Fastest-Growing Ethnic Category at Great Colleges: "Race Unknown"

Applying to College
461

<p>Newjack: </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's not true. There are more athletes, legacies, etc. who get in with lower stats. Maybe certain people like yourself only notice it when a URM is admitted?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you have data to support this? The last study I read claimed something to the contrary; I'll quote the relevant parts if you care.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ummm... no. I'm pretty sure that as long as we don't become a racist society again, the decision will be celebrated in history. I have a feeling that we'll be able to see the true effects of Affirmative Action in 30 years time once more of the URMs who benefited prepare to send their kids to high school and college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually AA has been going on for >30 years already. Studies have been done examining AA over the past 40+ years. You're raising interesting points, but I ask you to provide factual evidence to back them up instead of some "feeling" that you are "pretty sure" of.</p>

462

<p>My man Fab, glad to see you back at it again:</p>

<p>
[quote]
You make it seem as if the outcome of Proposal 2 in Michigan was skewed because influential figures (e.g. politicians, businessmen, etc.) supported Proposal 2. In fact, both political parties in Michigan refused to support Proposal 2. Many firms opposed it. No civil rights organization endorsed it. The opponents outspent the supporters by a very wide margin. Proposal 2 passed 58/42 despite all of this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When I read this it made me think of this Op Ed excerpt from Tim Wise. It rings true to me when I think of the results in California, Michigan and in Washington State. It also rings true for the possible initiatives this fall in several states and for the Presidency. </p>

<p>His comment,</p>

<p>"But for members of groups that have not been subordinated to "think with their skin" or their racial identity is quite a bit different, and more problematic. For dominant group members to engage in racial bonding only makes sense as a way to maintain dominance. It can't be about "getting a piece of the pie," since such persons already have access to it, and pieces galore; rather, it has to be about preventing others from getting theirs, from taking parts of the pie to which the dominant group had come to feel entitled. It is not to seek a place at the table, but to seek to secure the table you already have from the intrusion of others. White bonding, in other words, amounts to racism because it is redundant: it amounts to having those who are already largely in control, secure that control in perpetuity. It results in the maintenance of racial inequity, unequal opportunity and massive disparities in access and life chances. Black and brown bonding, on the other hand, is about gaining access, securing a spot, and collectively lifting up members of subordinated communities to a place where they can compete as equals with those who have always been in charge. There is nothing supremacist or racist about that at all, unless one presumes that--as Jesse Jackson and others have long said--there is no fundamental difference between a "Welcome" mat and a "No Trespassing" sign. </p>

<p>But there is a difference, in both practical and ethical terms. Those black voters (and for that matter non-black voters) who vote for Obama because of his race are striving for the welcome mat, however naive they may be in thinking that his victory would really open the door all that widely for others. Those white voters who vote for Clinton because of hers, on the other hand, are quite clearly continuing to hang the "No Blacks Need Apply" sign from their electoral window. And if we can't see the distinction between those two things, it becomes hard to imagine how we will ever conquer the larger racial inequities that continue to plague us as a nation. How indeed."</p>

<p>This mindset is pervasive IMO of those that oppose the policies that would impliment AA that benefits people of color mind you, if they had a vote. Fortunately many of those in the private schools sector support AA and thus there are those windows of opportunities. Thank goodness for that. I suggest that those who are in opposition of modern day AA take a comprehensive history lesson and see who has been the REAL benefactors of AA in American history. The results just may shock you.</p>

463

<p>
[quote]
I suggest that those who are in opposition of modern day AA take a comprehensive history lesson and see who has been the REAL benefactors of AA in American history.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a very good suggestion. What primary sources of information do you recommend consulting, and what scholarly summaries of what the primary sources mean?</p>

464

<p>
[quote]
If I, as the (white) club founder, think that it would be good to have a club that includes members of the African-American business community because I think that would promote networking among the local business communities, what is wrong with having that as a value of my club?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's an important question, which goes to the issue of how real colleges decide in the real world which students to admit. See Malcolm Gladwell's review of Jerome Karabel's book The Chosen </p>

<p>gladwell</a> dot com - getting in </p>

<p>for a discussion of different approaches colleges take when admitting students to maximize value to the college.</p>

465

<p>fabrizio:
Just to be clear, when you are talking about Affirmative Action, are you thinking about all schools, or just elite schools? I think that most everyone else is talking about elite schools, since that's what's more "controversial."</p>

<p>
[quote]
You seem to be suggesting my definition of preferential treatment is your definition of affirmative action. I must ask, how does your definition of preferential treatment differ from mine?

[/quote]

You are having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. I'll give you an example, say we were talking about abortion and you are "Pro-Life" and I am "Pro-Choice." If you were persuading people to agree with you and join your cause, you would represent your cause as being in favor of "life" and would accuse me of being "pro-Abortion," which would not be true. I, on the other hand, would represent my cause as being in favor of women's rights and accuse you of being against giving equal rights to women. Do you understand? In this example we are referring to each other's stances with pejoratives to coerce people to join our cause.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How is affirmative action used today? It's a system of social engineering that seeks to create some sort of "balance" among the races. Why is it used? Some people think it's unacceptable to have un-"balanced" student bodies, and these people have the power to decide policy.

[/quote]

It's used to promote diversity at colleges. The purpose is not to "balance" student bodies, it's to make sure that we have an educated group of individuals that are representative of our country.</p>

<p>
[quote]
An "at least"-style quota is an assurance that some specified percentage of a particular group will be present. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, "If petitioner's purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid."

[/quote]

You keep referencing cases that are not really relevant. Bakke is not applicable to what Hunt is talking about right now. The medical school Bakke was applied to had a specific amount of positions it wanted to fill with African Americans. The controversy is that even though the school did not meet its quota for African Americans and had room for more students, it rejected Bakke solely because he was white; thus, he was actually discriminated against and excluded.</p>

<p>Let's apply to Hunt's example. Say he could not find four African Americans who wanted to join or who were qualified. If he rejected the seventeenth White male when he clearly has room to take him, then, yes, that's discrimination in the sense you are excluding someone solely because of race.</p>

<p>Also, I think it's funny that you keep on referencing Bakke and Justice Powell when Bakke is the case in which Justice Powell praised Harvard's holistic admissions approach. In that same case he also said that race can be considered a "plus" factor to promote diversity.</p>

<p>Ethyrial:

[quote]
Do you have data to support this? The last study I read claimed something to the contrary; I'll quote the relevant parts if you care.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, actually AA has been going on for >30 years already. Studies have been done examining AA over the past 40+ years. You're raising interesting points, but I ask you to provide factual evidence to back them up instead of some "feeling" that you are "pretty sure" of.

[/quote]

Honestly, you would have to be completely oblivious to not see that it has improved the quality of life for many minorities (African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc.) and women.</p>

<p>Anyways, this is from Affirmative</a> Action Works - What the Research Shows.
Remember that, like the The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities*, the newest data is from the mid-1990s. Lastly, keep in mind that the study includes all universities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
An upward swing occurred in college participation for African Americans and Hispanics during the late 1980s and mid-1990s. Nonetheless, these groups continue to be less likely to attend college than whites. In 1996, 44 percent of white high school graduates ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in college, compared with 35.9 percent of blacks and 35 percent of Hispanics

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Despite continued gaps in the college-going rates of students of color and white students, in 1996 and prior to the impact of affirmative action rollbacks in several states, the actual number of African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, and American Indian students enrolled in college increased by 2.7 percent to an all-time high of nearly 3.6 million.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The largest enrollment gain for students of color in 1996 was made at the graduate level with a 5.7 percent increase. Additionally, students of color at the professional and undergraduate levels increased by 2.9 and 3.0 percent, respectively.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Between 1990 and 1995, bachelor degree awards were up 51.6 percent for minority students. Bachelor degree awards to African Americans were up 42.8 percent, 65 percent for Hispanics, nearly 50.4 percent for American Indians, and 54.1 percent for Asian Americans.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
56 percent of blacks who graduated from the institutions studied went on to earn advanced degrees, including law, medicine, and business. This benefits society overall, as well as the emerging black and Latino middle class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Black men and women graduates of selective colleges are more active than white graduates in political and civic activities, including community service work.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Last one,

[quote]
If African-American and Latino workers were represented at colleges and universities in the same proportions as their share of 18- to 24-year olds, U.S. wealth would increase by $231 billion every year, annual tax revenues would increase by $80 billion, and the proportion of minority families with inadequate incomes would decrease.

[/quote]

Any one still think that seeking diversity is not a societal good?</p>

466

<p>Newjack: </p>

<p>So where's the data that athletes and legacies skew admissions away from a meritocracy more than AA does?</p>

<p>In your previous post, you say first that </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think that most everyone else is talking about elite schools, since that's what's more "controversial."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and then follow up with a study that includes ALL universities -- ie. is largely irrelevant to this discussion by your own definition of what "everyone" here is talking about. But pretending that this is not the case:</p>

<p>Your last quote there lends nothing to the discussion, unless the claim is that US wealth would be increased by $231 billion a year if X URM individuals were granted a college education and an equal number of ORMs were denied said education. If this is what you mean, I find it surprising -- please cite the complete result. Otherwise, all you're saying is that US wealth will increase if the net number of college-educated individuals in the country increases, which is patently obvious.</p>

<p>It is also obvious that AA will "improve the quality of life for many minorities". If you're going to give that much of an advantage to one group in such a situation, of course it will be good for the advantaged group. If all the elite universities decided today to give an admissions boost to tall people on the order of +200 SAT points, no doubt in 30 years tall people would have improved their average status in a society where one's social standing is correlated with educational attainment. Where we seem to disagree is whether this will inevitably become "celebrated in history". In the latter example, I bet the short people would beg to differ. Or the extremely qualified tall people who suddenly see their abilities doubted due to the influx of less-qualified tall people among their coworkers. Or any number of people of varying heights, for that matter.</p>

467

<p>Hunt,</p>

<p>I didn't say that your club had an animus against whites. I said that "..in fact, I just inducted 16 white members into my club" is not a good way to disprove an alleged animus and gave historic anti-Semitism at the Ivy Leagues as an example.</p>

<p>Of course you don't have to agree with the Supreme Court's opinion in Bakke. Privately (keyword here), no one has to agree with anything the Supreme Court rules.</p>

<p>
[quote]

If I, as the (white) club founder, think that it would be good to have a club that includes members of the African-American business community because I think that would promote networking among the local business communities, what is wrong with having that as a value of my club?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with your club having black businessmen as members. There may be something wrong if you designed the club such that there are designated slots for black businessmen that are not open to others. By guaranteeing that black businessmen are included, you are excluding non-black businessmen. If you have x slots reserved for black businessmen, then there are x slots that non-black businessmen cannot fill and therefore are excluded from.</p>

468

<p>
[quote]
What primary sources of information do you recommend consulting, and what scholarly summaries of what the primary sources mean?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Time Wise's "Affirmative Action- Racial Preferences in Black and White" is a excellent source of outlining how policies historically have created the many disparities in housing, education, health care, and employment and the accumulation of wealth for people of color. His website [url=<a href="http://www.timwise.org%5DTIMWISE.ORG%5B/url"&gt;http://www.timwise.org]TIMWISE.ORG[/url&lt;/a&gt;] is also a excellent source of information on the social dynamics of race in America. Pay particular attention to his archives of essays. His writing is riveting and he has a healthy dose of facts and stats to support his position. I also would recommend, Tony Browns' "White Lies, Black Lies".</p>

<p>Surprisingly I would also recommend, Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals and another title Race and Cultures. While Sowell definitely doesn't support AA in some of its current applications, his historical perpectives on the history of this country as it relates to slavery, Blacks and education, and other ethnic peoples and their rise to socio economic promininece make for informative and enlightening reading. In my opinion Sowell focuses on the potential of what can be accomplished in spite of the racial obstacles, while Wise focuses more on the significance of racism and its results. In any case, if one takes on this information with an open mind, at the very least, one would have a little more empathy and understanding for the continued monumental struggles that face people of color in this society. To hold the same position either speaks of complete stubborness and or denial. It certainly wouldn't be due to ignorance.</p>

469

<p>Newjack88,</p>

<p>A pro-choice person would never refer to himself as pro-abortion. However, you, a supporter of affirmative action, used the term 'preferential treatment' at least once without suggesting that it is pejorative when you said that affirmative action is no longer considered preferential treatment. You thus implied that the two were once the same (c.f. pro-life and pro-choice, which were never the same.) Is it too difficult to tell me what you think preferential treatment is? If it is, I won't ask again, but if it's not, I'd like an answer.</p>

<p>
[quote]

The purpose is not to "balance" student bodies, it's to make sure that we have an educated group of individuals that are representative of our country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what constitutes good representation? A "balance," perhaps?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I think it's funny that you keep on referencing Bakke and Justice Powell when Bakke is the case in which Justice Powell praised Harvard's holistic admissions approach. In that same case he also said that race can be considered a "plus" factor to promote diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many supporters of affirmative action only know that Bakke is the case that "upheld affirmative action" and "banned quotas." In reality, Bakke pr*oscribed many other things in addition to quotas. For example, *Bakke held that historic discrimination, frequently cited by supporters of affirmative action as justification for their favored policy, is not an acceptable reason to have affirmative action.</p>

470

<p>
[quote]
If all the elite universities decided today to give an admissions boost to tall people on the order of +200 SAT points, no doubt in 30 years tall people would have improved their average status in a society where one's social standing is correlated with educational attainment. Where we seem to disagree is whether this will inevitably become "celebrated in history". In the latter example, I bet the short people would beg to differ. Or the extremely qualified tall people who suddenly see their abilities doubted due to the influx of less-qualified tall people among their coworkers. Or any number of people of varying heights, for that matter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When tall and short people have the legacy of whites and people of color in this society then maybe we can revisit your analogy. A rediculous comparison.</p>

471

<p>So to you AA is all about addressing this historical legacy? If so, what part of our history makes the racism experienced by Hispanics in this country that much more worthy of attention today than the racism experienced by Asians?</p>

472

<p>
[quote]
So where's the data that athletes and legacies skew admissions away from a meritocracy more than AA does?

[/quote]

I don't like how you liberally paraphrased what I said. I said, "That's not true. There are more athletes, legacies, etc. who get in with lower stats." Anyways, I wanted to see the data you claimed to have in your possession before I responded. To be honest, this claim is incredibly vague and nearly impossible to prove or disprove. Debating this point is probably going to be fruitless, since it's not relevant to the discussion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and then follow up with a study that includes ALL universities -- ie. is largely irrelevant to this discussion by your own definition of what "everyone" here is talking about. But pretending that this is not the case:

[/quote]

This discussion has been civil thus far, let's keep it that way.</p>

<p>Let's use our inferencing skills here: if those are the results taking into account ALL universities, both better and lesser institutions, can't you infer that the results for the better institutions will be better? If you look at graduation rates for African Americans and Hispanics they are much higher at better institutions like Harvard, where 95% of African Americans graduate, than at lesser institutions like Wayne State, where only 10% of African Americans graduate.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your last quote there lends nothing to the discussion, unless the claim is that US wealth would be increased by $231 billion a year if X URM individuals were granted a college education and an equal number of ORMs were denied said education. If this is what you mean, I find it surprising -- please cite the complete result. Otherwise, all you're saying is that US wealth will increase if the net number of college-educated individuals in the country increases, which is patently obvious.

[/quote]

Honestly, if you are going to participate in this discussion, at least have the decency to read the posts in the discussion so that you are up to speed. For the last couple days, many anti-Affirmative Action posters have been questioning whether or not seeking diversity is a societal good. According to the research I provided in my previous post, it is.</p>

<p>Also, what evidence do you have to support that anyone is being denied "said education?" Do you think that kids who are rejected from Harvard just don't go to college or do what Azia Kim tried to do and pretend to go to college? No.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is also obvious that AA will "improve the quality of life for many minorities". If you're going to give that much of an advantage to one group in such a situation, of course it will be good for the advantaged group. If all the elite universities decided today to give an admissions boost to tall people on the order of +200 SAT points, no doubt in 30 years tall people would have improved their average status in a society where one's social standing is correlated with educational attainment. Where we seem to disagree is whether this will inevitably become "celebrated in history". In the latter example, I bet the short people would beg to differ.

[/quote]

There is a degree of ignorance in your post. Are you completely ignorant of the disparity between the quality of life for African Americans/Hispanics and White/Asians? </p>

<p>Your example of Affirmative Action for tall people indicates an inability to comprehend the complexities of the situation. If it were the case that the standard of living for tall people was lower than that of short people's, then, yes, Affirmative Action would be necessary to comprehensively address this issue. However, you're an intelligent person, so you know very well that that is not the case.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So to you AA is all about addressing this historical legacy? If so, what part of our history makes the racism experienced by Hispanics in this country that much more worthy of attention today than the racism experienced by Asians?

[/quote]

The first question has been answered at least a dozen times in this thread.
As for the second, justify taking action to remedy the effects of the racism Asians experience, and I'll respond.</p>

473

<p>
[quote]
And what constitutes good representation? A "balance," perhaps?

[/quote]

"Balance" is vague. Are you talking about dividing 100% by how many ethnicities there are? If so, that's just dumb. It's really up to the school to decide what constitutes a good representation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Many supporters of affirmative action only know that Bakke is the case that "upheld affirmative action" and "banned quotas." In reality, Bakke proscribed many other things in addition to quotas. For example, Bakke held that historic discrimination, frequently cited by supporters of affirmative action as justification for their favored policy, is not an acceptable reason to have affirmative action.

[/quote]

Everyone in this thread has been justifying Affirmative Action as means to promote diversity. Why do we need to promote diversity? To address historic discrimination.</p>

474

<p>
[quote]
Honestly, if you are going to participate in this discussion, at least have the decency to read the posts in the discussion so that you are up to speed. For the last couple days, many anti-Affirmative Action posters have been questioning whether or not seeking diversity is a societal good. According to the research I provided in my previous post, it is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Newjack, my point was precisely that your "research" proves nothing about whether diversity is a "societal good." Of course URMs will benefit from a policy expressly designed to help URMs. Of course US wealth will increase if the number of college graduates increase, regardless of which ethnic groups said graduates come from! None of the points you raised in that post demonstrate anything beyond what is obvious.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your example of Affirmative Action for tall people indicates an inability to comprehend the complexities of the situation. If it were the case that the standard of living for tall people was lower than that of short people's, then, yes, Affirmative Action would be necessary to comprehensively address this issue. However, you're an intelligent person, so you know very well that that is not the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So let me paraphrase your current argument: "If a group has a lower standard of living, it is society's responsibility to aid them by providing opportunities such as AA. If tall people have a lower standard of living, we ought to use AA to address the issue." Is this correct? But society does have many distinct groups of people with lower standards of living, beyond racial divides. For example, the group of people with IQs below 100 has, on average, lower standards of living. Is it society's place to aid these people by allowing them easier access to top universities? If not, why?</p>

<p>
[quote]
This discussion has been civil thus far, let's keep it that way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you're aiming to have a "civil discussion," it would behoove you to restrain from juvenile name-calling along the lines of "indecent" and "completely ignorant." You will notice that no one else on this thread has resorted to such tactics.</p>

475

<p>Newjack88,</p>

<p>Balance doesn't have to be 100% divided by how many ethnicities there are. For example, the previous balances in the Seattle school districts were seldom 50/50, but that did not stop the Supreme Court from correctly observing that the district's "diversity" plan was a balancing plan.</p>

<p>If your ultimate justification for affirmative action is addressing historic discrimination (historic discrimination is the rationale for promoting diversity, promoting diversity is the rationale for affirmative action), good luck convincing the Supreme Court to overrule Bakke, which expressly held that historic discrimination is not an acceptable reason to justify affirmative action.</p>

476

<p>Hey madville,</p>

<p>I wrote that to IsleBoy because his "...eye towards appeasing one's own constituents..." comment made it seem as if the opponents of Proposal 2 in Michigan were the underdogs, that they were being outspent, had no public endorsements, weren't expected to win, and so forth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The supporters of Proposal 2 were the underdogs. They were being outspent by the opposition. They were dismissed by all civil rights organizations and by both political parties. All pre-election polls predicted a massive defeat. Despite all this, the measure prevailed 58/42.</p>

<p>As far as Mr. Wise's op-ed, a little bit of tort law can distinguish between the "Welcome" mat and the "No Trespassing" one. The former suggests that an uninvited person who comes to the house will not be considered a trespasser. The latter explicitly states that an uninvited person who comes to the house will be considered a trespasser. I really don't think anyone believes these two are "fundamentally" the same. I think he stretched that just so he could have an argument.</p>

<p>Sometimes, I think Mr. Wise doesn't reason very well. In speeches, he frequently justifies U. Michigan's pre-2003 undergraduate admission policy (i.e. the one that gave "under-represented" minorities twenty points just for being "under-represented.") He claims that the twenty points given to "under-represented" minorities don't cause any more stigmatization than the twelve or so points given to residents of a wealthy district in Michigan. He forgets that "under-represented" minorities are "visible" minorities whereas the residents of that wealthy district are indistinguishable from other whites at U. Michigan.</p>

477

<p>
[quote]
He forgets that "under-represented" minorities are "visible" minorities whereas the residents of that wealthy district are indistinguishable from other whites at U. Michigan.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You actually help me to make a point validating AA.
The difference is that the stigmatization is inferred among most blacks and Latinos regardless of how they may have gained admittance. The majority population largely doesn't have to deal with such stigma due to the hue of their skin, although many have benefited from the various forms of AA in their own right, i.e., legacies, athletes, developmentals, additional points for characteristics that benefit the majority population(SAT,AP), etc. Assimilation at work, I guess. I can't speak to what Mr. Wise really meant, but because racism is so interwoven into the psyche of this country subtly and otherwise, AA however imperfect, is still an invaluable means of allowing access to the great opportunities so many apparently take for granted.</p>

478

<p>
[QUOTE]

There is a degree of ignorance in your post. Are you completely ignorant of the disparity between the quality of life for African Americans/Hispanics and White/Asians? </p>

<p>Your example of Affirmative Action for tall people indicates an inability to comprehend the complexities of the situation. If it were the case that the standard of living for tall people was lower than that of short people's, then, yes, Affirmative Action would be necessary to comprehensively address this issue. However, you're an intelligent person, so you know very well that that is not the case.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Actually...the standard of living for short people is lower than that of tall people. So according to you, Affirmative action should address this issue right?</p>

<p>Let me cite some statistics if you don't believe me:</p>

<p>"Of the 43 U.S. Presidents, only five have been more than an inch below average height. Moreover, of the 54 U.S. presidential elections only 13 have been won by the shorter candidate, and only 11 times has the shorter candidate received more popular (as opposed to electoral) votes." ~ Heights</a> of United States Presidents and presidential candidates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>"Quantitative studies of U.S. Senators and Governors have shown that they are on average several inches taller than the U.S. population at large." ~The</a> Straight Dope: Does the taller candidate always win the election?</p>

<p>"In a complementary analysis, drawing on data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLSY) we find that among adult white males in the US, every additional inch of height as an adult is associated with a 1.8 percent increase in wages. As the interquartile range of adult heights spans 3.5 to 5 inches in our data (in Britain and the US, respectively), the tallest quarter of the population has a median wage that is more than 13 percent higher than that of the shortest quarter. The impact of this height wage disparity is comparable to those associated with characteristics such as race or gender." ~<a href="http://pier.econ.upenn.edu/Archive/03-036.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://pier.econ.upenn.edu/Archive/03-036.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 feet tall, which is approximately 3 inches taller than the average American man. Fully 30% of these CEOs were 6 foot 2 inches tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height. Equally significantly, similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5′7″ in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height." ~The</a> Regional Economist , Articles</a> by Jonathan Rauch: <b>Height Discrimination: Short Guys Finish Last</b></p>

<p>If affirmative action is justified for racial reasons, the same justifications can be applied to height. So according to you, short people SHOULD receive a boost from affirmative action.</p>

479

<p>
[quote]
You actually help me to make a point validating AA.
The difference is that the stigmatization is inferred among most blacks and Latinos regardless of how they may have gained admittance. The majority population largely doesn't have to deal with such stigma due to the hue of their skin, although many have benefited from the various forms of AA in their own right, i.e., legacies, athletes, developmentals, additional points for characteristics that benefit the majority population(SAT,AP), etc. Assimilation at work, I guess. I can't speak to what Mr. Wise really meant, but because racism is so interwoven into the psyche of this country subtly and otherwise, AA however imperfect, is still an invaluable means of allowing access to the great opportunities so many apparently take for granted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Under a race-blind admissions system, a disgruntled white student could think that his black peers only got in because of their race, but his accusation would be baseless; it doesn't make sense to say that someone got in because of race if race is not considered.</p>

480

<p>Ethyrial:

[quote]
Newjack, my point was precisely that your "research" proves nothing about whether diversity is a "societal good." Of course URMs will benefit from a policy expressly designed to help URMs. Of course US wealth will increase if the number of college graduates increase, regardless of which ethnic groups said graduates come from! None of the points you raised in that post demonstrate anything beyond what is obvious.

[/quote]

Do you really need someone to spell out for you how increasing the standard of living of a group that is, on average, poorer than other groups is a societal good? Since when was it a societal good to not help out a poorer person?</p>

<p>
[quote]
So let me paraphrase your current argument: "If a group has a lower standard of living, it is society's responsibility to aid them by providing opportunities such as AA. If tall people have a lower standard of living, we ought to use AA to address the issue." Is this correct? But society does have many distinct groups of people with lower standards of living, beyond racial divides. For example, the group of people with IQs below 100 has, on average, lower standards of living. Is it society's place to aid these people by allowing them easier access to top universities? If not, why?

[/quote]

It all depends on the reasons for why the group is they way it is.</p>

<p>"But society does have many distinct groups of people with lower standards of living, beyond racial divides."
First of all, No one is arguing about that. However it is important to realize that all applicants already have their achievements considered within the context of their socio-economic background. If it suits you to think of it this way, poor <insert any="" ethnicity=""> are considered to be "under-represent minorities."</insert></p>

<p>Anyways, you are looking at it without the bigger picture in mind. You are fixated on this being a "me, me, me" matter when it's a societal matter. The reason why it is especially important for top universities to create diverse classes is because the graduates from those institutions are the likeliest of all graduates to assume positions of power. Having an elite that is representative of our diverse country is inherently a good thing.</p>

<p>fabrizio:

[quote]
If your ultimate justification for affirmative action is addressing historic discrimination (historic discrimination is the rationale for promoting diversity, promoting diversity is the rationale for affirmative action), good luck convincing the Supreme Court to overrule Bakke, which expressly held that historic discrimination is not an acceptable reason to justify affirmative action.

[/quote]

No, Justice Powell appeared to mean that Affirmative Action cannot be directly justified as a policy to address historic discrimination. If this is not the case, then why did Justice Powell applaud Harvard's Affirmative Action policy, which, ultimately, is addressing historic discrimination?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Under a race-blind admissions system, a disgruntled white student could think that his black peers only got in because of their race, but his accusation would be baseless; it doesn't make sense to say that someone got in because of race if race is not considered.

[/quote]

No one cares about the disgruntled white student. Whatever school denied him admission should be applauded for having admissions officers that were able to weed out such poor character.</p>

<p>Anyways, "it doesn't make sense to say that someone got in because of race if race is not considered," people still would say that or something similar. The disgruntled White kid would look for any differences between himself and his to justify his shortcomings. Let's say this is Harvard we're talking about, the disgruntled White had a higher ACT score (34 vs. 30), a higher GPA (3.8 vs. 3.6), and the White kid primarily did Varsity debate while the Black kid did a Varsity sport (not recruited though). </p>

<p>Possible excuses that the disgruntled White kid could make to belittle his peer's achievement:
1.) "Harvard says test scores are important; more like "un-important."
2.) "Harvard says grades are very important; more like "un-very important."
3.) "Man, I knew I should have done a Varsity sport."</p>

<p>Probably the most likely comment:
4.) "He probably got recruited."</p>

<p>Basically, it doesn't matter what system you utilize, certain people who lack character will make outrageous justifications for their own personal shortcomings.</p>

<p>JP_Omnipotence:

[quote]
Actually...the standard of living for short people is lower than that of tall people. So according to you, Affirmative action should address this issue right?

[/quote]

Uhhh... how does any of the information you provided make the claim that short people have a lower standard of living than tall people?</p>