thread. I guess you think others won’t bother to read it.</p>
<p>menloparkmom, why should the well-off kids of professional Latino or African immigrants be granted the same advantages as the kids of slaves and poor illegal immigrants? Because I don’t see you complaining that colleges treat them equally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just like last time, this you refers to someone else, but I want to take this opportunity to make my position clear: I would have a problem if the “representation” of any racial classification were capped.</p>
<p>I challenge my fellow users who are on the other side of the discussion to say the same. Can you?</p>
<p>epiphany - As I’ve said time and time again, “better-qualified” is not just “whomever the adcom likes best out of the qualified pool.” It is whomever is best-qualified out of that pool, based on holistic evaluation (minus legally protected attributes), until all of the spots are filled. The adcom must have a standardized method for deciding who is “best”-qualified, though of course they do not need to release the method. Hernandez gives us a peek into one school’s method; similarly, Steinberg gives us a peek into another school’s method. But one thing is common: many more judgments are made beyond “qualified.”</p>
<p>Can you quote siserune’s analysis of Asian “favoritism”? I don’t recall it.</p>
<p>
Now, this is interesting. How do you “clearly” know that caps on white representation exist? And on what basis do you claim that I “have no problem” with it? Like fabrizio, I support race-neutral admissions in principle; if whites are also being discriminated against, I want to change that.</p>
<p>meloparkmom, I again redirect you to the previous posts in this thread re: the fallacy of proper representation. Wrt Hispanics vs. Asians (how I wince at such a comparison, because it only divides us), I am perfectly aware of Hispanic discrimination; however, you are not aware of Asian discrimination. Cf. Chinese Exclusion Act and the many, many illegal Asian immigrants today. I do not live in an Asian-concentrated area, and yet I/my parents are acquainted with numerous illegal immigrants. I’m sure the number skyrockets in places like Chinatown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you implying or stating that such (sentence one) is my own understanding of how qualifications are determined? This is such a straw man created from your own imagination, if that is your belief. Really, you act as if no one here knows anything about how such decisions are determined, and why they are. You’re not “informing” me of anything here, as if you’re the only one who has done any reading, for heaven’s sake. You seem to think that either the committees regularly and casually engage in a subjectivity-first assessment of candidates, or that I’m advocating that. They have plentiful objective material, first of all, with which to winnow candidates. The committee comes to the final round with an excess of riches among those finalists after determining (among non-URM’s) who is objectively the most viable.</p>
<p>Since there are so many objective ties and virtual ties among the finalists, subjective evaluations are then an additional factor coming into play. </p>
<p>You are also arguing from results to assumptions: Not every objectively qualified Asian is admitted; therefore (your implication is), decisions must be based not on qualifications. Except that this is also true of whites: not every objectively qualified Anglo Caucasian is admitted, either, and there are far more of them rejected, while easily just as many qualified Anglos apply, according to statements and literature emanating from college administrators/reps.</p>
<p>Newsflash: This is called (results in) a “cap”: for both groups.</p>