Giving diversity its due.

Applying to College
41

<p>Lake Washington: "One of the definitions of diversity should mean the redress of the not-too- distant legacy legal race-ostracization and segregation at places like the Univeristy of Georgia. Ask Hamilton Holmes or Charlayne Hunter Gault about diversity at U of Georgia (tongue pressed firmly in-cheek)."</p>

<p>Redressing anything is wrong unless we all have our ancestral atrocities redressed. Since most of the people who came to these shores have tales of sorrow in their family histories, the notion of redressing anything is ridiculous. Ranking suffering is usually absurd. Many American families were off in Asia or Europe or elsewhere suffering themselves while atrocities toward African Americans or Native Americans were being committed on this continent. Even the descendants of those who committed the wrongs should not have to pay for the sins of their forefathers. All we can do is what is right from this point forward.</p>

<p>Holycow0515: "As a northeastern middle class parent it was hard to accept that my child was being held to higher objective standards than some other applicants."</p>

<p>I don’t agree that this is what is happening. One could argue all students are held to a higher objective standard that has been determined by privileged students who have every advantage and then some. It is an unrealistic standard that children who come from less advantaged backgrounds (who are statistically often likely to be URM) have a difficult time meeting. Not having the advantage of parents who attended college, a cushy upper middle class suburban high school where every book and uniform is pristine, after school lessons and expensive SAT tutors, says nothing negative about the applicant. What about students who have had sketchy access to good food, housing and health care? If I were the parent of a poor African American student from Mississippi, my perspective might be that it was “hard to accept that my child was being held to a higher objective standard than some other applicants” as well.</p>

<p>The reality is that colleges are assembling incoming classes with the goal of creating a campus environment with the greatest chance of inspiring and educating students. Colleges also need to meet the demand of employers, who also are striving for diversity. If someone brings a sport, a trait, a hobby, an experience which is less represented, they will have a leg up for that reason alone. It would not be that one thing is preferred over another, just that is was more in demand.</p>

42

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

<p>I think that we all agree with this, so what is the issue? I’m not for quotas, or making a college campus a mirror image of census statistics. But I am also for the freedom of businesses and institutions to do what they feel they need to do in order to be competitive in the marketplaces in which they compete. </p>

<p>You can't complain that adcoms are puppeteering racial representation on a campus and then be all for governments and voters puppeteering what colleges and businesses are allowed to do. It’s like you (and I don’t mean you, personally as much as I mean you as a representative of the position you are taking) don’t want anyone else to be able to artificially manipulate things, but you want to be able to do that yourself (in this case as a voter). Businesses should be free to make their employee population more diverse (as long as they are not discriminating AGAINST any particular race or group), and colleges should be free to do so as well. That is what their marketplaces are demanding.</p>

43

<p>kk19131,</p>

<p>
[quote]

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"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No students are denied a chance. No schools refuse acceptance to students of [insert race here]. So, yes, you’re right - it does “already happen.” And, since it does, we don’t need racial preferences and can focus instead on addressing inequalities of opportunity in education. Thank you.</p>

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>No, I will not “come on.” In post 37, you wrote that I “…have yet to give a reason why a university can not benefit minorities by educating them at their school.” I did not give a reason because I have never suggested that a university should be forbidden from benefiting minorities by educating them. You just made something up and acted as if I disagreed with it to advance your point – that’s what we call a straw man.</p>

<p>And, if you don’t believe that you made it up, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise, for you made the claim against me.</p>

<p>No, I did not know “exactly what [you] meant when [you]” asked that question. Harvard has every right in the world to do that. I have never suggested otherwise. Again, the proof is on you to find a sentence of mine that supports your claim.</p>

<p>Your “it’s a fact…” paragraph describes the skills gap. Personally, I don’t buy the “if he doesn’t have a diploma from an elite, then he won’t make it” argument. As I mentioned before, I know very few Asian professors who earned their undergraduates at “Chinese Ivy Leagues” before immigrating here. I also know very few who earned their Ph.D.s at our elites. Yet, they are succeeding here regardless. If they can make it, why not our fellow countrymen? Because they are a “highly self-selected” group? That’s a true statement, but it doesn’t answer the question. What’s more, it assumes that these “highly self-selected” people all graduated from the best universities in their homelands, which is false. The key is that they have no skills deficit. That key is universal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Another straw man. Did I ever say that they can’t? If a university is able to admit more minority students while holding them to the same standard as their peers, that’s better for the university and for the incoming students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>ABSOLUTELY NOT. What you just described is 1970s-style quota-based affirmative action, which was struck down in Bakke. I oppose it because it is inherently unequal. 200 spots are reserved for minority students and are open only for minority students. That is discrimination, plain and simple. Justice Powell rebuked the petitioners in Bakke as follows in his opinion:</p>

<ol>
<li> 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.</li>
<li> Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake</li>
</ol>

<p>Closing of what gap? Earning a four-year degree or earning an elite four-year degree? Closing the first gap is pretty important. Closing the second I could care less about. Its focus is misguided.</p>

44

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>The issue is, are we going to end both negative and positive discrimination? I would like to see both ended, but I am aware that some favor the continued end of the first and the continued existence of the second.</p>

<p>Yes, I can complain that certain people are not allowing the chips to fall where they may and still argue for the institution of policies that allow the chips to fall uninhibited. That’s a consistent position. If we had let the chips fall naturally half a century ago, Brown wouldn’t exist. Oliver Brown would have been able to get his daughter into the public school of his choice, no questions asked. But, we didn’t let the chips fall, and hence, Brown was necessary.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Businesses should be free to make their employee population more diverse (as long as they are not discriminating AGAINST any particular race or group), and colleges should be free to do so as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with this, but I take it one step further. They should be free as long as they neither discriminate against nor discriminate for.</p>

45

<p>Fabrizio: "If a university is able to admit more minority students while holding them to the same standard as their peers, that’s better for the university and for the incoming students."</p>

<p>What you are not acknowledging, Fabrizio, is that this standard is impossible to define. How can you compare a kid who has had every advantage with one who has had almost none? Are we to pretend that such disparities do not exist? The fault in your argument is your insistance on being in control of the definition of "standard". </p>

<p>The fairest standard (and the one which universities use today) should involve the student who has accomplished the most within the context of what was available, and the student who meets the standard of the university's need at that time. If the standard is the need, which will change with every incoming group of applicants, then in no way will expressing a demand for more URM's be positive or negative discrimination.</p>

<p>Negative discrimination is not hiring or admiting an applicant because of preference for a different race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Positive discrimination is hiring or admitting a person because of preference for a race, gender, ethnicity, etc. However, trying to round out a class of students or a pool of employees is neither of these things. It shows no real preference for one race over another. No negativity towards one race or another. No judgements about who should be compensated for past sins. It is purely an attempt to create diversity with no preferences or judgements whatsoever. It is a process with the sole focus not of reparation but of a better educational or work environment. And "better" does not include any pro or con intentions toward any race. Because tomorrow the underrepresented group will change, the focus is on meeting business and educational needs (and not on social engineering, which is the primary argument against negative or positive discrimination).</p>

46

<p>Serious, all bull and debate aside, do you really think it would be cool for me to send my kids off to a campus where there were hardly any URM students (because the applicant pool had a bunch of great ones but they were about 50 SAT points or a tenth or two GPA points lower - in addition to on average having only about 20% of the income advantages)? That would be OK with you, Fabrizio? That doesn't sound fair to me. If there are any URM students who are given a break on stats, I doubt if the stat break in any way compensates for the very real disadvantages a statistically high number of them have in common. That isn't fair at all. And now my kids don't get to go to a school where there are kids from all different backgrounds. So pay the very same tuition as you, but I don't get to express my demands as a consumer? Your position is supposed to be all about fairness. So, is that fair?</p>

47

<p>"How can you compare a kid who has had every advantage with one who has had almost none? Are we to pretend that such disparities do not exist? The fault in your argument is your insistance on being in control of the definition of "standard"."</p>

<p>You're operating under the twisted assumption that all whites/Asians automatically have "every advantage" and all URMs have "almost none." Until you can show that every single URM, as a direct result of his(/her) race is disadvantaged, your statement does nothing to justify AA.</p>

<p>"The fairest standard (and the one which universities use today) should involve the student who has accomplished the most within the context of what was available, and the student who meets the standard of the university's need at that time."</p>

<p>And yet you support something that gives an advantage solely on the color of your skin, not on what a student has overcome. If a student can show that they overcame more than an equal peer, they should get in, but being a minority does NOT automatically mean that they have done such, and implying such is not any better than assuming that all minorities are more violent because statically they have more people in jail or more promiscuous because statistically they have more unwed births or less intelligent because statically their test scores are lower. Statistically, they may be poorer, but statistics show nothing of individual people.</p>

<p>"However, trying to round out a class of students or a pool of employees is neither of these things. It shows no real preference for one race over another. No negativity towards one race or another."</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it does. You can say that oh, it only shows preference for those who are underrepresented, but that still means that one race is given a preference over another, and as a consequence, one race is disadvantaged.</p>

48

<p>Equal opportunity is worked the wrong way.
It gives admissions to people who
A.dont deserve it
B.Are not qualified for it</p>

<p>I think diversity is good, but the means of achieving is all wrong.
If fair equal opportunity is to be achieved, we must start from the bottom.
The govt needs to better inner city education, so that all children receive same educational advantages as eachother.</p>

49

<p>charisma: "You're operating under the twisted assumption that all whites/Asians automatically have "every advantage" and all URMs have "almost none." Until you can show that every single URM, as a direct result of his(/her) race is disadvantaged, your statement does nothing to justify AA."</p>

<p>This was your conclusion, not mine.</p>

<p>Charisma: "And yet you support something that gives an advantage solely on the color of your skin, not on what a student has overcome."</p>

<p>I don't think anyone should be given an advantage because of the color of their skin. Again, your conclusion (not mine). I think that if colleges or business want to make their populations of students or employees more diverse, they should be able to do so. I think that if football teams want to be able to find faster wide receivers they should be able to do so. I think if a shampoo company wants to find a redhead for a commercial they should be allowed to do what they feel will work to create the best outcome possible (in their opinion). If a medical school decides that it wants to admit more liberal arts majors, so be it. No one is getting discriminated against for their overrepresented race, slow running speed, brunette hair, or background in biology as a result of this process.</p>

<p>I am Caucasian. I would never discriminate against my own race (and no other races as well!). But if I had one hundred sales people, and not one was African American or Hispanic, you can be sure that I would make my sales force more diverse. Not because I was discriminating against the next Caucasian candidate who walked in through the door. I would need to be free to do what I needed to do, without malice and with the best of intentions, to make my sales force more competitive in the marketplace.</p>

<p>Some people on this thread think that negative discrimination was bad, but that the fix is bad as well (positive discrimination). But they then propose a new kind of discrimination, one towards businesses and institutions which hobbles them from doing what they need to do in order to be competitive in the market place. Furthermore, this choice then brings us full circle back to NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION. Because its proponents seem not to protest against preferences based on economic advantage, running speed, looks, IQ, social class, etc. - everything except being an underrepresented minority. Colleges and universities are OK if they express preferences, in the interest of being more competitive in the martketplace, for just about everything else? Why is that?</p>

50

<p>You responded to Fabrizio's "If a university is able to admit more minority students while holding them to the same standard as their peers, that’s better for the university and for the incoming students." with "How can you compare a kid who has had every advantage with one who has had almost none?"</p>

<p>I'm not sure what other kind of conclusion I'm supposed to come to. Please, explain what you meant then.</p>

<p>You say "I don't think anyone should be given an advantage because of the color of their skin.", but by favoring one race for diversity, they automatically have an advantage.</p>

<p>"Again, your conclusion (not mine)."</p>

<p>So, what is yours?</p>

<p>"No one is getting discriminated against for their overrepresented race, slow running speed, brunette hair, or background in biology as a result of this process."</p>

<p>Yes, they are, how can you not understand that? One group receives an advantage, then the other automatically receives an disadvantage. Also, the examples you provided are hardly the same as college admissions; you don't need a specific set of skills or attributes to be educated at the average university.</p>

<p>edit - </p>

<p>"everything except being an underrepresented minority."</p>

<p>That is because being an URM is something you're born as, nothing more than the color of your skin, not something that is the result of work, or something that directly caused you to be disadvantaged.</p>

<p>"But they then propose a new kind of discrimination, one towards businesses and institutions which hobbles them from doing what they need to do in order to be competitive in the market place."</p>

<p>Sorry, but I refuse to believe that hiring the best people for the job regardless of the color of their skin would hobble them.</p>

<p>"But if I had one hundred sales people, and not one was African American or Hispanic, you can be sure that I would make my sales force more diverse."</p>

<p>Why would being one skin color automatically mean that you're more diverse and why would that help?</p>

51

<p>charisma: I"'m not sure what other kind of conclusion I'm supposed to come to. Please, explain what you meant then."</p>

<p>My focus at that point was on the fact that a high percentage of URM's do on average, have fewer of the advantages which makes college admission easier.</p>

52

<p>"My focus at that point was on the fact that a high percentage of URM's do on average, have fewer of the advantages which makes college admission easier."</p>

<p>Again, my reply: "Being a minority does NOT automatically mean that they have done such, and implying such is not any better than assuming that all minorities are more violent because statically they have more people in jail or more promiscuous because statistically they have more unwed births or less intelligent because statically their test scores are lower. Statistically, they may be poorer, but statistics show nothing of individual people."</p>

<p>"Until you can show that every single URM, as a direct result of his(/her) race is disadvantaged, your statement does nothing to justify AA."</p>

53

<p>the problem with "context" is that you are assuming that a 1200 SAT student from a poor high school would be a 1400 SAT student at a well funded high school. you cannot do that. the best way to solve this issue is to improve public education and ultimately society as well, which does not value education very highly.</p>

54

<p>charisma: "Being a minority does NOT automatically mean..."</p>

<p>I never said it did.</p>

55

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>No, this standard is not impossible to define. See UC Berkeley for an long-standing example. And, if you wait a few years, you can compare Michigan before 2006 and after to see just how “little” of an effect positive discrimination had.</p>

<p>The fairest standard you describe is holistic admissions, which is possible without a consideration of race. See UCLA for an example.</p>

<p>Simply expressing a demand for more “URM”s is neither positive nor negative discrimination. It only becomes positive discrimination if these “URM”s are accorded extra benefits solely due to their race that other applicants of different races do not receive. How can we make sure that this doesn’t happen? Race-blind admissions.</p>

<p>So, how can you round out a class without “show[ing] [any] real preference for one race over another”? I mean, if all are equally preferred, then you should be happy with what you get, “well-rounded” or not.</p>

56

<p>So, Fabrizio, what if (since statistically speaking, on average URM's will have fewer of the advantages which help one prepare for college - and please, Charisma, read my words carefully before responding) the incoming class of x college had hardly any URM's. That is a result with which you are comfortable?</p>

57

<p>"I never said it did."</p>

<p>But that is the assumption that AA makes.</p>

<p>Also, I wasn't implying that you thought that all URMs were disadvantaged, but rather reiterating that since not all URMs are disadvantaged (since you acknowledged the fact), they should not be treated as some giant identical group. I read your words quite carefully.</p>

58

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>How you live your life is none of my business. It affects me not at all where you send your children in the future. (Should you send them, or should they send themselves?)</p>

<p>I don’t think fifty SAT points and a tenth of a GPA difference (e.g. 2350 and 3.9) is enough to weed out an applicant. If your kids wanted to attend a school that they liked but you felt wasn’t “diverse,” that’d be fine with me. After all, it wasn’t any of my business to begin with. As long as your kids are happy, that’s all that matters.</p>

<p>Of course you can express your demands as a consumer. You are in the market for “diverse” campuses. You can find many. I am in the market for excellent campuses that are naturally diverse. I can also find many.</p>

<p>Is it fair that your kids might not be able to attend a “diverse” school? Sorry, but I don’t know how to answer that question. Unless we reinstate legal segregation, our level of diversity can only increase; it will never decrease.</p>

59

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, Fabrizio, what if (since statistically speaking, on average URM's will have fewer of the advantages which help one prepare for college - and please, Charisma, read my words carefully before responding) the incoming class of x college had hardly any URM's. That is a result with which you are comfortable?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I’d have no problems with it. As long as the “URM”s were neither discriminated against nor granted preferential treatment, I’d be fine.</p>

<p>As I’ve written repeatedly before, the supporters of race-blind policies will win because we can accept three outcomes regarding “URM”s, as follows:</p>

<ol>
<li> Fewer “URM”s</li>
<li> The same number</li>
<li> More</li>
</ol>

<p>As an Asian, I can accept three outcomes regarding my group, as follows:</p>

<ol>
<li> Fewer Asians</li>
<li> The same number</li>
<li> More</li>
</ol>

<p>What about the opposition? They can only accept two outcomes in both cases. For “URM”s, they can only tolerate #2 and #3. If the policy results in #1, they are against it. For Asians, they can only tolerate #1 and #2. If the policy results in #3, they are against it.</p>

60

<p>"Did I ever say that they can’t? If a university is able to admit more minority students while holding them to the same standard as their peers, that’s better for the university and for the incoming students."</p>

<p>You just said that they can't right there. In order to say that you didn't you keep having to twist my words, I asked:</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>and you said that they can't, because obviously if everybody is held to the exact same standard than you can't admit "more" of anybody because it's impossible. </p>

<p>I too wonder what your idea of "standards" are. Who or what is setting the standard, is it you? Because according to most elite university 3/4 applicants meet their "standards" so i'm not sure whose being held to a different standard. </p>

<p>So if the standard is that everybody is qualified, and every urm admit is qualified, then how are they being held to a different standard in your eyes? (i know you'll probably rattle off some statistic about SAT scores, which colleges aren't even obligated to use, but i want to hear something relevant)</p>