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

<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060418736-post936.html%5D#936%5B/url%5D"&gt;quote&lt;/a>

[quote]
To me there is. I value diversity, however, although it may be politically incorrect, I think diversity has little to do with skin color.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you have anything to back that up? Our entire society suggests that this is not the case.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Ideally, it should have nothing to do with racial identity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>College applicants [self-identify[/url</a>] on a false-premise. The whole man-made 'race' notion is built on a foundation of shifting sand:</p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm%5DAmerican"&gt;http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm]American&lt;/a> Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998)](<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059723071-post198.html%5Dself-identify%5B/url"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059723071-post198.html):&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species. </p>

<p>Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. </p>

<p>Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor. </p>

<p>From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences. </p>

<p>As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought. </p>

<p>Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes. </p>

<p>Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust. </p>

<p>"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors. </p>

<p>At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are. </p>

<p>It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world. </p>

<p>How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Affirmative action policies are constitutional. Michigan's affirmative action policy was held unconstitutional. Therefore, Michagan's affirmative action policy was not really an affirmative action policy because it was held as unconstitutional."</p>

<p>Please see post #962 by fabrizio. What would you call Michigan's policy, if not affirmative action? </p>

<p>StichInTime,</p>

<p>I only somewhat agree with you. Although biologically the same, many "racial" groups have developed a culture and identity that makes many of the people from that group unique from people from other "racial" groups.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Although biologically the same, many "racial" groups have developed a culture and identity that makes many of the people from that group unique from people from other "racial" groups.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please give an example of a group of your choosing and list what aspects of its culture and identity make it unique from other groups.</p>

<p>Interesting topic , but I think a number of postings are missing the point and end up debating issues that universities are not even considering when trying to achieve a diverse campus.</p>

<p>Try to focus on the U.R. part instead of the M. part.</p>

<p>Universities as well as major corporations are reaching for diversity goals , meaning adding UNDER REPRESENTED , it just happens to be the MINORITIES are the under represented.</p>

<p>I don't think schools or any other organizations with diversity goals are trying to atone for the past or even have a goal of helping poor minorities. They just want to be able to say that they have a diverse environment.
The semantics of quotas , percentages or diversity goals are just a byproduct of higher education marketing , not idealism.</p>

<p>It may be unfair to a small part of the population but most things in life are unfair.</p>

<p>Here is my analysis:</p>

<p>Colleges want to look good. They want to look like they are diverse. So they want their statistics to be able to say that they have a certain % of certain racial groups. </p>

<p>Whether they admit it or not, they do discriminate, directly or indirectly, against over-represented groups like Asians (I am Asian, to be in the clear). The reason of course is that they do not define a a proportion of say 35% Asian and 70% Caucasian as desirable. </p>

<p>The caveat of course, is that the 35% number could only be generated out of those people who actually submitted their racial status. Those who opted to leave the field blank cannot be counted in the statistic. </p>

<p>I suspect that the 35% number itself, for example, would be a reason admission officers are less willing with regards to Asian students. Part of the reverse discrimination springs from the desire to avoid the presumed negative reputation stemming from disproportionate racial balances. If we in effect "help" those folks to not have to have that 35% number, by not putting down your ethnicity if you are an ORM, at least that concern is eliminated. For example, if half the Asians did not put down their ethnicity, the statistics would reveal the Asian proportion of the class to be much smaller. Let us at least not make it harder because of external concerns such as racial statistics for those people wanting to accept you.</p>

<p>Some people would dispute the ethics of this; I personally find reverse discrimination and racial preference to be far more repugnant. In any case, I have declined to fill out any survey/preference forms for the colleges I have been accepted to; I will not aid and abet strategic admission and the Tufts syndrome, among other ills.</p>

<p>man i am part goan (part of india that was invaded by portugual) and many people there have last names like fernandez etc. Man i wish my last name was like so then adcoms might assume i am a urm when i am actually indian, if i report race unknown.
I think its understanble that many people ( i am guessing most asians) are putting unknown given the unfair treatment they are subjected to in college admissions.</p>

<p>It worked out for me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It worked out for me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just to make sure I understand, let me ask, are you saying that you didn't report your ethnicity and you still got into your favorite college?</p>

<p>My D is also bent upon putting Unknown even though it is clear from our names that we are Asian Americans.</p>

<p>Anyone can have any kind of name under current law in most states of the United States--you can change your name or your child's name to anything you like.</p>

<p>my last name could definitely be spanish, but i am white with blue eyes..lol</p>

<p>could i get away with putting myself as a minority for scholarship and all admissions</p>

<p>I shouldn't even dignify this idiotic and unethical question with an answer, but quite simply: NO.</p>

<p>You should also be ashamed of yourself for asking.</p>

<p>you got backup for that</p>

<p>Kinda embarrassed to admit this, but I've thought about trying to pass myself as an Alaskan native.</p>

<p>um, i think u definitely can lol droooz. not that i'm saying you should, but there are definitely white people with blue eyes that are hispanic.</p>

<p>Apparently the fact that this is a morally wrong thing to do does not bother you. Do you think it is ok to steal as long as you can get away with it. I don't know what sort of proof they ask for for being Hispanic. If you succeed in doing this you would spend 4 years living with the lie. If they found out you would probably be thrown out and have to repay all the scholarship money. Not to mention possibly being prosecuted for fraud. Yes getting money under false pretenses is fraud which is a crime. You could also be found out at the application stage. Attempted fraud. Then you would have a criminal record.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If they found out you would probably be thrown out and have to repay all the scholarship money.

[/quote]
Again I'm not saying he should pretend to be something that he's not, but how would they find out? Many hispanics whose families lived in mexico or South America for generations have blond hair and blue eyes. they're just as diverse as Europeans are. The only way colleges would find out is if they look through his family history and trace what country his great-great grandparents had come from.</p>

<p>I remember reading this question a lot around application time last fall. It comes up over and over in various only slightly different ways. My guess is that just checking "hispanic" probably wouldn't help that much anyway. I have known (actual) Hispanic kids both accepted and rejected ... I think admissions committees would like to see students whose hispanic culture has contributed in some way to what they bring to the table. Not just a checked box on a Common Application form. If I've seen a lot of people post here about faking this even in the short time I've been reading CC, you can bet admissions officers have seen it countless more times. These reps aren't naive about such things.</p>

<p>Yes, most people of hispanic descent usually write about how their culture has meaningfully impacted them, how they have overcome/dealt with their socioeconomic circumstances, etc.</p>

<p>You could. </p>

<p>But you shouldn't. </p>

<p>And for asking something like this, it makes you seem like the type of person that shouldn't get any scholarship.</p>