<p>
[quote]
Oh, I agree that there is no biological basis for race. But, that doesn't stop those who believe there is a basis from acting on their belief in prejudiced ways. I hope your last sentence doesn't suggest that racism doesn't exist because race doesn't exist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>None, except that the majority (Whites) do make it a socio-cultural definition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The assertion that differences in qualifications are based on OUTWARD appearances as opposed to inward achievements is racism, plain and simple. In context, you were not talking about looks, hair color, weight, and so forth. In context, you were talking about race. Who did you attribute this assertion to? Some whites? No, you attributed it to all whites. You said all whites assert that such differences are the result of external appearances (i.e. race). Thus, you called all whites racists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, you did. Whites as the group in power are the ones that define the term 'race', when there are no biological distinction. Thus, those who are in power to define race (i.e. non-URMs) in socio-cultural terms and have the power to act on the minority and define their access to jobs, education, credit, insurance, health care, are using 'race' to arbitrarily decide who is most fit. </p>
<p>If you want to label ALL whites that way, then do so. I for one do not believe it is a zero sum game. But, since you use the simple and false dichotomy when talking about race and how it applies or does not apply, it is clear that context is less important to you with respect to how the mythical 'race' has affected those who are not in the group norm. </p>
<p>We had this argument before. You ASSUME what happens on the MICRO level to be the SAME as what happens when speaking of the MACRO view. It's the FALLACY of composition. Come on, you can do better than that.</p>
<p>That is why each applicant to college should be looked at from a holistic lens. Some benefit from their associations with the norm, while others don't. That is why some individuals are seen as representative of a group, rather than as individuals. Those that make up the majority are usually seen as individuals, so they do benefit from the arrangement because they are not usually labeled as part of a group (good or bad) except when an idea threatens their power, like during debates regarding SELECTIVE college admissions. it is then, that they chafe with the 'race' category of white. They usually don't have a problem with doing that to other minority groups.</p>
<p>Thus, race is still an issue because it maintains socio-cultural behaviors and appearances that favor the group in power.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whites as the group in power
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who are you defining as "white" here? Only people who have significant power?</p>
<p>Ugh...I'm back. I'm curious about this one...why is it assumed that "white" people agree with each other. In history I learned that this is not the case. I remember something about John Brown being some kind of a hero on one side of the mason-dixon line. I really don't think it's fair to stereotype "white" people into defining socio-cultural norms...unless of course you believe members of a race all think the same.</p>
<p>Whites ARE the group in power. That is how a misnomer like 'race' comes to be defined. You use the category to promote an idea of a hierarchy which places one group over another whether through divine right or, in this case, supposed superiority tied to race.</p>
<p>As a group WHITES generally have more power. And, since non-URMs do tend to classify other races as groups and use that identification as evidence of it's supposed superiority with respect to IQ, test scores, et al., in a discussion like this, group definition is the currency--whether I agree with it or not. Thus, in a binary, it's ALL or nothing, as many anti-AA proponents have argued. That is using their structure of the argument. I see no contradition, except that non-URMs dislike being lumped into a group, even as they lump minorities into a specific race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In history I learned that this is not the case. I remember something about John Brown being some kind of a hero on one side of the mason-dixon line. I really don't think it's fair to stereotype "white" people into defining socio-cultural norms...unless of course you believe members of a race all think the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>White individuals and whites as a member of a race group (when defined by their own folk classifications) enjoyed the power to create and maintain the norm. Minorities do not. Hence, oppression of minorities by the majority.</p>
<p>Non-URMs classify minorities by their group membership often without recognizing them as individuals, while at the same time being blind to the reality that people act on the basis of race stereotypes, as defined by that majority. </p>
<p>Ironic, isn't it? That non-URMs don't like to be grouped according to a paradigm they defined--that of race. They like to be seen as individuals and not representative of their group.</p>
<p>Yet, they can freely segregate individual minorities into groups, and at the same time use an individual to signify whole group stereotypes when it is convenient to their maintaining power. Interesting.</p>
<p>I think that is a double standard. That was used against women until the 20th century as one reason why they could not vote. </p>
<p>Don't forget that poor whites also benefit from socioeconomic AA, which is fine by me for similar reasons. So, it is not a zero sum game, nor is AA for women and minorities.</p>
<p>Again, in a holistic admissions process, everyone is treated as an individual and as part of a socio-culturally defined group because the American majority has defined and continues to use it as justification for inequitable treatment. Holistic admissions takes the MACRO and MICRO view of how an applicant fits into and is treated by society when deliberating.</p>
<p>"As a group WHITES generally have more power."</p>
<p>Isn't this saying that there is some form of cohesion between whites? I would really have to disagree (once again) that all white people think alike.</p>
<p>"I see no contradition, except that non-URMs dislike being lumped into a group, even as they lump minorities into a specific race."</p>
<p>2 Things...why are you using stereotypes? And more importantly what do you define non-URM's as?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who are you defining as "white" here? Only people who have significant power?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those in the majority who have the ability to benefit from their white group affiliation and define the norm. Although the discussion is forced into a simple binary, but I recognize not all whites fit the definition of the norm. Hence, low-income, rural whites (as a group) do not enjoy the power associated with being middle & upper class, in the ways that others of their group do.</p>
<p>Hence, socioeconomic AA is fine in my opinion--even though they can blend into the group the majority defines as white.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't this saying that there is some form of cohesion between whites? I would really have to disagree (once again) that all white people think alike.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, that isn't what it means at all. Whites benefit from being the group in power, because they look a certain way. Minorities have little power because they do not look like the majority. History is full of examples of the majority oppressing those that do not fit the norms they have created to maintain a socio-cultural position.</p>
<p>White people generally benefit from looking white, as they define the norm. So there is some cohesion amongst individuals who look white.</p>
<p>@Isleboy
Asians don't look white, and asians don't have much political power (they have even less representation in the house/senate than African Americans).</p>
<p>So what sort of benefits do they get as a consequence of their looks?</p>
<p>
[quote]
2 Things...why are you using stereotypes? And more importantly what do you define non-URM's as?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because non-URMs use race stereotyping when discussing AA. Race, is not a biological construct, but one that is defined by the majority. Thus, when white people assert that Blacks, Latinos, and Asians behave in certain ways or somehow test a certain way, they are creating stereotypes based on their folk classifications.</p>
<p>Thus, the conversation here is based on socio-cultural stereotypes as embodied by the term 'race' that the majority has created and employed for much of our existence in America to maintain power.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asians don't look white, and asians don't have much political power (they have even less representation in the house/senate than African Americans).</p>
<p>So what sort of benefits do they get as a consequence of their looks?
[/quote]
I do not think that the whole Asian-college admission-situation is completely related to Affirmative Action. It's really a whole different discussion.</p>
<p>Are you basically saying that even though all people (of the same economic class) share the same opportunities...stereotypes for some races hinder participation of a member of that race in an activity? i.e. AP classes or SAT studying or sports? I have actually watched a movie that asserted this once.</p>
<p>And if this is what you are saying...why is encouraging it in admissions ok? What's the motivation for URM's to study for the SAT's if URM sat's are "taken with a grain of salt". This is a problem many of my friends have, who know they don't have to study and will still get into ivies. I've personally decided not to buy into it and work hard to know that I've earned that spot.</p>
<p>ANd lastly...you never defined non-urm...even though you keep saying this group benefits. If you're referring to whites...this is way off. Just compare the race profiles of elite colleges to the national census. The only group that is "underrepresented" in this comparison is "whites".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asians don't look white, and asians don't have much political power (they have even less representation in the house/senate than African Americans).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But, East Asians are often used as the foil for the minority achievement gap. Southeast Asians, in contrast benefit from AA. So, Asians are not a monolithic group, but some here on CC view them as such when debating what achievement is. They often do not recognize that Southeast Asians do not have some of the achievement credentials that East Asians do, because of their socio-political and socioeconomic histories. </p>
<p>Asians are 4% of the population, so it would follow that there is less representation in government. Do I think it's because there is a glass ceiling in states with low Asian populations? Yes, I do. And, growing up in a part-Asian household in Hawaii, I'm all too aware that sometimes my peers, friends, and family are slow to question authority because they do not want to cause any trouble or waves, even if it means taking the hits. </p>
<p>So what sort of benefits do they get as a consequence of their looks?
The benefit is that they remain largely above the fray, when it comes to any discussion of ethnicity and/or race, except when one needs an example. I'd say that Asians are a pawn in the discussion. If Asians were the 'model minority', then how do you explain the low scores on the SAT in Hawaii? Incidentally, I have many friends who are of mixed ethnicity/race that do not fit into the discussion because of the simple dichotomy of race discussions here on CC. </p>
<p>I never thought much of race or ethnicity until I arrived on the Mainland, where there is greater segregation based on appearances, income, and perceived status. I was seen and treated differently, but yet I was the same person. Amazing what a plane ride does.</p>
<p>I did not think that my achievements made me better than another. I did, however, recognize early on that my parents education and income provided me with opportunities that were not available to many of my friends, loved ones, and peers in Hawaii, even as my race or ethnicity sometimes had me cast as an outsider. I know what that is like, and I continue to empathize with other minority groups because of the experiences I've faced as a teenager on the Mainland. </p>
<p>Had I expected that race/ethnicity would matter? I did not. But, to some of my peers, it did--especially during college admissions. That is when even friends made assumption and vocalized their true feelings, often as a backhanded compliment. They chose to see me as East Asian, rather than remember or recall that I was also part-white. Funny how that works. And, I was used as an example by peers in discussions when AA came up to prove others points about Asians being discriminated against.</p>
<p>It's also funny that many of my colleges did not hold my ethnicity/race against me, even as I was not a stellar test taker.</p>
<p>Thus, it is ironic that Asians are still used as a pawn to somehow validate non-URMs assertions that we are facing discrimination by other minorities and are being treated unfairly, rather than by those who have the power to do something about it and who define the groups in the discussion--whites (using their term, not mine).</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if this is what you are saying...why is encouraging it in admissions ok?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In an ideal world, where the majority does not act to protect its power, race as a socio-culturally defined folk classification would not be acceptable. However, because the majority has chosen to frame the debate in racial terms--and ignore the realities of discrimination during the first 17+ years of life before applying to college--race IS a consideration. Pretending that such a reality does not exist and that somehow it makes things fair to ALL is less than honest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's the motivation for URM's to study for the SAT's if URM sat's are "taken with a grain of salt".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since the SATs are culturally biased, whites have an inherent advantage. The motivation? I guess it would depend on the individual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is a problem many of my friends have, who know they don't have to study and will still get into ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That could be self-hatred or resignation, which is often a product of a race classification system that is defined by the dominant culture. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I've personally decided not to buy into it and work hard to know that I've earned that spot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good for you. That is commendable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ANd lastly...you never defined non-urm...even though you keep saying this group benefits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Non-URMs are Whites & East Asians. I was asked to just use white since it is simpler. So, I have complied.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're referring to whites...this is way off. Just compare the race profiles of elite colleges to the national census. The only group that is "underrepresented" in this comparison is "whites"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I'm talking about overall, not just at elite colleges. And, as I've said before poor, rural whites, are underrepresented in colleges, which is why I do not have a problem with socioeconomic AA. Thus, non-URMs do not include poor, rural students in my definition.</p>
<p>Again, I was asked to use white, as non-URM is a confusing term.</p>
<p>Ok, I agree that some people are held down do to their race. But you cannot honestly believe that everyone is (though I am sorry that you feel you have been)...I mean if your parents are multi-millionaires there is not very much you are unable to do. And people are held down for all kinds of reasons! I have bad asthma, but I don't ask for special breaks during a basketball game...I'm also short but I don't demand a lower basket. This is why in holistic admissions you are able to write special essays about things you have had to overcome...and if it happens to be race that I am all for it being taken into consideration. Though, just assuming race has been a deciding factor in what one has tried to do, when people of all races are disadvantaged in some way (some more then others) seems ignorant.</p>
<p>"Since the SATs are culturally biased, whites have an inherent advantage."</p>
<p>Really...? Why?</p>
<p>Isleboy,</p>
<p>White people generally benefit from looking white, as they define the norm. So there is some cohesion amongst individuals who look white.</p>
<p>Oh really, I guess I missed the your life will be easy pass when I was born. I dont understand what it is with this fixation that some members of the African American community have that all white people have this red carpet rolled out for them. You are just are bad as Barack Obamas preacher. White people are not trying hold you down or maintain a "status quo". By complaining and acting like a victim you do that to yourself. Well, maybe some from people from lower Alabama want to hold you down, but not the majority of white people. Honestly, you seem obsessed with race and are most likely quite racist yourself. You have a very "whites vs. us" mentality. Your comments are basically identical to what I would expect from someone in the black panther movement.</p>
<p>"Since the SATs are culturally biased, whites have an inherent advantage. The motivation? I guess it would depend on the individual."</p>
<p>Just because african americans do not score as well on the test does not mean it is culturally biased. That is about as ridiculous as saying that basketball is culturally biased against whites because black people on average play basketball better. Give me a break Hillary Clinton's caped crusader sidekick.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok, I agree that some people are held down do to their race. But you cannot honestly believe that everyone is (though I am sorry that you feel you have been)...I mean if your parents are multi-millionaires there is not very much you are unable to do. And people are held down for all kinds of reasons! I have bad asthma, but I don't ask for special breaks during a basketball game...I'm also short but I don't demand a lower basket. This is why in holistic admissions you are able to write special essays about things you have had to overcome...and if it happens to be race that I am all for it being taken into consideration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is my position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Though, just assuming race has been a deciding factor in what one has tried to do, when people of all races are disadvantaged in some way (some more then others) seems ignorant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually do not make that assumption, or I would not be for socioeconomic AA. Many others, make the assumption about certain minority groups, however, when it comes to holistic admissions, which is what I prefer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh really, I guess I missed the “your life will be easy” pass when I was born. I don’t understand what it is with this fixation that some members of the African American community have that all white people have this red carpet rolled out for them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ahem...I did not make that assertion, and I do support socioeconomic AA, which does benefit poor, rural White, just as I support AA for Southeast Asians and other minority groups.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are just are bad as Barack Obama’s preacher. White people are not trying hold you down or maintain a "status quo".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, that you could know how I think or feel without having spent any time with me is amazing. Actually, many sociologist and anthropologist would disagree with such an assertion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
By complaining and acting like a victim you do that to yourself. Well, maybe some from people from lower Alabama want to hold you down, but not the majority of white people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's odd that you stereotype people from lower Alabama as being of a certain type. As for holding me down, by creating folk classifications that define the norm, the affluent, white majority affects how other race categories are treated in society. American history, while progressive, is full of examples of such oppression.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't think ALL whites have held me down, because my parents happen to be affluent, which HAS negated some of the structural effects that face minorities. I'm very blessed, actually.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, you seem obsessed with race and are most likely quite racist yourself. You have a very "whites vs. us" mentality. Your comments are basically identical to what I would expect from someone in the black panther movement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, race is a socio-cultural term that categorizes perceived differences into a hierarchy that society as a whole mirrors. There is no biological foundation for race categories. The is, however, a socio-cultural stance that is reflected in social institutions and interactions. </p>
<p>It is ironic that you assume that since I'm using the terms set up by the majority, that I must somehow be racist. It's hard to have a 'White Against Us' mentality when I am part-Asian and part-White with a smidge of other groups thrown in for good measure. And, I grew up in Hawaii, where race is not usually something that is addressed, though ethnicity is. Race, was not in my vocabulary until I came to the Mainland, where it is often used to divide groups.</p>
<p>And, while my home church is a UCC, it is predominantly White (with ALL ethnicities represented) and DOES preach a SOCIAL gospel, as it is in the Pacific Northwest. It has made some controversial assertions (in terms of philosophical arguments, but not in terms of the language of some of Rev. Wright's sermons), some of which I agree with, and some which I do not. I grew up in a Southern Baptist household and the Pastor's remarks often used incendiary language to make a point (though, most of the parishioners were Asian and White). </p>
<p>Again, interesting that you are making judgments and assertions based on what you think my ethnicity/race is rather than what I have shared before, here on CC.</p>
<p>And, you wonder why, I'm concerned about a society which uses race as a arbiter of achievement (without understanding the socio-cultural ramifications of such a practice) as a means to retain power? </p>
<p>If people did not act on their assumptions about race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic class, et al. there would be no need for AA and socioeconomic AA, would there? </p>
<p>I assert, and you've shown, that such a position depends on a big IF. My intellect tells me that those who have the power to change the situation, sometimes do make and continue to mack such judgments, especially if they do not suffer any consequences. </p>
<p>And, as I've said before, it is fortunate that some in the majority are advocates of a holistic review process when it comes to college admissions. That is the beauty of this country. It is progressive and open-minded at times, but that does not negate how minorities are treated as change spreads throughout society. That continues to be the legacy of past discrimination (especially based on race, gender, and socioeconomic class, for instance).</p>