No, I don’t feel a twinge over Brandeis, any more than I would if you went out and founded a university that wouldn’t discriminate against Asians. That’s not what you’re suggesting, though. If you can’t see the atmospherics of this, I don’t know what else to tell you.</p>
<p>
Since I think that the current levels of African-American enrollment at elites are already pretty low, even with a stats boost, I don’t think the values will change enough for me to agree with you that the result is “enough” African-Americans.</p>
<p>
On the first point, I’m not convinced this is factually true, and I still think there is a benefit in boosting URM enrollment at the most elite schools, even if those kids would be able to get into good schools. On the second point, I tend to agree with you. How much of a factor is this, really, with African-Americans? I don’t know enough about Hispanics and URM preference for Hispanics to opine on that aspect of this.</p>
<p>
Of course, none of us now were slaveowners. But who are the heirs of the benefits of the unequal system? In my opinion, it’s everybody who isn’t black, including later immigrants.</p>
<p>The problem is that in all likelihood, the college didn’t choose to privilege a poor black student from the ghetto, as you described. Rather, they chose to privilege a “black, upper-middle-class Protestant” student who could have lived right next door to you.</p>
<p>You don’t need to apologize for anything. You can possess your perverse form of social justice and continue to argue for punishing people who perpetrated no crime. I don’t want my sense of justice tainted by yours, thank you very much.</p>
<p>As for your last sentence, <em>sigh</em>. How many times do I have to repeat my view that as I see it, under holistic admissions, subjective criteria can “override” objective criteria? I’ll stop trying now as it seems that no matter how often I write that, you invariably gloss over it.</p>
<p>And, as for Asian values, don’t you mean international values? Like I said, we’re the only country in the world that cares about things other than objective criteria. Even our northern neighbor doesn’t do it our way, much less the United Kingdom or France.</p>
<p>Why don’t you feel a “certain twinge” toward the founders of Brandeis? Did they not found their university out of a belief that they had been discriminated against? Clearly they were dissatisfied at 15%, were they not? What’s the difference here? I don’t see “the atmospherics of this.”</p>
<p>So you do agree with me that the values will change, but you’re uncertain as to how much they’ll change? Fair enough, I can take that.</p>
<p>Fab,
As a U.S. citizen, you are not just an individual “who perpetuated no crime,” you are also a member of society as a whole - part of the “we” who are responsible for everyone among us, not just ourselves. “We” are expected to make sacrifices (and some of us actually want to make these sacrifices) in order to benefit the whole of society. That is the rationale behind racial preferences.</p>
<p>As one who holds Rothbardian sympathies, I would counter by pointing out that society is nothing but an aggregation of individuals, and it should never be referred to as one unit (ie. ‘We’ are expected to make sacrifices…in order to benefit the whole…)</p>
<p>If you want to make these sacrifices, feel free! Again, my Rothbardian sympathies dictate that I should not oppose you in achieving this if it is what you desire. I ask only that you don’t expect or force me to stand by you in making this sacrifice.</p>
<p>re# 1285 Fortunately there are many other individuals in this society than can see beyond a narrow minded “me first” perspective.
What is it with you? You remind me of a immature child throwing a tantrum with your “I want what I want because I want it!!” attitude. Sorry sonny, no you can’t have more candy.
Read what Pizzagirl said in post #1279 again and again. Maybe someday some of it will sink in.</p>
<p>And how you can compare the Jewish situation, in which there was overt discrimination AGAINST a group, to the situation now is beyond me. No one is overtly discriminating against Asians; they are giving thumbs on the scale to other groups which wind up reducing the spots for all who aren’t members of that group.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting piece with some history on the admission of Jews to selective schools: [Jewish</a> Achievement](<a href=“http://www.jewishachievement.com/domains/edu.html]Jewish”>Jewish Achievement)
When it came out that the President of Harvard wanted to impose a specific quota on Jews of 15%, Jews complained, and the schools turned to more oblique methods. Do I think Jews were wrong to complain–would I have felt a “twinge?” Maybe, but there were some key differences–first, the proposal was a blatant quota, and it was pretty clear that the reason for the limitation was animus against Jews–the fear that they would “ruin” Harvard. The absence of any clear “smoking gun” with respect to Asians makes the atmospherics different. To make yourself clear, and to avoid the appearance of whining, you need to make it clear that you’re not just saying that it’s unfair that U.S. universities look at factors other than stats (and I know you’ve said this, fabrizio–by “you” I don’t mean just you). If, in fact, universities are limiting the number of Asians vis-a-vis whites just because they are Asians, that’s a valid complaint. But the atmospherics also shift when you add in complaints about advantages given to URMs.</p>
<p>What is it with me? Interesting question, as it shows the true colors: diversity is only a good thing when it refers to having lots of different people who agree with me.</p>
<p>I must ask you the same question I asked epiphany. Your posts suggest an attitude of “only idiots oppose racial preferences.” Have I mistaken you? Do you actually believe that it is acceptable to disagree with you on this? Or is anyone who disagrees with you automatically wrong?</p>
<p>“Like I said, we’re the only country in the world that cares about things other than objective criteria.”
And look at the result. Look at who wants to come to the US and to go US colleges in droves because of that very point. Ta-da! Asians!]
The BIG picture, which you don’t want to recognize, is the criteria that currently is used by elite private colleges to select admitted students is based on many factors, including a recognition of the long and indefensible history of discrimination against blacks in this country. Is it a perfect way of deciding who get in and who doesn’t? No, because it is in part subjective, and that will never change. Hi Scoring Asians and whites who aren’t selected by the “elites” still have plenty of opportunities to receive a top notch education in this country, unlike students in China or Korea, where only the top scoring applicants go to college. So your continued outrage at the fact that some Asians don’t get into some colleges in this country is very short sighted. There is a “forest” of colleges to choose from in the US. Apparently all you can see is a particular “tree”.</p>
<p>OK, I can accept this; it’s still a fair answer. I have point out a few things, though.</p>
<p>The history we are speaking of refers to admissions policies of the 1920s and 1930s. That was over six decades ago. As far as I know, both your article and Gladwell’s [url=<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker]article[/url</a>] fail to mention when these “smoking guns” were discovered. Do we in fact know that the “smoking guns” were already known in the 1920s and 1930s? The process then was as secret and oblique as it is now.</p>
<p>I ask all of you, as entrenched as anti-Semitism was back then, do you really think President Lowell would have publicly admitted to discriminating against Jews? After all, his first idea - a quota - was roundly criticized. I doubt he would have acknowledged any wrongdoing.</p>
<p>To clarify, I’m not saying that there’s anything unfair about subjective criteria in general. Like Jian Li, I am totally for the consideration of many subjective criteria, just not racial classification. I do not see this position as inherently contradictory.</p>
<p>Misleading. I’d wager that lots of these international students you’re referring to are actually grad students in Masters and PhD fields. Admissions in those areas is quite different than admissions at the undergraduate level, as significantly less emphasis is placed on the qualities that make holistic admissions holistic.</p>
<p>Now you know that there was overt discrimination. The evidence is available now and has been for some time. But when was the evidence first released? If it was after the 1930s, then the Jewish students then had no “proof” that they were discriminated against.</p>
<p>I again express my deep disappointment that a Jewish person such as yourself would show such little sympathy for even the possibility that Asians are discriminated against in admissions. Shalom.</p>
According to the link I posted, the plan to have a quota was revealed at the same time, and the Harvard Board told him not to do it. I don’t know when the ugly statements were revealed. (I note that Gladwell just tells us the “Jewish crisis” passed, and doesn’t tell us any more about the history.)</p>
<p>
I don’t either. I have only two points of departure from your position, I think: (1) I don’t object to using racial classification to help URMs; and (2) I don’t think it’s proven that racial classification is being used to harm Asians vis-a-vis whites.
But consider this thought experiment: what if Harvard has a defined geographical quota system, and it results in certain numbers of people being admitted from each state, based on population. Now imagine (and it’s probably true) that this quota would disadvantage Asians in admission to Harvard. Would you think that this quota system was unfair racial discrimination? Would it matter whether it is *intended *to limit the number of Asians?</p>
<p>‘I’d wager that lots of these international students you’re referring to are actually grad students in Masters and PhD fields.’
OK, Why don’t you try looking into the racial/country of national origin of thousands of HS boarding school students on the West coast- sent here by their parents in order to give them a “better chance” at college admissions in this country. The majority are Asians.</p>
<p>I see. So Harry Starr, who could have been the Jian Li of the 1920s, somehow learned of President Lowell’s plan and engineered its (rightful) end. But, as we all know, that didn’t stop Lowell from trying to decrease Jewish enrollment through other methods, which he eventually succeeded in. His plans became sufficiently disguised so as to avoid detection, which meant that there wouldn’t be any “smoking gun” until many years later. Do you agree?</p>
<p>My point is that there is no evidence that at the time, there was a “smoking gun” that provided definitive evidence that the sole reason for implementing holistic admissions was to discriminate against Jews. Do you agree with me that we currently do not have enough information to determine whether such evidence was available in the 1920s and 1930s?</p>