Giving diversity its due.

[fabrizio]

<p>
[quote]
If we can not socially engineer equality of opportunity, then how can it be reached (since racial AA is unjust to you)? Are you arguing that we should say "everyone has a chance to go to school X" and just let the chips fall where they may? Would we not have to get rid of ALL preferences for something like this to work - that is, economic, geographic, gender, athletic, legacy, first generation students, etc? What about the math grind Asian students with poor English skills? Should they not get a boost because of low verbal standardized test scores? Also, who says that this doesn't already happen? What group is NOT allowed to be present at a college?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We should try to figure out exactly what the problems are regarding current inequalities of opportunity and then solve them directly. I admit that I don’t know what all the problems are. But, I know that simply dumping money and then saying, “Do something” won’t do anything.</p>

<p>As an example, the College Board currently gives a limited number of fee waivers for those who are eligible and know how to get them. I believe that the College Board should supply an unlimited number of fee waivers for their exams to any student who comes from a family that lives at or below the poverty level.</p>

<p>As another example, I don’t know what makes some schools so much worse than others. Is it lack of resources such as computers, internet, textbooks, lab materials? If so, then if the school is public, the state should provide the funding necessary to obtain those materials and should ensure that the funding goes to purchasing these materials.</p>

<p>I am not arguing that we should say everyone has a chance to go to school X. I am arguing that we should strive to ensure that everyone has a chance. I am also arguing that when we do this, we should be satisfied with “let[ting] the chips fall where they may.” There’s really no such thing as under-representation or over-representation if we let the chips fall by themselves. What you get is what you get. The thing is, did every chip have a chance to fall by itself? Or were some snatched out of the air? We used to snatch certain ones and let others fall, but that was over fifty years ago…</p>

<p>Ideally, we should give preferences based on merit only. (Yes, I’m aware that you dispute the very existence of merit.) I believe that if preferences must be given, then they should be given based on socioeconomic status as opposed to race.</p>

<p>This mysterious “math grind” (interesting phrase, no?) you speak of should not receive a “boost” to “compensate” for his poor English ability, even if he is an immigrant. Many immigrants work hard to develop their English, why should this “math grind” receive preferential treatment?</p>

<p>I don’t understand the purpose of your last question.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Well, actually, many Black students stray away from Berkeley because of its small Black student population - the "natural equilibrium" has pretty much forced many in this group to steer clear of the university altogether. Just because something may be “naturally” reached doesn’t mean it’s a desirable outcome, and, for many AA supporters the overwhelmingly White and Asian population at Berkeley doesn’t constitute diversity. Also, I don’t believe it to be all that “natural” as it is illegal for race to be to be a factor in admissions decisions for Californian public schools. It would truly be “natural” if ANYTHING could be considered when choosing a student body.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It’s a shame that for “many AA supporters”, the “overwhelmingly White and Asian” student body of Berkeley doesn’t constitute diversity. I guess to these “many” people, diversity is naught more than skin color? Such a pity.</p>

<p>I’m always amazed as to how frequently racial preference supporters make remarks that justify our nation’s sins. It would be natural if anything could be considered when choosing a student body? So, it was “natural” for the anti-Semitic Ivy League admissions officers of the early twentieth century to ask their applicants what their mother’s maiden names were, whether they had changed their last name, and what their religion was? It was “natural” for school officials to deny Oliver Brown’s daughter a seat at a nearby school on the basis of her race? Sorry, but I find neither of these cases “natural.”</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>kk19131,</p>

<p>I certainly hope you’re not suggesting that I should temper my conviction. I’m also amazed as to how diversophiles aren’t too keen on open discussions; they seem to like a lot of censorship. Funny how NOT diverse that is.</p>

<p>The SAT is certainly not necessary for participation in university programs. Perhaps you aren’t aware of this, but quite a few schools have abolished the SAT as a requirement for admission. I’m surprised that you didn’t go to one of these schools in light of your dislike for the test.</p>

<p>But, you know what? My race neither allows me to nor prevents me from joining any student group on campus. It is thus irrelevant for participation in these programs. </p>

<p>Do you realize how insulting it is for you to treat Mrs. Virginia Lamp Thomas as Justice Thomas’s “personal AA program?” I guess despite your vocal support of diversity, you only recognize one type of diversity. Funny how that’s NOT diverse, either.</p>

<p>Straw man alert. Jian Li did not argue that if one has high test scores, then one has a right to be admitted to a school. He stated in an interview that he believes other factors should be considered – just not race.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>
[quote]

If I'm not mistaken, Connerly DID benefit(as did Clarence Thomas) from AA in his businesses, which makes his stand a little hypocritical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I must ask, madville, was it hypocritical for progressive-minded whites to oppose segregation and Jim Crow? Was it hypocritical for progressive-minded whites to oppose slavery?</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“I’m always amazed as to how frequently racial preference supporters make remarks that justify our nation’s sins.”</p>

<p>-I’m not attempting to justify anything; I’m only providing a historical and social answer as I see it. I believe that much of what has happened in American history is indeed sinful and horrible, but I also have sense enough to know that certain groups of people need more than a “Sorry about all the oppression…. Now go make something of yourselves” from the tyrannical majority. </p>

<p>How about this, how about I take away all your money and property and relegate you to the bottom of society for a decade or so, and then abruptly tell you that I’m through oppressing you, that you now have an equal chance to live your life….. let’s see how quickly you can pull yourself up and make something of yourself – let alone be able to support your posterity. </p>

<p>“So, it was “natural” for the anti-Semitic Ivy League admissions officers of the early twentieth century to ask their applicants what their mother’s maiden names were, whether they had changed their last name, and what their religion was?”</p>

<p>-Yes, yes it was. The schools chose how they would admit students, and acted accordingly; this is as ‘natural’ as it gets. It would have been (un)natural if and when an outside entity forced the schools to act in a different manner – an entity like Affirmative Action.</p>

<p>“It was “natural” for school officials to deny Oliver Brown’s daughter a seat at a nearby school on the basis of her race?”</p>

<p>-That was the law. However unjust you may find it, it was the law. The social system set up in the United States was pretty much founded upon the belief that (certain) rich White males were the highest class of citizens, with everyone else falling below. In this sense, denying Brown a seat in the school was indeed the “natural” way of things at that time.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“I’m also amazed as to how diversophiles aren’t too keen on open discussions; they seem to like a lot of censorship. Funny how NOT diverse that is.”</p>

<p>-Censorship?? Ha! That’s laughable – as is being called a “diversophile” :rolleyes:. I openly welcome any opinion that is similar to, or different than, my own. </p>

<p>Further, I’m a strong supporter of academic freedom, especially at the college level, and if anything, I’m the one saying that we should let colleges choose people how they want, and not force them to use and not to use certain pieces of information when picking students. </p>

<p>“The SAT is certainly not necessary for participation in university programs.”</p>

<p>-Yes I know. That’s what I said….</p>

<p>“Perhaps you aren’t aware of this, but quite a few schools have abolished the SAT as a requirement for admission.”</p>

<p>-I am quite aware of this. Most elite schools, however, require several standardized tests for admission, none of which I feel has anything to do with being a good college student, but, what I think doesn’t matter – I’m not the one charged with picking students for schools, nor am I calling for an end to SAT-based admissions everywhere…. But, anti AA people should be wary of this, as, once the SAT goes, so does the argument that certain people are “less qualified” for admission than others. </p>

<p>"I’m surprised that you didn’t go to one of these schools in light of your dislike for the test."</p>

<p>-Fight from within... :rolleyes:</p>

<p>“Do you realize how insulting it is for you to treat Mrs. Virginia Lamp Thomas as Justice Thomas’s “personal AA program?”</p>

<p>-No, no I don’t. </p>

<p>“I guess despite your vocal support of diversity, you only recognize one type of diversity.”</p>

<p>-I don’t even know what this means…. I support all types of diversity – but I leave it up to the individual to decide what he believes to be ‘diversity’; I don’t attempt to draw morally ambiguous lines backed up with little more than my own opinion. For you it’s ok to discriminate against the wealthy, or say, a person with two parents, in college admissions, but wrong to help racial minorities – dubious at best. </p>

<p>“Straw man alert. Jian Li did not argue that if one has high test scores, then one has a right to be admitted to a school. He stated in an interview that he believes other factors should be considered – just not race.”</p>

<p>-Then he had no argument. He said pretty plainly that he wanted to be rejected from Princeton so that he could file a civil rights complaint – this was clearly based on his BELIEF that he had a right to be accepted to the school, and that the only reason why he would be rejected was because of his race.</p>

[mythmom]

<p>I hesitate to post here because feelings run high, but I am writing in support of OP. I don't think semantic arguments about the meaning of diversity are not to the point at all. Sure, it's a code word; it's a code for giving those who have been not been able to benefit from the system they helped to create a chance to enjoy its fruits right alongside the top dogs who have always had more than their share of apples.</p>

<p>I don't think it matters whether or not these top dogs benefit from diversity. Even if they don't, IMO it would still be the right thing to do.</p>

<p>No one wants to think their kid's spot has been taken by someone else when their kid seems more "deserving". However, no one seems to rail against the legacies; most reserve their ire for AA. The legacy has benefitted from the system every step of the way. As far as I know (though I am happy to be corrected) Swarthmore is the only college that states outright that applicants do not benefit from legacy status.</p>

<p>I know that at some institutions (one in particular) it is likely that my son was not admitted because of this school's push to admit URM's. I think this is fine. DS has enjoyed certain benefits his entire life. It's nothing wrong with teaching him to share; does his impressive ACT or SAT score, or even GPA for that matter, automatically make him more deserving? This are arbitrary benchmarks too. They are ones we are used to because we like to think that elite admissions are a meritocracy. Several generations ago if you went to Andover you were in. Forget about SAT scores. </p>

<p>Equality of opportunity will not be enough to redress social bias and unfair distribution of resources. Why? Because the opportunity to acquire the accoutrements that allow competition on a level playing field has not been equally distributed. Someone has to step up sometime.</p>

<p>Why is the time now? It's always time now. And even if little Johnny at Harvard doesn't feel he benefits from "diversity" at his school, society benefits by having the chasm between haves and have nots just a little more shallow and just a little bit narrower.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>And, I would agree with you that an apology of the sort you described is woefully inadequate. However, I do not view the race-blind policies espoused by Mr. Connerly as the same thing. His civil rights initiatives are not the end of the process; they are merely a step along the way.</p>

<p>A decade of individual mistreatment is insufficient. Even a century would not be enough. It would take several centuries across several members of my bloodline.</p>

<p>The Asian immigrants of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s did not have to suffer the injustices you described. Yet, considering that most arrived to their new country with very limited funding and language barriers, they’ve done amazingly well. Why? Because they didn’t have a skills deficit. I strongly disagree with the supporters of racial preferences who believe that “URMs” can only succeed if they have a diploma from an elite school. Having a diploma from a four-year university and the will to succeed are the true requirements.</p>

<p>Are you suggesting that it’s unnatural to force people to stop discriminating, that we should just let people discriminate if they want to? I disagree strongly if this is so.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Well, kk19131, I apologize. I got the feeling because of your “are you in charge?” comment.</p>

<p>Since you don’t realize the degree of your insult, I should elaborate.</p>

<p>You’re suggesting that Justice Thomas married his wife not out of love but out of a desire to get ahead in this world. That is very, very insulting, and I am surprised that you do not see that.</p>

<p>In light of what you have written in this thread, I agree that you don’t attempt to draw “morally ambiguous lines.” Instead, the lines you draw are *a*moral. You’ve stated that race can be a part of merit, that there wasn’t anything unnatural about admissions officers wanting to decrease their schools’ Jewish enrollment, and that there wasn’t anything unnatural about denying a student a seat at a school based on her race. In essence, you’ve defended the practice of discrimination by dismissing it as “what people wanted” or “what society wanted.”</p>

<p>Jian Li’s argument is that we shouldn’t consider race as a factor because it inevitably leads to discrimination, be it positive or negative.</p>

<p>Some might argue that considering race does not lead to discrimination. If that’s so, then considering race is unnecessary because not considering it has the same effect.</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>Fabrizio, if that is really the way you think then what makes college admissions the place to draw the line? Why can we seek to set things right at every place prior to college admissions? College is still education. Would it not be just as much "discrimination" to give schools with a high percentage of minority students extra money and attention as it is to allow universities to help them by admitting them?</p>

<p>What makes college admissions too far?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>To answer your first and last question, which are the same, The disadvantages students get from attending poorer and weaker schools compound as they age. When we start earlier, we can better minimize these effects and perhaps even reverse them such that the student is no longer disadvantaged from an education standpoint.</p>

<p>By contrast, if we start at college, then the student is coming in with over twelve years of weaknesses that were suddenly “accounted for” courtesy of “holistic” admissions. Sure, he has another four years to develop himself, but why pick four years of betterment when you can potentially pick sixteen (twelve plus four)?</p>

<p>I don’t understand your second-to-last question. Are we giving extra funding simply because the school is mostly composed of minority students? If that’s the only reason, that’s definitely discriminatory. However, if the school lacks resources (e.g. books, computers, etc.), teachers, and staff and just so happens to be mostly minority, then it should get the extra funding.</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>right but why is college "too far?" why not do both?</p>

[madville]

<p>
[quote]
Having a diploma from a four-year university and the will to succeed are the true requirements.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I applaud your idealism, but there are compelling objective reasons why people seek out the elite institutions. Sure there is some "selling of the sizzle" with regards to the marketing of elite schools, but I contend there are some substantative advantages from an elite experience. After all, if there wasn't any tangible benefits, why are we discussing who deserves to get in or care who gets in? Let me help you... because it does matter!</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, it was “natural” for the anti-Semitic Ivy League admissions officers of the early twentieth century to ask their applicants what their mother’s maiden names were, whether they had changed their last name, and what their religion was? It was “natural” for school officials to deny Oliver Brown’s daughter a seat at a nearby school on the basis of her race? Sorry, but I find neither of these cases “natural.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Selfishness, self preservation, seeking to protect those of your "clan" or of your ilk, by means overt and covert is as natural and as old as the beginning of time. One doesn't have to be trained or indoctrinated to be selfish. Self-lessness is the recessive trait. Fab, as intelligent as you seem to be, this certainly shouldn't surprise you.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>Assuming that what I propose is done (i.e. a conscious effort to address current inequalities in education), there’s no need to “make adjustments” during the fall semester of the applicant’s senior high school year.</p>

<p>What would be left to adjust?</p>

<p>Certainly not poor schooling if we assume that what I propose be done.</p>

<p>It wouldn’t be inability to take College Board tests due to financial reasons, either.</p>

<p>Might you be referring to an adjustment for his race? If so, I don’t support that, as you well know.</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>Well if what you said was done, wouldn't AA have absolutely no effect?</p>

<p>So why not do both? Why should it be illegal for universities, as part of the educational system, to benefit a just and important social cause by educating qualified minority students in their university?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>madville,</p>

<p>Sorry if I wasn’t able to express myself clearly. It definitely “does matter.” During the next three years, I intend to develop my quantitative and critical thinking abilities such that I can express myself clearly through both speech and paper because I want to attend and succeed in a Ph.D. program at an elite university. That’s what I want – to learn from our nation’s greatest academics in a demanding and personal environment.</p>

<p>So, yes, it “does matter.” But, it’s not “end-all-be-all.” I only know one professor originally from China who earned his undergraduate at a “Chinese Ivy League.” One. That’s it. The rest earned theirs from what we’d call state-level universities. Yet, they’re teaching and doing research at a university that recently obtained research university status. Translation: they’re doing pretty well for people who came to our country with not much. If they “made it” without attending an elite, why can’t other Americans do the same?</p>

<p>The traditional response to this question is “they’re a highly self-selected group.” That is true, but this response always presupposes that these immigrants came from the best universities in their homelands, and based on my experience, that has not been the case. They attended good universities but not elite ones.</p>

<p>I see your point regarding natural behavior. Yes, I agree that it’s natural for those in power to hold on to it. I disagreed with kk19131 because I perceived that what she wrote amounted to “they didn’t do anything wrong.”</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>Which “AA” are we talking about? Kennedy-style AA or modern AA? Kennedy-style AA would still have an effect. Modern AA would have no effect.</p>

<p>Preferentially treating certain applicants during the fall semester of their senior year of high school for no other reason than their race negates the entire purpose of trying to resolve inequalities of opportunity during their previous twelve years of education. What’s our purpose here? Are we trying to make sure that everybody has an equal chance to compete? If so, then start tackling the issues earlier. Or, are we trying to make sure that there’s equal representation? If that’s what you want, then quotas are your answer. I mean, why do all that hard work trying to help students out when they’re younger and need it most when you can just “make adjustments”?</p>

<p>I don’t understand your last question. It shouldn’t be illegal, and I really hope you’re not suggesting that I think it should be.</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>you sound like you think it should be illegal. As you support and would have voted for the bans in Michigan and California.</p>

<p>And you have yet to give a reason why a university can not benefit minorities by educating them at their school?</p>

<p>Why can't Harvard say "I want to help this cause of social equality, so i'm going to educate as many qualified minority students as i can"?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>What is “it”? Are you talking about modern AA? Of course I think it should be illegal. If were able to vote in either California or Michigan in 1996 and 2006, I would have voted in favor of Proposition 209 / Proposal 2, respectively.</p>

<p>I have “yet to give a reason” because you have straw manned me again. I have never suggested that a university should be forbidden from “benefit[ting] minorities by educating them at their school.” I believe that all students, regardless of their race, should have a chance to be educated at a university of their choice.</p>

<p>There’s no reason why Harvard can’t say that. Again, I’ve never suggested otherwise.</p>

<p>I request the numbers of the posts that show what you perceive as my support for restricting student access to education. Ending modern AA doesn’t restrict access. If it did, then there should be no minority students in the UC system. Yet, there are many who apply, there are many who are admitted, and there are many who matriculate, as it should be.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>"I believe that all students, regardless of their race, should have a chance to be educated at a university of their choice."</p>

<p>-How does this not already happen? Which students are denied a chance "to be educated at a university of their choice"? Which schools say that they flat out won't accept any person of race "x"?</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>haha come on fabrizio, i think it is you making some of your infamous "straw men".</p>

<p>You know exactly what i was talking about when i said AA, as it has been what we've been talking about the whole post. And you also knew exactly what i meant when i said: "Why can't Harvard say "I want to help this cause of social equality, so i'm going to educate as many qualified minority students as i can"?" </p>

<p>It's a fact that an education at a higher quality university equates to a higher income, which is the main cause of the racial equality gap. So if more minorities that are qualified receive a higher quality education, then that gap will close over time. </p>

<p>So why can't a university work to close the racial equality gap by admitting more minority students if they are qualified to do the work?</p>

<p>What if a college said that it was going to create 200 extra slots in it's student body in order to admit more minority students, spots that would not exists otherwise if not for that purpose, would you support that?</p>

<p>From your definition of "equal opportunity", which to you race-blind admissions supports, i get the feeling that the closing of that gap is not particularly important because "thats just the natural equilibrium".</p>