<p>We have a teacher who designed a one semester course on race and ethnic relations in America- which was very popular with many students, however he wanted it to be a rigourous course, to prepare upperclassmen for college, and the result was that mainly caucasian students signed up for the course, and because he refused to "dumb it down" to assuage the more vocal AA parents, the class was dropped.
This frustrated the teacher so much that he stepped down as head of the dept.
Thats pretty disappointing considering as I have noted above that whites are a minority in the building and in the district, so why weren't more students interested in the class?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't get the impression that any of them spend time educating their classmates on their racial past. Slavery doesn't come up during math class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If slavery doesn't come up in US history classes, then something is very wrong with the curriculum.</p>
<p>I always find it interesting that people insist on saying that upper-middle class and "rich" black kids (as if the country, and elite colleges in particular, are crawling with them) are "no different" from their white counterparts, and bring nothing to an institution in the way of diversity. They talk as if these black students are just white people dipped in chocolate, and have no connection to an African American cultural heritage. As I've said a number of times before, that this is just NOT TRUE!</p>
<p>Why is it that we've not heard anyone say that middle-class and rich Asians are just like white people?. I suspect it's because most people recognize that there are distinct aspects of Asian culture(s) that transcend economics, and that most Asian students, regardless of their income level maintain, a close and proud connection to their cultural heritage. One of my D's best friends is a Affluent Chinese girl who went home for Chinese New Year not long ago, and beore going, explained a lot to my D about various aspects of the holiday. If you'll look at some of the past threads here on CC started by Asian students to talk about the particulars of college admissions and what it means to grow up in an Asian family, I think you would be hard pressed to make the statement that Asian students are "just like white students", and bring no cultural diversity to a school. Compare that with the few times in the past that black students have started a thread to discuss with one another college admissions, family life, etc. These threads were infiltrated by trolls and malcontents, who actually expressed outrage that black students should have the gall to start their own thread. They accused the black students of being "segregationists" and proceeded to use the thread as a forum to rant against Affirmative Action. One thread, in particular last year, became so rancourous as a result that Moderators felt it necessary to lock the thread. I thought it was interesting (no, actually, I didn't find it interesting, I found it galling, and disrespectful, condescending, and insulting) that people respected the Desi and Asian threads enough to leave them unmolested, but saw fit to trash the African American one. </p>
<p>And herein, I believe, is the crux of the problem with the strangely common belief that middle-class and "rich" African American applicants are no different from white students. It is somehow assumed that black culture has no aspects that are not indistinguishably linked with low income and lack of education. I wonder if anyone has any insight into this phenomenon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is it that we've not heard anyone say that middle-class and rich Asians are just like white people?.
[/quote]
I did say this in my post #233.<br>
[quote]
Are you essentially different than any white or asian or indian students in your own neighborhood? Many would contend that the socio-economic position of a poor rural kid of any color contributes alot in the way of cultural diversity and understanding.
[/quote]
I still maintain that economic position is more divisive than race or culture. On that point, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>African-Americans, "whites", indians, asians and jews in my area embrace and share their cultures, but it is not an "us vs. them" situation. Hey, I have a rich cultural history, too...I am not generically "white" as some would imply, nor am I trying to oppress other cultures. </p>
<p>Poetsheart, you mentioned African-American student threads, Indian threads and Asian threads. What would people say if <em>gasp</em> somebody started a Caucasian student thread? Wow, that would be racist. It really is a double standard.</p>
<p>From my casual observations, both on this board and in person, it seems to me that teenage students of all races are focused on their own lives, their own relationships and their own successes. It is more often the adults that continue to make race a major issue. Elementary school children don't even realize the differences. If kids want to get along, why can't we?</p>
<p>Since the OP and I have been talking online but off-air, those conversations have led me to bring something here that we may be forgetting about. These & similar threads tend to reduce to either/or, when there's no question that that's a distortion of the reality of admissions. Pursuant to the oft-repeated phrase -- that upper tier colleges have been turning away equal numbers, in quality & quantity, as the full class of freshman admitted students, does it occur to anyone that these turned-away equivalent classes are <em>diverse</em> classes? It's not possible, in fact probable, in fact indisputable, that the turned-away class is composed of high-scoring non-URMs/ URM's + low-scoring non-URMs/URMs? Where's the either/or here?</p>
<p>I think I can also confidently say the reverse, & I think any honest parent must also say that: I have no evidence that because my D was admitted to certain upper-level colleges, that this is proof that she was "more qualified" than her fellow applicants. Sure, she was more qualified than <em>some</em> of them, but not all of them. Her qualifications & her traits were what those colleges wanted at the time she applied, over applicants who were not admitted. That's all. And the colleges are in a better position to make those judgments because they see all the applications, & they see much more than the telegraphed, punctuated summaries we see posted on CC. We have intimate knowledge of our own students, & perhaps many of their peers, but that's as far as our "expertise" goes.</p>
<p>College admissions is not about an absolutist kind of eligibility. It used to be, many many years ago -- both for publics & for many privates. If the student demonstrated a certain qualification "bar," there would be little excuse to refuse that student. The problem that I see with the premise behind many of the discussions over "qualified" vs. "unqualified" is that they're substituting an Absolutist view over the Relative dynamic of admissions -- a dynamic that would be operative EVEN IF THERE WERE NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. (Emphasis, not shouting in anger. Don't know how to "bold" when posting.)</p>
<p>That's why, in my view, "blaming" AA is, at least unintentionally, scapegoating. The population size of boomer offspring, coupled with the vastly broader availability of college to 18-yr-olds (vs. the days of "absolutist" qualification) & combined with the more universal expectation of a college degree, has radically changed admissions dynamics -- probably permanently. It means that for the near-foreseeable future, "qualified," "better qualified," and "extremely or superlatively qualified" candidates will continue to be turned away, of every race, majority & minority.</p>
<p>Aside to poetsheart:
Unfortunately or not, Caucasians consider educated Asians to be more like themselves than different. It's not that the cultural differences are not recognized, but there's a reality of certain <em>key</em> shared values & lifestyles, which, while not comprehensive, tend to make the 2 groups more similar than dissimilar. That view, right or wrong, also appears to be shared by college admissions committees.</p>
<p>I believe, is the crux of the problem with the strangely common belief that middle-class and "rich" African American applicants are no different from white students. It is somehow assumed that black culture has no aspects that are not indistinguishably linked with low income and lack of education. I wonder if anyone has any insight into this phenomenon.
I certainly have not been arguing that black or asian teens whose parents have college degrees are identical to caucasian teens whose parents have college degrees or native americans- or persians.....
However I also would argue that diversity is not just skin deep- that diversity is economic- is political- is religous- is spiritual- is artistic- academic- athletic-is sexual- is geographic....</p>
<p>In our area- asians have both a higher rate of education and a higher average income- than caucasians, so perhaps that is why as a "minority", asians are not viewed as disadvantaged as some groups</p>
<p>"I still maintain that economic position is more divisive than race or culture. On that point, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree."</p>
<p>Only if you insist on ignoring the various ways in which people of the same economic circumstances can differ tremendously. Would you say that there are no note-worthy differences between a black kid whose family makes $25,000 per year living in inner city Baltimore, and a white one whose family pulls down the same income living in a West Virginia Holler? They both make the same income, but does that make their very real differences disappear? Even if both families lived in the same Holler, or the same Baltimore neighborhood, I would surmise that their perspectives probably vary tremendously in many fundamental categories. And while it would also be true their shared income and geographic location would probably cause them to see some things eye to eye, their similarities would not out-strip their differences and negate their value as separate examples of diversity.</p>
<p>Afluent blacks who live in racially diverse neighborhoods (like my sister and her family) often enjoy gratifying friendships with the many racially and ethnicly different families in their neighborhoods. In my sister's case, where all the homes are well over 4000 square ft, everyone is a high income professional. In the immediate vacinity of her house, there are 2 white families, a Japanese American family, a family of Indian Sihks, and a family of recent African immigrants of the Muslim faith. Their children have all had occasion to play together, the adults wave to each other as they go about their various busy lives, and they even have a block party once every summer to get together and socialize. But even a cursory observation would show that, though they all share roughly the same economic status, they experience life through the filter of VERY different historical and cultural perspectives. But if it makes you feel better to believe that blacks must be poor to bring any "real diversity" to a college campus, don't let me disabuse you of the idea. I'm sure I haven't anyway.</p>
<p>"African-Americans, "whites", indians, asians and jews in my area embrace and share their cultures, but it is not an "us vs. them" situation. Hey, I have a rich cultural history, too...I am not generically "white" as some would imply, nor am I trying to oppress other cultures."</p>
<p>The situation you claim to experience is exactly the ideal of cultural and ethnic diversity Adcoms hope to create. The hope is that people of various backgrounds, who would not normally chance to get to know one another, would come together and gain an understanding. The hope is that the "us vs. them" mentality that so normally pervades American thinking would be sorely challenged in a campus setting on a daily basis. </p>
<p>"Poetsheart, you mentioned African-American student threads, Indian threads and Asian threads. What would people say if <em>gasp</em> somebody started a Caucasian student thread? Wow, that would be racist. It really is a double standard."</p>
<p>Your argument is a straw man meant to put me on the defensive, but I'm not falling for it. When it comes to this website, the vast majority of its participants are whites, applying to predominantly and historically white institutions. They represent the "default group" whose concerns are addressed automatically in many of the articles and threads on the site. The blueprint and procedures for entering these elite schools were originally crafted by whites for whites. When white parents and students come here, they are operating on the tacit and understandably unconscious assumption that elite colleges will be dominated by their presence. Do I really have to spell this out for you? It's like saying there is a pressing need for "White History Month". I'm probably wasting my time by pointing out that every month is White History Month because the overwhelming emphasis in every American History curriculum and text is on the actions of white people, and white males, in particular. When you turn on the television, do you ever think, "Wow, where are all the white people?" I doubt it. America's whole dominant cultural emphasis is on its white European origins. Anyone not of that background is necessarily marginalized to some extent by that very fact. </p>
<p>Now, in the case of threads started by persons of a specific minority group to address concerns or issues particular to persons such as themselves, it bares noting that non of them have ever been restricted. In fact, persons of other racial and ethnic groups (including myself) did often participate in such threads with comments or questions. Some of the threads about growing up with "Asian parents" were a scream. They were interesting, and funny and informative. I never once felt threatened or insulted or excluded. I don't think anyone did. I understood that their purpose was to express concerns or ask questions of one another that were not addressed in threads started by members of the "default group". Almost always, participation in these threads was respectful, and no one raised any objections to their exitence. It was only the threads started by African American students, threads whose purpose, like the Desi and Asian threads, was to network and share information particular to the needs and concerns of other Af Ams, that were shamefully attacked. And the motivation, quite frankly was racism.</p>
<p>I once had a white friend who accompanied me to a Umoja Festival (a festival celebrating black music, history, and culture). After a few minutes, it became obvious that he was irritated that the festival even existed. When I asked him why he was getting so agitated, he replied that it seemed "racist". Afterall, there was no "white people's festival". I just stared at him, hardly knowing how to even begin to address such an ignorant statement. "Did you object to the Saint Patrick's day parade?", I asked. Were you offended by the Scottish Festival, with all those guys running around in kilts, hefting huge telephone poles? Did the Greek and Helenic Festival make you feel marginalized?" He didn't answer. "Did you ever, for one moment feel that the existence of Colonial Williamsburg, which was established to glorify the accomplishments of white men in the "founding of this country" was racist", I asked. Again, not a word. But then, what could he say?</p>
<p>I once had a white friend who accompanied me to a Umoja Festival (a festival celebrating black music, history, and culture)</p>
<p>ya know i think we could go on all day with racist- mysoginistic- bigoted comments that friends- aquaintances and relatives have made.</p>
<p>I don't feel threatened by Ramadan- or Purim or anyone of a number of festivals- I think they are a great way to share our culture and get to know one another- but I do find all the ways that we find to divide one another a bit wearying.
I get tired of the pointing fingers- I get tired of blacks complaining both that whites are "gentrifying' their neighborhood, but also that "whites" don't want to live in their neighborhood.
Which is it?
I also don't understand' their" neighborhood- this district has changed over the years and it is continually changing again.
My grandparents-great aunt and uncle and mother lived there thru the 30s-50s, when it was mainly white and jewish, it was predominantly african american during the 60s and 70s , and during the 80s and 90s saw an even more diverse group of persians, asians, indians, africans, as well as russians, and northern europeans move in.
So whose neighborhood is it?
doesn't our city belong to the people?</p>
<p>
Where does this come from?</p>
<p>This comment just leapt out at me -- I highlighted the parts that really struck me as .... well, offensive. If you had said something like "many Caucasions".... I would see your point. But "reality"???</p>
<p>Hey, I'm white & a nonobservant Jew. I don't see Asians being more similar to me & mine than blacks. Quite the contrary. Maybe this is because I live in an area where there are a lot of Asian immigrants, so it is often the case that the parents of my kid's asian friends don't speak the same language as I do -- the moms are all very nice, but its hard to get very far in a conversation that consists of a lot of nodding & smiling. So I find I only end up socializing with and befriending the ones who speak English well enough that we can communicate, or with those who are American born; almost all the black families I meet are American-born and speak English just fine. So while I don't even like the stereotyping involved in making this statement, I have always perceived black culture to be much more like <em>my</em> culture (whatever that is)- than Asian culture. (which is also very hard for me to lump together because the Koreans I know are culturally distinct from the Chinese, who are different from the Japanese -- and the predominant Asian group that I socialize with happens to be Filipino, and as a group they seem more like hispanics than asians in terms of "culture" - for example the Filipina girls all had Quincea</p>
<p>poetsheart,
Let me clarify and reinforce my position. I did not say that "there are no note-worthy differences between a black kid whose family makes $25,000 per year living in inner city Baltimore, and a white one whose family pulls down the same income living in a West Virginia Holler?" You said that. </p>
<p>I said that I felt that economics was most divisive in our <em>American</em> culture and that families in the same schools and same neighborhoods were living pretty much the same lives. Sure, they embrace their cultural past, but their cultural present is very similar. </p>
<p>All of your sister's neighbors who are professionals living in 4000 square foot homes are living pretty much the same lifestyle. Their present culture probably includes things like suburban lawns, expensive cars, nice vacations, dinners out, sports camps, music lessons, and parental involvement in academic success. Are you telling me that the affluent African-American family living in your sister's neighborhood has anything in common with that $25K family in inner city Baltimore? On the flip side of the coin, the challanges of the black inner city Baltimore family are much the same their other-colored neighbors.</p>
<p>I think you can embrace your cultural past and pass it on to your children while still living in present. Out of any 24 hours, your cultural present exerts a much greater force than your past, no matter how cherished, important or historically significant.</p>
<p>If you are white and you think that somehow you share more culturally with Asians than with black people, then you simply haven't been around enough black people. If you think that rich people value education more than poor people, then you haven't been around enough poor people</p>
<p>I think there are more difference within groups of 'white'- 'black' -
asian' or 'purple' people than between.
However the reason why I made the statement that "asians perform better academically & economically than caucasians , is because that is what I read in the study- and yes I agree that asians is a little too broad a term for accuracy- but that is th e term that is used
I think it also depends what study you read- in one study it showed that we had more college educated asians than whites- but now i can't find it- but I did find that college educated blacks and asian women out earn white women</p>
<p>calmom,
you have way overreacted to a simple passing along to this forum, observations that have been made to me, by others, when discussing similarities, differences, variations between certain subgroups in certain educational milieus.</p>
<p>The term "reality" was not used in its philosophical sense, but in its "common observed experience" sense, relative to certain aspects of college admissions that ---well, WERE relevant to the ongoing discussion. </p>
<p>I am extremely offended by your unnecessary attack on me. You obviously have issues way beyond the topics on this thread.</p>
<p>I said nothing about "feeling a sense of commonality" with that subgroup. I was passing along a viewpoint of other educators, expressed to me, an educator, that are useful as a point of understanding how an educational population is sometimes perceived by those in admissions offices. It is confined to certain aspects of that educational population -- aspects that are perceived as similar relative to what can be important for college admissions.</p>
<p>The viewpoints did not emanate from me, & they were expressed in the third person -- an important detail that you conveniently ignored. I also said that the perception may be "right or wrong." I made no judgement on the accuracy of the perception. I also mentioned that there were <em>certain</em> shared values. I also mentioned that the similarities were not seen as comprehensive.</p>
<p>And yes, I do consider your personal response a rant, & in the worst way.
I tried to be civil & of a broad nature, & come back on this forum & share what I considered to be something fruitful after a discussion I had with the OP. As usual, this has become a descent into private & internal struggles made public & projected onto others, quite inappropriately.</p>
<p>I'm sorry that I didn't qualify the term "Caucasians" when I made that statement. Obviously that's what sent you into orbit. I didn't mean it to be a universalist statement. You could have simply replied with something like,</p>
<p>"I object to your failure to qualify the group term "Caucasians," because whatever admissions offices think of "my" similarities to Asians, I do not share such a view of commonality." etc.</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>It has always seemed to me that one hallmark of liberalism is placing the concerns of the society at large ahead of one's self-interest. The AA debate reflects this. Same with the federal tax policy. Having investment income in excess of $100,000 most years, it would be in my self-interest to vote for Republicans and their tax cuts, particularly as it relates to estate taxes and investment income. I gladly vote for more progressive Dem tax policies.</p>
<p>Yet there are goobers and evangelicals out their who vote against their economic self interests and those of their children, being whipped into a frenzy over abortion and gay marriage. So I thank you very much for financing me to the tune of tens of thousand per year and my son thanks you for giving him a tax free gift of multimillions down the road while your wages continue to stagnate, your health care disappears, and your children inherit unnecessary trillions of debt that I use to pay for. Thank you very much.</p>
<p>A champaign toast to stupidity anyone!</p>
<p>Originaloog, Wow! What a thoughtful, open-minded and balanced approach to differing political points of view. Posts like this make me despair that this country will ever become the tolerant and welcoming place I think it could be.</p>
<p>Originaloog,</p>
<p>Sounds to me like the "goobers and evangelicals" are placing the concerns of the society at large before their own economic self-interest (if one agrees with you on that point).</p>
<p>epiphany:</p>
<h2>calmom didn't attack you. She attacked your ideas, which attack is perfectly acceptable.</h2>
<p>We all need to hold on a minute. SBDad made an honest point and I fear we have run him away because we are all pushing hard to have our own opinions heard. I know I am pushing hard at it. So, I think I need to apologize to you folks and do a lot more listening.</p>
<p>Why not we all just calm down a little and try this: just for today, at least privately, but publicly if you can, lets just work very hard to try to agree with our opponents. You know, I have said all along that I am not fond of AA, though I accept it because I think it is needed. I dont think anyone is actually FOND of it. But no real gentleman or gentlewoman is FOND of the history that gave rise to AA either. We find ourselves all trapped in this thing and we dont know a good way out of it. But you know what? We are going to have to get out of it, no matter what. The great thing is, if we can find some way, so that both sides can let the other know they arent interested in causing further harmyou know, let everybody relax and trust that we are all in the thing together and that we are all gonna come out together or not at all, well, I think it would go a long way to helping us form opinions that will ultimately spread and help everyone.</p>
<p>I think one of the big problems is that when a guy like SBDad comes right out and says what we know a lot of people must be thinking, a lot of us think he is being uncaring or insensitive because we are feeling so threatened ourselves. But letting things get heated aint exactly gonna help SBDad resolve his issues. On the other hand, a lot of anti-AA people may appear so one-dimensionally anti-AA that they give off the impression that they cannot be trusted to do anything but destroy (and not help) their opponents.</p>
<p>I think I am gonna end my part in this particular thread, not because I am angry, saddened or anything. Shoot. I dont know about you folks, but Im just tired! But maybe Ill keep at it, because I am sensing that many of you folks are really just the dearest things and Im talking about all of you, really, even you anti-AA knuckleheuh guys.</p>
<p>I think maybe what we should try to do before we go at it further on this kind of issue is establish a good faith arena so that our opponents always know that we are not just interested in winning and destroying. Id just like you folks to know that I want to simply spar in friendliness to see whether my ideas can hold up or whether they need rethinking or total rejection. The truth is, even if I could flip a switch and get my way in this world, but leave you folks all unhappy, Id just as soon leave the switch as it is. Now if I can get the same sense from you, that you really wont flip the switch unless it ends in mutual happiness, then I think Id be willing to listen to ideas that would otherwise seem a threat to my interests.</p>
<p>Anyway, the idea is that maybe we should try to discuss this stuff being really considerate of the anger and suffering of others. I have no hard feelings toward anyone here not even one.</p>
<p>Totally agree, Drosselmeier! These forums provide an excellent opportunity to discuss the areas where we disagree, and if we can keep it civil and believe that those who don't agree with us aren't evil or stupid people, so much enlightening interaction can take place. I know I've considered some angles that have been presented here that I hadn't thought of before, and you know that for every person posting there are probably 100 others who are just reading and thinking about these things. Let's debate ideas rather than attack each other.</p>
<p>She didn't attack "my" ideas, Drosselmeier. She attacked a phantom, a distortion of my ideas. Big difference. I'm calling her on it; I'm calling <em>you</em> on it, now. I was reporting a perception -- correct or not correct as that perception may be. Neither one of you has addressed that in an appropriate & intellectual manner.</p>
<p>I've actually been very civil -- & as I will repeat -- a lot more civil, & a lot more broad-minded & less reactive, less insulting, less "personal," than many many posters on this thread, & many particular posts therein. I take no responsibility for the OP leaving the thread, &, as I have mentioned, I have continued my conversation with him on the side.</p>
<p>I truly resent the implication that I am somehow not contributing to the concepts of open, free, intellectual debate. No, you haven't said that specifically -- merely been more tangential than that. </p>
<p>Great: you agree with calmom. I do not. I think her response was completely inappropriate. As an alert attorney would say in the courtroom (to her long rant): "non-responsive, Your Honor."</p>
<p>Just to clarify, I totally agree with the part of Drosselmeier's post about being civil in our interactions.</p>
<p>I love you, Drosselmeier, I really do. You are a better man than most. And if you were a woman, you'd cetainly be a better one than me. Consider me sufficiently chastened!</p>