<p>
On the other hand, you’ve struggled mightily against any suggestion that disparities could be caused by something other than discrimination. You can’t complain about the other person having preconceived notions unless you’re willing to question your own.
I think you underestimate the degree to which anti-Semitism was mainstream before World War II.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For your first question, no, because as I wrote before, with some difficulty, an individual can change where you live, but an individual alone can never change how the government classifies him. I remind you, however, that when Lowell tried this for the Jews, he failed spectacularly.</p>
<p>For your second question, maybe, but we’d need a “smoking gun,” wouldn’t we? And if there were such a “smoking gun,” it probably wouldn’t be revealed until many decades later, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying there could be alternative non-racial explanations. It’s just that some of the ones you’ve offered, such as geographic preferences, didn’t work to contain Jewish enrollment, so I’m inclined believe that they also might not work to contain Asian enrollment. Moreover, I don’t consider siserune to be a reliable source of non-racial explanations, since he has yet to rescind his offensive suggestion that Asian parents encourage their children to pick “low hanging fruit.” (Am I the only one who was offended by that? I’m not even a parent!)</p>
<p>And, my “preconceived notions” are totally independent of another’s. I maintain my deep disappointment at the total lack of understanding and sympathy from that user.</p>
<p>As for your last sentence, don’t forget that Lowell’s quota idea was criticized. I didn’t deny that anti-Semitism was mainstream, but there was a limit to how strong it was, otherwise the quota idea would have been OK.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>But do you agree with me that there is lack of evidence that a “smoking gun” existed in the 1920s and 1930s that firmly showed that the reason for implementing holistic admissions was to cut Jewish admissions?</p>
<p>Re 1294</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>No, I take that back. I’d still like an answer to my question. Do you believe that it is ever acceptable to oppose racial preferences? Or is anyone who disagrees with you on this issue an idiot?</p>
<p>“Do you believe that it is ever acceptable to oppose racial preferences?”
Not for the reasons that you have used.
"Or is anyone who disagrees with you on this issue an idiot? "
What a childish question.
I never called you or anyone else who disagrees with me an idiot, as you well know.
What you are is young, and lacking in deep knowledge of the college admissions process and also lacking the wisdom that comes with time and experience. You have yet to indicate an ability to really listen to what others have said, to really try understand the points of view of others and not take any difference of opinion as justification to endlessly argue your point.</p>
<p>If colleges went off only GPAs and SAT/ACT scores all the colleges would be filled with asians. But they take the american education, leave their financial aid debt behind and work in their own country. THATS why they ‘discriminate’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sigh. Anti-Semitism was <em>mainstream</em> back then. I’m sorry you don’t have all the nuances of US history, but it was an open secret back then that Jews were not welcome in the higher echelons of power.</p>
<p>You still aren’t distinguishing between “discrimination AGAINST” and “preference for others, which reduces the spots left open to everyone else.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“I hate your system, but I still want in it sooooo badly.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Their own” country? We’re talking about Americans here, who may happen to be the children of Asian immigrants. They are as American as anyone else. Plus, what proof do you have that they abandon financial aid debt at a rate higher than anyone else?</p>
<p>Re 1305</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alright, we’re making progress. Your answer suggests that it is acceptable. Indulge me, then. Under what reasons is it acceptable?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never denied that anti-Semitism was mainstream back then. You have, as usual, shaken off my statements in favor of cheap points.</p>
<p>Lowell thought Jewish enrollment was too high, and he wanted it to be at fifteen percent. As Hunt’s article and Gladwell’s article show, he initially tried to employ a quota, but somehow, word got out and the plan was axed. Thus, even though anti-Semitism was mainstream, there were limits to how virulent its implementation could be, for if there were no limits, then the quota plan would not have been killed. Do you disagree with my logic here?</p>
<p>So the quota option was out. That didn’t stop Lowell, however, as he devised holistic admissions to carry out his goal, and he eventually succeeded. By 1933, Jewish enrollment dropped back down to fifteen percent.</p>
<p>How come this plan wasn’t stopped? Easy. Lowell’s quota plan was stopped because there was a “smoking gun.” His holistic admissions plan was never stopped because there never was a “smoking gun” until many years later, when anti-Semitism had faded. We now have definitive evidence that holistic admissions was designed to limit Jewish enrollment. But, Jews could not prove that back then, and that is my point: the “smoking gun” you claim existed was hidden back then!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny to read this from you, as your other posts give me the impression that you think we’re perpetual foreigners.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if you possess the empathy required to do this, but let’s give it a shot. Imagine that a stereotypical white racist is telling Asians, “What’s wrong with you? Why do you want to do it the Asian way? Why can’t you do it our way?!” Is there anything wrong with that person is saying? Hmm?</p>
<p>If Americans immigrated to Asia would you expect Asians to do it the “American way”? I don’t think so. I think the same goes the other way around. When anybody moves from their home country to a foreign country, you are expected to accept their culture.</p>
<p>I think some here have a misunderstanding as to what I and others believe. I am not against holistic admissions. I am not in favor of the international admissions system. I am, however, against the use of racial classification as a factor in admissions. And, I do not view the presence of racial classification as the factor that decides whether a process is holistic.</p>
<p>That is all. The “this ain’t Asia, boy!” statements stem from an inability to digest the above paragraph.</p>
<p>fabrizio,
You were called on your mis-identifying and misuse of the term “racial preferences” often before, on earlier threads prior to '09 – more like '07. AdOfficer, representing an Elite, was one of the many posters who called you on that. It’s your way of manipulating language and controlling (narrowing) the debate, by means of selective & inaccurate terminology.</p>
<p>“Preferences” is a comparative term. There is no such thing as preferences in the absolute sense, in college admission. Certainly not in the way you repeatedly use the term. If you’re talking strictly about URM’s, then it has been acknowledged for several years on CC that URM’s are “preferred” over non-URM’s (altogether) as a matter of policy, in order to increase their barely visible representation in higher education. But URM’s do not threaten the acceptance rate of the already highly qualified non-URM’s; they “threaten” (marginally affect, because their numbers are so small) acceptance rates of the less-competitively qualified non-URM’s, even though that qualification may objectively exceed that of the URM applications being reviewed.</p>
<p>Beyond that, there is no “racial preference.” What the Elites prefer is one crack class. One able class. One mixed (diverse and balanced) class, on many measures of diversity, hardly limited to personal origin, and not even prioritized by personal origin. Geographically, interest-wise (academics & e.c.'s), economically (with a boost or “preference” to low-income where they meet high standards and regardless of “race” or ethnicity on that particular measure), and more. Because they have so much to choose from when it comes to excellence, (unlike some other tiers of institutions), they can combine goals of excellence with goals of balance. This actually advantages Asians, since there are so many excellent Asians, but it does give them absolute admissibility. It gives them greater opportunities for admission because of their level of achievement – greater than whites, proportionally speaking. So if anything, the enrollment results tell the story: Asians are preferred, statistically, over any other group in Elite admissions.</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>Oh, please, let’s not resume that semantics argument. The Court’s opinion in Grutter uses “racial preference” four times without any suggestion that the term is “selective” or “inaccurate.” Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent uses it twice, again with no suggestion that the term is “selective” or “inaccurate.” Justice Kennedy’s dissent used it once, again without any such suggestion. Justice Scalia’s separate opinion is even stronger; he uses both “racial discrimination” and “racial preferences” three times each. You may not like the term, for obvious reasons, but it is not some fringe term that is not popular. Even Justice O’Connor had no qualms with it, and she voted in favor of Michigan’s law school policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You could have said the same thing about Jews at Harvard back in the 1920s. As Hunt’s link stated, they made up 15% of Harvard’s students even though they were only 3.4% of the U.S. population. Were they in fact preferred, “statistically,” over any other group in elite admissions? Hogwash.</p>
<p>I’ve read Grutter, fab. But the way you use the term “preferences” exceeds that of the Court’s use, which is in context, whereas yours is sweeping, and implies that race is the most essential aspect of diversity/balance, which it is not. There is no more reason to eliminate race as an element of diversity than to eliminate other factors of accidental identity. Unless there is some pernicious effort to reduce Asian numbers of admits vs. other groups (which has not been proven), “discrimination” cannot be alleged with any credibility, particularly given the high numbers of Asian admits. </p>
<p>Semantics is critical in debate.</p>
<p>No, I neither believe nor construct my sentences to imply that “race is the most essential aspect of diversity/balance.” (I remind you yet again that ‘balance’ is really not a good term to use. The Court has written favorably of ‘diversity’ but very unfavorably of ‘balance.’) I use ‘racial preference’ because it is a no-nonsense and accurate term that has been used by Justice O’Connor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Scalia. It doesn’t surprise me that you prefer not to use it, and I don’t think you have to, either.</p>
<p>I don’t see why some people persist in arguing that “high numbers of Asian admits” provide evidence against potential discrimination. Do you think that the “high numbers of Jewish admits” in the 1920s at Harvard likewise provided evidence against their being discriminated against?</p>
<p>The key argument against the Asians as “new Jews” comparison is the invocation of the “smoking gun,” that is, whereas there is undeniable proof that Jews were discriminated against, there isn’t such proof available for Asians. However, such an argument supposes that what we now know was also known back then, and neither Hunt’s source nor Gladwell suggests that to be true. We only know that word somehow got out that Lowell was planning on using a quota to limit Jewish enrollment, but we do not know whether word ever got out in the 1920s that his true motivation for implementing holistic admissions was to limit Jewish enrollment.</p>
<p>I fault myself for not realizing this flaw earlier.</p>
<p>I submit posts 1301 and 1307 as evidence that my argument has severely damaged the credibility of the “Jews had a smoking gun, but Asians don’t” statement.</p>
<p>I’ll repeat my thinking. Some things that were hidden in the 1920s were later revealed, and we now know of them. [Malcolm</a> Gladwell](<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker) has detailed some of these things. Thus, there is undeniable and irrefutable evidence that Jews were discriminated against in decades past at elite universities.</p>
<p>The question, then, is not whether there is evidence, but whether it was known at the time, not now. Neither [Hunt’s</a> link](<a href=“http://www.jewishachievement.com/domains/edu.html]Hunt’s”>Jewish Achievement) nor Gladwell’s article provides any information on when these revelations were revealed.</p>
<p>We do, however, know that one Harry Starr somehow managed to discover that Lowell was planning on using a quota. Starr used this piece of evidence against Lowell and managed to kill the quota plan.</p>
<p>We also know that Lowell, unable to employ quotas to limit Jewish enrollment but still desirous of that outcome, quickly devised holistic admissions as a possible means to realize his goal. We further know that Lowell succeeded in reducing Jewish enrollment through holistic admissions.</p>
<p>I submit the last sentence as evidence that there was no “smoking gun” at the time. I point out that the quota plan was destroyed precisely because word somehow leaked out (ie. there was a “smoking gun”). I further point out that despite the entrenched and institutionalized anti-Semitism, it had its limits, for if it were boundless, then the quota plan would never have been axed.</p>
<p>I conclude that no “smoking gun” against holistic admissions’ rationale existed in the 1920s, and that this revelation was disclosed many years later, when the so-called “Jewish crisis” had passed. If there were one, then it would’ve been used in a manner similar to Starr’s.</p>
<p>Thus, the argument that “Jews had a ‘smoking gun’” is quite possibly untrue, as they may not have had one at the time.</p>