<p>CCer's:</p>
<p>Do you need a better example of socio-cultural bias based on 'race'?</p>
<p>Well, there's no denying that the current admissions system of American colleges took birth because of racism. </p>
<p>gladwell</a> dot com - getting in </p>
<p>It's funny why colleges included the "other" option; an Asian's name, for example, can give out a lot more than it's meant to. The "holistic admissions" scheme looks good on paper, but it goes without saying that it comes with a generous tilt.</p>
<p>MODERATOR'S NOTE: </p>
<p>The Terms of Service on CC prohibit ad-hominem attacks, so this post has been edited out. To make a substantive point about the discussion, make it in general, substantive form without commenting on particular persons.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who are you defining as "white" here?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where did the term originate from? </p>
<p>Once again, Tim Wise:</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, the white race is a quite modern creation, which only emerged as a term and concept to describe Europeans in the late 1600s and after, specifically in the colonies of what would become the United States. Prior to that time, "whites" had been a collection of Europeans with little in common, and often long histories of conflict, bloodshed and conquest of one another's lands and peoples. The English, for example, did not consider themselves to be of the same group as the Irish, Germans, Italians, or French. While most Europeans by that time may have thought of themselves as Christians, there is no evidence that they conceived of themselves as a race of people, with a common heritage or destiny. </p>
<p>But the notion of the white race found traction in the North American colonies, not because it described a clear scientific concept, or some true historical bond between persons of European descent, but rather, because the elites of the colonies (who were small in number but controlled the vast majority of colonial wealth) needed a way to secure their power. At the time, the wealthy landowners feared rebellions, in which poor European peasants might join with African slaves to overthrow aristocratic governance; after all, these poor Europeans were barely above the level of slaves themselves, especially if they worked as indentured servants (9). </p>
<p>In 1676, for example, Bacon's Rebellion prompted a new round of colonial laws to extend rights and privileges to despised poor Europeans, so as to divide them from those slaves with whom they had much in common, economically speaking. By allowing the lowest of Europeans to be placed legally above all Africans, and by encouraging (or even requiring) them to serve on slave patrols, the elite gave poor "whites" a stake in the system that had harmed them. Giving poor Europeans the right to own land, ending indentured servitude in the early 1700s, and in some cases allowing them to vote, were all measures implemented so as to convince lower-caste Europeans that their interests were closer to those of the rich than to those of blacks. It was within this context that the term "white" to describe Europeans en masse was born, as an umbrella term to capture the new pan-Euro unity needed to defend the system of African slavery and Indian genocide going on in the Americas (10). And the trick worked marvelously, dampening down the push for rebellion by poor whites on the basis of class interest, and encouraging them to cast their lot with the elite, if only in aspirational terms. </p>
<p>This divide-and-conquer tactic would be extended and refined in future generations as well. Indeed, the very first law passed by the newly established Congress of the United States was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which extended citizenship to all "free white persons," and only free white persons, including newly arrived immigrants, so long as the latter would make their homes in the U.S. for a year. Despite longstanding animosities between persons of European descent, all blood feuds were put aside for the purpose of extending pan-Euro or white hegemony over the United States (11). </p>
<p>During the Civil War, the process of using "whiteness" to further divide working people from one another continued. So, for example, Southern elites made it quite clear that their reason for secession from the Union was the desire to maintain and extend the institution of slavery and white supremacy, which institutions they felt were threatened by the rise of Lincoln and the Republican Party. One might think that seceding and going to war to defend slavery would hardly meet with the approval of poor white folks, who didn't own slaves. After all, if slaves can be made to work for free, any working class white person who must charge for their labor will be undercut by slave labor, and find it harder to make ends meet. Yet by convincing poor whites that their interests were racial, rather than economic, and that whites in the South had to band together to defend "their way of life," the elites in the South conned these same lower-caste Europeans into joining a destructive war effort that cost hundreds of thousands of lives (12): their lives, in fact.</p>
<p>It seems as if the "game" hasn't changed only the players.</p>
<p>I simply want to bring to the attention of some, a dynamic that has been at work for a long time, clearly illustrated.</p>
<p>Tokenadult great article, referring to the law school dilemma. I would venture that those same dynamics could apply in selective school admissions as well. Sowell and Steele certainly allude to such points.</p>
<p>Just as a point of curiosity here, how many of the participants in the thread have lived somewhere other than the United States within the years of their schooling? I have. Besides a very brief pair of visits to Canada, in regions of Canada quite similar to Minnesota, I have had two three-year stays in Taiwan, and extended visits to Hong Kong and China, with transits of Japan on some of those trips. My son is better traveled than I am, as he has had a summer program in Europe, a continent I have never seen at all.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<p>I did not call all whites racists. I did not state, "That is, whites assert that there IS a difference in qualifications based on outward appearances..." You did. You labeled all whites as racists.</p>
<p>You say that "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." Simplifying this sentence results in "[whites]...are using 'race' to arbitrarily decide who is most fit." Well, if this is true, then why don't we call for an end to the consideration of race as a factor?</p>
<p>Context is very important in any discussion. That is why your "outward appearances" does not refer to physical beauty, weight, and so forth. In context, your "outward appearances" refers to race. Though race does not exist, some nevertheless believe there is a biological basis for race, and of this group, some choose to act on their belief in prejudiced ways. Racism still exists even though race doesn't.</p>
<p>By the way, I didn't ask you to use white in place of 'non-URM.' I asked you to use white in place of 'non-URM majority.' Asians are not "under-represented," but we are certainly not part of the majority, as you yourself freely admit.</p>
<p>Provocative question: would things be better or worse is "white" and "Asian" were combined into a single category?</p>
<p>Food for thought is some of the categories that DON'T exist on ethnic self-identification forms by default. </p>
<p>@Hunt</p>
<p>That's about as practical as merging "white" and "latino" or "white" and "black".</p>
<p>As long as we're talking in terms of race, you simply cannot group ethnicities just because they aren't URMs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As long as we're talking in terms of race, you simply cannot group ethnicities just because they aren't URMs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not? </p>
<p>(By the way, I can remember, because I'm older than most participants in this thread, when the "Hispanic" category didn't exist at all.)</p>
<p>How about this for an even better idea: let's do away with "white," and say you have to identify yourself with a particular foreign country of parentage--so you can be English, Scottish, Greek, Irish, Spanish, French, Russian, etc.</p>
<p>Ditto for Asian--You'd have to put Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Indian, etc.</p>
<p>JP--on the practicality of merging "white" and "Asian," this would simply be a decision that we won't look at that category when determining whether we have "diversity" or not, just as we currently don't ensure that we have some Greeks or Scots to ensure diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about this for an even better idea: let's do away with "white," and say you have to identify yourself with a particular foreign country of parentage--so you can be English, Scottish, Greek, Irish, Spanish, French, Russian, etc.</p>
<p>Ditto for Asian--You'd have to put Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Indian, etc.
[/quote]
Technically we already do this. For example, "White" includes English, Scottish, Greek, Irish, etc., so it does not really make a difference. As for "Asian," I think they need to distinguish between East Asian and Southeast Asian.</p>
<p>Yeah, but in this second idea, I'm suggesting that instead of three or four categories, we go to hundreds of categories.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but in this second idea, I'm suggesting that instead of three or four categories, we go to hundreds of categories.
[/quote]
That won't do anything to help, though. If you had hundreds of categories, then only one or two students could get in under each category. Plus, very few "White" and "Black" people know their actual ethnicities.</p>
<p>Why don't we not categorize by group and instead focus on the individual?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why don't we not categorize by group and instead focus on the individual?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Colleges do in holistic admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, I didn't ask you to use white in place of 'non-URM.' I asked you to use white in place of 'non-URM majority.'
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, good debate technique. Majority, as it pertains to America, is White, primarily. And, you seem to want simplicity. That term 'non-URM majority' pertains to some Asian groups as well, when it comes to college admissions. But, you wanted the White in place of that, which does itself exclude some Asians, and some poor whites. Circular logic on both sides. Not surprising.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asians are not "under-represented," but we are certainly not part of the majority, as you yourself freely admit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, some Asians are part of the majority, while others are not. I admit that some Asian's, like myself, are part of the majority when it comes to college admissions, in part due to early-AA, and as a foil to other groups grievances. Are Asian's to blame for the model minority myth? No, that rests with the majority. Are we to blame for forwarding that assumption as a point of racial "pride"? Yes, we do. I don't agree with this, but the tenor of the conversations here on CC do veer in that direction (with some exceptions).</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say that "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." Simplifying this sentence results in "[whites]...are using 'race' to arbitrarily decide who is most fit." Well, if this is true, then why don't we call for an end to the consideration of race as a factor?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In a perfect America, where there is no such thing as racial bias, I would call an end to it. The reality is different. That is why economic AA and general AA is still necessary at places that do not practice holistic admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why don't we not categorize by group and instead focus on the individual?
[/quote]
As IsleBoy already said, colleges do focus on the individual. As for categorizing by groups, it just makes their goal of achieving all types of diversity more practical. For example, instead of considering geographic diversity in terms of region, why don't colleges consider it by state, city, or perhaps even zip code? Well, because it's just not practical.</p>