<p>speaking of princeton
personally, everyone i saw coming out of princeton acts a little weird or they take too much pride of themselves. They're like "oh we're princeton, ur not" or stuff like that. Even my professor from princeton said "back in the days, a class average like this would not make you guys become professional blah blah blah, you shouldn't be studying blah blah blah" What kinda professor says that to students ... even my friend from princeton feel that way sometimes and he knows. Could be too much work made them feel they're superior over everyone else? I don't know. Give me a choice between princeton and top public school I'd choose berkeley or uva! Not to offend anyone but I have never seen any humble princeton product!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do want to address the expression "racial preference" that keeps popping up here. Affirmative action IS NOT the same thing as "racial preference," to say the least. In admissions, we "prefer" students who are going to add different perspectives, experiences, talents, and values to the institution; we do not prefer one race of student over another. If a student's perspectives, experiences, etc..., have been influenced because of their race, then sure, their race is obviously going to come into the conversation;
[/quote]
Yeah. Thanks so much for this clarification. I actually have used the term âracial preferenceâ before. But I certainly donât mean it in the way it is commonly portrayed. I mean something like âracial considerationâ or, I think I heard the term ârace sensitiveâ. Basically, I think since race affects everything else in our culture, it ought not be ignored in admissions. This certainly doesnât mean anyone should be admitted just because he is a URM. But it ought to give admissions committees a fuller view of their applicants. If race were treated like hair color in our society, then it would make no sense to treat it differently in admissions. But it is not treated like this. So we ought to keep it in mind as we judge an applicant's accomplishments.</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>So, you're telling me that ceteris peribus, a systematic pattern of picking the "under-represented minority" candidate over the white candidate is not racial preference? Uh, what is, then?</p>
<p>Whether or not you'd prefer to define racial preferences as diversity is none of my business. I know what you're talking about, anyway. But, please don't deny that they exist, especially when Drs. Bowen and Bok have admitted that without that system, minority enrollment at elites would plummet (51).</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I was not satisfied with one of your previous explanations.</p>
<p>You stated in post #137 that "If you're happy there ["A college"] and can get all the opportunities you want, then that's all that should matter!"</p>
<p>Later on, you stated that in post #163 that "where you go to school really does matter."</p>
<p>You reconciled these two posts by assuming that my idea of "A college" is 'Southeastern Western Bumbleweed State College' (post #177). No, no, it's not. My idea of "A college" includes selective LACs that offer merit aid and flagship public universities.</p>
<p>I'd like a better reconciliation between those two contradictory posts.</p>
<p>Also, when you yourself used the term "racial preferences" in post #163, exactly what were you referring to?</p>
<p>
[quote]
My last word to you Fabrizio about this because I don't think you are being open-minded here...I agree with you that racial preferences are not the only way to improve social inequalities in this country. However, considering that white-Americans have been benefiting from racial preferences for centuries, I'm not exactly sure we can begrudge African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans, and Latino-Americans their fair shot at the prize...we need to balance the playing field and ignoring race in trying to do so will set us back more than it will advance us. Best of luck to you in your college search...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just finished reading the first essay in A Dream Deferred by Dr. Shelby Steele. He describes some of the people on this thread down to the tooth. Whether it's preoccupation with victimhood, need for redemption, or occupational necessity, he describes all the types of race-based affirmative action supporters and paints an unflattering portrait of their true motives (power, guilt, money, respectively).</p>
<p>"he describes all the types of race-based affirmative action supporters and paints an unflattering portrait of their true motives (power, guilt, money, respectively)."</p>
<p>Well, I can paint you in an unflattering light as well. Does that make it true?</p>
<p>Fab,</p>
<p>Its "ceteris paribus."</p>
<p>Fabrizio, </p>
<p>My use of the term "racial preference" in post #163 is very different from your use of it in general. However, I was responding directly to your words in that post and thus used the term you did. But, to clarify my point in that post: white people have been "preferred" for years in American society by each other and have benefited from the systematic exclusion of people of other races in higher education, board rooms, government positions, etc... to the extent that it has perpetuated the disadvantage of these "others" for decades and beyond. That's why they are "under-represented" and are referred to as such...In college admissions, we aren't practicing any kind of systematic exclusion - on the contrary, we are trying to INCLUDE different people. But again, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT USED AS MUCH AS YOU ARE MAKING IT OUT TO BE IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS! At the top schools in the country, most of the top black, Latino, Native-American, and Asian-American kids are just like the top white kids academically (stats) and would have gotten in without affirmative action - the top schools attract the tops kids from all different populations. There isn't a "systematic pattern of picking the 'under-represented minority' candidate over the white candidate"...it just doesn't happen or work that way at all. Which brings me to my next point...</p>
<p>Again, your reference to Drs. Bowen and Bok is taken out of context. The assertion is true, of course, but let's talk about why they make this assertion. Well, do we really have to? I feel like it's been made clear a hundred times on here already. Under-represented minorities in this country have been systematically excluded from higher education for years...it wasn't until the 1960s (and 1970s in many cases) that these students were admitted to most selective institutions; those schools that did admit these students prior to that time only did so for patronizing reasons that, in fact, were seen as advantageous to white people. This is not a long time ago!!!! We've also talked about how the SAT is culturally biased. And, let's not forget prejudice and racism which, however absent they may seem, do exist in all of our schools. Different students are treated very differently because of prejudiced expectations and intimidation, regardless of whether or not it is conscious. Your assertion that those of us who support affirmative action do so out of power, guilt, money, etc..., is absurd. It's about social justice. Period. </p>
<p>To reconcile what you call my "contradictory posts"...read them again. I think I made it clear that I believe a student can be successful in life without going to one of the most elite institutions in this country but that those who do go to the elite institutions - as opposed to, say, Southeastern Western Bumbleweed State College - will probably have an advantage later in life because of the prestige the elites carry with them. I even went so far as to mention Caroline Hoxby's research on this because it's quite compelling. However, I also mentioned specific schools in my post just as examples to illustrate my point that there are plenty of very good schools out there for students who don't get in to the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc..., that can give students the tools they need to succeed in life. I made this point because it seems that A LOT of students here on CC believe they will be failures in life if they don't go to Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whether it's preoccupation with victimhood, need for redemption, or occupational necessity, he describes all the types of race-based affirmative action supporters and paints an unflattering portrait of their true motives (power, guilt, money, respectively).
[/quote]
Well then thanks for the heads up. I won't waste my time reading this cat if he is insulting his opponents and trying to impugn their integrity. He ought to simply address their actual perspectives, fairly, putting legitimate idea against legitimate idea rather than trying to gain weight for his argument by other means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Whether or not you'd prefer to define racial preferences as diversity is none of my business. I know what you're talking about, anyway. But, please don't deny that they exist, especially when Drs. Bowen and Bok have admitted that without that system, minority enrollment at elites would plummet (51)."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Instead of faithfully addressing your opponent's perspective, you have taken his view, recast it with your own biases, and then claimed it is your opponent's view. That is dishonorable. To be honorable, you will need to put forth a reasoned argument showing how his view is necessarily what you have claimed. Then you must allow your opponent to defend himself. You can't just say, legitimately, that the opponent prefers to define racial preferences as diversity (ignoring his stated view), and then haul off to rant against racial preferences.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>
<p>Of course you can paint an unflattering portrait of me. But, that's not what Dr. Steele did. He described the true reasons behind the support of racial preferences without holding anything back.</p>
<p>Can you also do that?</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>Merci beaucoup.</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>Here lies another contradiction. You say that affirmative action is not used as grossly as I believe. Could be. Why keep it, then? It perpetuates the idea that people cannot solve their own problems. Moreover, you claim its effects are minimal. Hence, it should be removed.</p>
<p>But! If it were removed, then the number of enrolled "under-represented" minorities would drop to perilously low levels. You have stated that this conclusion from Drs. Bowen and Bok is a true assertion.</p>
<p>Now, wait a minute, just wait a minute. Doesn't this show the extent to which racial preferences are at work? Drop its use, and numbers change like crazy. To me, that means that it is being used, and to a significant extent.</p>
<p>Also, it is not my assertion that supporters of race-based affirmative action have motives related to power, wealth, and money. That is not my original thought; I absolutely cannot claim it as such. It belongs to Dr. Shelby Steele. I firmly agree with it, but it is not mine.</p>
<p>You realize that your last paragraph bolsters the Asian parents who are so dead set on seeing their children graduate from Harvard?</p>
<p>I never thought of SEWBSC (or any other fake college) as a viable alternative to the "elites." I was thinking about the many selective LACs (and research universities) that offer merit-based aid. I was thinking about the flagship publics. I was most definitely not thinking about some Tier 5 college that nobody has heard of and has insufficient resources to educate its students.</p>
<p>If you tell parents that their children will be successful at one of the many great colleges in our nation as long as they are happy and believe they can succeed, I'm sure you can convince quite a few of them given that you are an admissions officer. If you just tell them that, I really do believe that you'll convince them to broaden their college lists, which is a good thing.</p>
<p>But, if you also say that the college students attend matters, then you will cause those parents to revert to their old behaviors and desire Harvard that much more.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>There was no other way the paintings could have been produced. Once the shell of political correctness is removed, the core is quite unattractive. The principles we stand for are cast away in the name of "social justice."</p>
<p>An attempt to make the paintings look 'nicer' would result in a distorted image.</p>
<p>We never stood for any principles. We just stated the principles without following them, just as we claimed all men have the unalienable right to life and liberty even while we were enslaving millions of men. We never really stood for any principles. That is the problem. Only now are we trying to seek ways to be fair - to address the injustice that has existed in America for multiple centuries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here lies another contradiction. You say that affirmative action is not used as grossly as I believe. Could be. Why keep it, then?
[/quote]
So predictable. I said to myself "watch this kid snip out this one sentence to overlook the guy's point", and sure enough that is exactly what you did.</p>
<p>Without AA, the veritable tens of thousands of qualified whites and Asians would make it nearly statistically impossible for ANY black to enter the elites. These blacks are as qualified as the whites and Asians, but they are so few in number not a single one is likely to get in. If you want diversity, you have to hunt for them until we can get these numbers way up. Many of us already know how to get the numbers up. But we also know it will take time - a lot more than a mere thirty years (which is no time at all). Kill AA, and you just make it a lot harder for us.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>You've consistently stated that there simply aren't enough qualified Black candidates to compete alongside the multi-thousands of qualified whites and Asians if a race-blind standard were applied.</p>
<p>How does preferential treatment increase the number of qualified Black candidates?</p>
<p>Dr. Steele contends that the only way to make Blacks able to compete with these "tens of thousands of qualified whites and Asians" under the same standard is to send a clear message to them. Not only can they compete against these qualified applicants, but they MUST compete against them without preferential treatment.</p>
<p><of course="" you="" can="" paint="" an="" unflattering="" portrait="" of="" me.="" but,="" that's="" not="" what="" dr.="" steele="" did.="" he="" described="" the="" true="" reasons="" behind="" support="" racial="" preferences="" without="" holding="" anything="" back.=""></of></p>
<p>Yes, but you are saying that those of us who support Affirmative Action are as Dr. Steele describes us: guilt-ridden, controlling, whatever it is that you say is so unflattering. You cannot tell me what my motives are because you have no way of knowing them.</p>
<p>I have stated my opinion near the beginning of this very long thread and in pieces as we've gone along, and I feel no need to repeat myself, especially since you obviously did not accept my views the first time around. Others have expressed their understanding of AA, and have made efforts -- obviously futile -- to convince you and other opponents of the validity of the idea. Drosselmeier has articulately described the barriers to success for African-Americans. AdOfficer has described in detail how admissions works at elite colleges. You have dismissed all of this, which is your perogative. But please don't tell me <em>why</em> I support AA, or <em>why</em> I don't think Asians are truly discriminated against in admission.</p>
<p>Some of us hope that, in the interest of social justice, we all can put aside our immediate self-interest in favor of a stronger society as a whole. Yes, that's idealistic, and the execution of it is often imperfect, but it's better than the all-white, male-dominated US of the past. If you think you, as an Asian, have not benefited from the shift away from elitism and toward inclusiveness at the institutional level, then you are gravely mistaken.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You've consistently stated that there simply aren't enough qualified Black candidates to compete alongside the multi-thousands of qualified whites and Asians if a race-blind standard were applied. How does preferential treatment increase the number of qualified Black candidates?
[/quote]
The question is flawed. The direct effect of AA is not to increase the number of qualified black candidates (though I know for a fact it is helping increase qualified candidates indirectly). AA helps create diversity by allowing schools to consider race as an influence in the lives of existing qualified candidates.</p>
<p>If we want diversity without lowering standards, and if we have only one black among a thousand whites and five hundred Asians who meets the standard set by those two groups, and if we have only six hundred spots to deal with, then you have only one of two options that I can see:</p>
<ol>
<li> You can just throw care to the wind and ignore race (though it influences everything). If you do that, the chance of your coming across that one qualified black guy is almost zero. For that black guy to be even noticed, he has to be far and above everyone else. So there goes your diversity.</li>
</ol>
<p>or</p>
<ol>
<li> You can become aware of the race of the applicants and realize that that black guy is all alone in the qualified pool because he has had to slog through stuff that not a single one of the whites or Asians has had to slog through. You can realize that because that hard-hitting guy is black, he is unique and apt to add a lot of value to the whole class just by being there and just by sharing his perspectives. Then, turning an eye on him and finding he has personality and integrity and all the other traits that comprise the standard, you can then select him because he deserves to be selected. The chance of coming across him under this system goes up astronomically.</li>
</ol>
<p>Now, this is how the practice above increases the number of qualified black applicants. And I have seen this for myself. When that one black student gets selected by an elite, I have seen with my own eyes how it shuts down the surrounding riff-raff in the community. The riff-raff has ragged on that one kid all his life, calling him all sorts of names, and maybe even subjecting him to physical violence. But now, when that kid gets into some big school, the news canât help but course through the community like a fire. Envy goes WAY up in the riff-raff because they are now being put on the line. It becomes very clear that the guy they ragged on is soon going to be moving up, and that at best they are going to be still sitting around gang-banging or either dead. They canât really keep ragging on the guy. They HAVE to skulk because he has something big on his hands. I have seen this happen with my own eyes.</p>
<p>But there is another effect I have also seen. If that kid handles himself humbly, and begins to thank even the adults around him who also made fun, those adults often tell lies about how they knew he could do it and how âevery morning at the crack of dawn, I prayed for youâ and all sorts of other nonsense. It is good because it creates more people who next time will be willing to actually give support to the next rare black kid who stands up and gives his all. At least it will cause these people not to be so negative. I have actually seen this happen.</p>
<p>The last thing is most dear to me, and I have literally seen it up close. When that one kid pulls down a hammering school, it gives courage to any little kid around who looks up to that kid. You know, they have seen the black guy reading his books, studying hard, trying his best, and they have seen this all the time, wondering why Johnny is so different. And they know no one really likes Johnny, but think maybe something is wrong with him. But just as they start learning what college really is, here comes Johnny pulling down a hammerinâ school and now everyone is talking about it. The picture falls into place for all these little kids. They realize what Johnny has been shooting for all their lives. Now, even they have a choice. They can follow Johnny, or they can follow the skulking riff-raff. I have seen this choice emerge right here, and I am watching kids responding positively to it â right now.</p>
<p>The problem with all this is the family. When kids make the choice against the riff-raff and FOR Johnny (and more often than not, they make the right choice if they are young), they almost always lack the discipline to see the choice through, day-after-day, year-after-year. That is why I am often amazed to see some black guy who gets even CLOSE to a white or Asian academically. We need to get the parenting component happening in our communities. The fact is, parenting is a problem for vast numbers of blacks, however much money they make. Once we get that, then we all win. It is not an either or situation here. In other words, we canât depend on AA to cause what it was never designed to cause. AA is a very narrow solution to a big problem. But we need another component on the home end of things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dr. Steele contends that the only way to make Blacks able to compete with these "tens of thousands of qualified whites and Asians" under the same standard is to send a clear message to them. Not only can they compete against these qualified applicants, but they MUST compete against them without preferential treatment.
[/quote]
Well Steele is just wrong. If you have all those whites and Asians and only a few blacks, blacks statistically have no chance. You have no idea how demoralizing that is to a community. It confirms everything the naysayers have been telling Johnny for so long. The same issues are going to affect Johnny in colleges down the line until he finds himself at Southeastern Western Bumbleweed State College (SWBSC). Now there is nothing wrong with SWBSC. The problem is in what it means to Johnny and everyone who has ever known him. It means he has to have far more tenacity than whites and Asians. He has to have so much more patience and faith in himself that he can go through SWBSC and make his big splash maybe another decade later or more, in a job or something of that nature. I donât think even Johnny will often have that kind of faith, especially not with so many people telling him âI toldya so!â The connection between education and success is harder to make, especially for smaller children. It just makes our job harder. </p>
<p>Blacks do have an obligation to step up, compete and rise to the same challenge as everyone else. They ought not even pay attention to AA, but just follow their dreams and do the very best they can. I think AA can be a help in building a culture that prizes education more than sports and other entertainments. Blacks like Steele may like to make fun of us because of our problem here, but even this problem is rooted in slavery. We cannot escape history. But we can make history.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>Yes, to me, the only benefit of race-based affirmative action is a campus that has a higher percentage of certain groups. I agree with you on that one.</p>
<p>There is a third option which is related to the first. We can choose to abandon the use of race as a factor and focus on the causes of the achievement gaps instead of the effects. We can attempt to decrease the drop-out rates, teen pregnancy rates, and crime rates. We can improve the schools by encouraging excellence as opposed to mediocrity.</p>
<p>These are all hard to do, much harder than designating some groups as preferred and others as not. Yet, these are the problems, and if they can be successfully conquered, then I strongly believe that there will be more Black students ready to compete against their peers under one standard.</p>
<p>Well, after reading the essays from A Dream Deferred, I see one huge problem with your belief that racial preferences can increase the number of qualified Black applicants.</p>
<p>You're saying that Whites should solve the problems within the Black community (e.g. the cult of anti-intellectualism, crime, single-parent households, etc) by doling out preferential treatment.</p>
<p>How can Blacks ever be on equal footing if all of their "chances" and "opportunities" only exist through preferences created by Whites?</p>
<p>They simply won't. Blacks can never be competitive if they rely on Whites to solve the problems that scourge their communities.</p>
<p>You describe Johnny, a hypothetical Black applicant who is self-motivated and driven to succeed amidst an unsupportive environment. I firmly believe that he can be accepted by most, if not all, of the colleges on his list under a race-blind policy for the reason you gave - he is unique because he is Black. It would show in his essays. No White or Asian applicant would be able to write like him. He would stand out in a very positive way. He certainly wouldn't be 'left behind.'</p>
<p>By the way, I highly disagree with your statement that a Black student is unique because of his race, but hey - if it's true, then it'll show in the essays.</p>
<p>"I see one huge problem with your belief that racial preferences can increase the number of qualified Black applicants.</p>
<p>You're saying that Whites should solve the problems within the Black community (e.g. the cult of anti-intellectualism, crime, single-parent households, etc) by doling out preferential treatment."</p>
<p>Fabrizio, you have to read more carefully. Drosselmeier said that AA did not increase the number of qualified applicants; it only helps to identify the URMs among all qualified applicants.</p>
<p>And you didn't read AdOfficer's post carefully enough, either. He plainly explained why "racial preference" is not an accurate term. Do you really think you understand admissions more than the admissions officers themselves?</p>
<p>Also, blacks do not rely on whites to solve their problems. In fact, those blacks who succeed by getting into elite colleges have learned to rely on themselves, and themselves only. Whites as a group can hardly be called a help to blacks, AA or no AA. </p>
<p>I've said this before and I'll say it again despite my resolve not to repeat: I have Asians, whites, Hispanics, and blacks at the bottom of my classes, AND I have Asians, whites, Hispanics, and blacks at the top of my classes. While some students are better than others, there is absolutely no difference in ability along ethnic lines. Stop believing in the myth that URMs aren't as good as the other students at universities. Otherwise, when you begin your college career, you'll be in for a real shock.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>
<p>Let's see, here.</p>
<p>In Post #331, Drosselmeier stated that without a system of racial preferences (affirmative action), the "tens of thousands" of qualified Whites and Asians would make it impossible for Blacks to enter the elites. Apparently, there just aren't enough qualified Blacks to compete with their peers if one standard were used. This needs to be changed.</p>
<p>In Post #334, he stated that affirmative action helps create diversity by using race as a factor. I agree because I see that as the only benefit of racial preferences. Campuses contain higher percentages of certain groups.</p>
<p>Indeed, he has never claimed that preferential treatment increases the number of qualified Black candidates. I brought that up because to me, having more Black applicants who are able to compete with their peers under one standard is more important than a campus that has slightly higher percentages of certain races as a result of preferences.</p>
<p>There are two reasons why I didn't buy into AdOfficer's explanation of the supposed nonexistence of racial preferences:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Drs. Bowen and Bok have stated that without affirmative action, the enrollment rates of "under-represented" minorities would significantly decrease. I do not believe that I have taken this statement out of context.</p></li>
<li><p>He himself used the term racial preferences earlier on, and in that post, he did not deny its existence.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now, I certainly do not believe that I understand admissions more than an admissions officer. Like I said before, I'm just a high school student who thinks that racial preferences are wrong.</p>
<p>I disagree with your penultimate paragraph. By advocating for a system of racial preferences, whether for "social justice," "diversity," or "inclusion," you're relying on Whites to address the problems of "built-in downward pressures," "alienation from American identity," and so forth. If the Blacks currently at elites got there by relying on themselves and only themselves, then I think we both agree that we should treat no one differently based on his race.</p>
<p>Just remember, the system of racial preferences was instituted by Whites, not Blacks.</p>
<p>By the way, I do not believe that "under-represented" minorities are not as good as their peers at universities. That's a fascist belief, and I don't subscribe to fascism. Find one post of mine where I have expressed such a belief.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, I do not believe that "under-represented" minorities are not as good as their peers at universities. That's a fascist belief, and I don't subscribe to fascism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that this is "fascist" as much as it's just plain bigoted.</p>
<p>Ari,</p>
<p>Yeah, my mistake.</p>
<p>When I decided to use the word "fascist," I was thinking about old, discredited research that said that the score gap between Blacks and Whites was due to genetics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a third option which is related to the first. We can choose to abandon the use of race as a factor and focus on the causes of the achievement gaps instead of the effects. We can attempt to decrease the drop-out rates, teen pregnancy rates, and crime rates. We can improve the schools by encouraging excellence as opposed to mediocrity.
[/quote]
Of course if we read this closely, we see you have only restated the problems as if they were solutions. This is what weâve always done. What typically happens is we say things like âwe need to improve schoolsâ, which said another way means âwe need to spend more moneyâ on schools. While that is true (indeed it is!), it is no solution. Money is only a support for the real solution. The real solution is going to take a lot of time. My brand of AA actually solves this problem fully, for good and all.</p>
<p>I say if a black guy doesnât have good scores, good character, GPAs, etc., then he ought not be selected for the elites. But for that rare black who really is hammering hard (our Johnny), letâs pay attention and do not let him get lost in the crowd. Step aside and let him work himself as far as he can go. We donât have to do it for him. He will do it for himself. It is not a preference because there is already a built-in preference for whites and others that has always worked against blacks in America. When we do this, all of the problems you have mentioned will vanish. Watch this: drop-out rates â Johnny is obviously not dropping out. He never has. Teen pregnancy rates â you wonât see this in Johnny (or females like Johnny). Crime rates â not in Johnny or his female counterpart. Improved schools â Johnnyâs kids will likely be like Johnny because Johnny is likely to marry someone much like him. His children will perform as Johnny did, certainly much better than the riff-raff. Most importantly, the whole line increasingly will sense it is genuinely American. The past will die and only the future will matter to them. That is how we can repair this stuff. It will take time. But we can decrease the time if we all, especially blacks, worked to see our obligations here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
These are all hard to do, much harder than designating some groups as preferred and others as not.
[/quote]
This preference you speak of already exists, and it exists for everyone except for blacks. It has been this way since 1619. It exists today by default, due to history.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet, these are the problems, and if they can be successfully conquered, then I strongly believe that there will be more Black students ready to compete against their peers under one standard.
[/quote]
Implement the sort of AA I have described, and realize that the blacks selected under it have already earned the worthiness to matriculate at the elites, then these changes will take place. I suspect that they have already taken place somewhat, which is why we have a black middle class. What needs to take place is a change of culture. It can happen in a civilized fashion, as I have in part described, or it can happen through tragedy. Culture rarely, if ever, changes rapidly, and when it does, people usually suffer incalculable tragedy. If we bring this sort of pressure on blacks, no one anywhere in America will escape a lot of pain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, after reading the essays from A Dream Deferred, I see one huge problem with your belief that racial preferences can increase the number of qualified Black applicants. You're saying that Whites should solve the problems within the Black community (e.g. the cult of anti-intellectualism, crime, single-parent households, etc) by doling out preferential treatment.
[/quote]
You insist on recasting my views, thereby corrupting them so that you might thrash something I do not believe. It is dishonorable. I think these problems do exist and that only blacks can solve them. But you see, Johnny has already solved them. We gain a lot of efficiency toward making positive changes in the black community if we do not allow built-in preferences against Johnny to cause him to be lost.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How can Blacks ever be on equal footing if all of their "chances" and "opportunities" only exist through preferences created by Whites?
[/quote]
The same way they were put on unequal footing by preferences created by whites for whites and everyone else. Johnny is worthy in every way to get into the elites. He has the same scores, the same GPA, the same (or better) hunger for knowledge, the same passion. His only weakness is that he has no one or precious few people who look like him doing the sorts of things he is trying to accomplish. He is just one guy. If we donât acknowledge his worthiness, he will get lost. This will only confirm the insecurities and defeatism of the naysayers all around him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They simply won't. Blacks can never be competitive if they rely on Whites to solve the problems that scourge their communities.
[/quote]
Johnny is not relying on whites. Half the time he is working hard from some mysterious force in his nature. Whites have very little to do with it. The only thing he needs is not to have the built-in preferences for others working against him so that he is thrown on the trash heap of the statistical odds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You describe Johnny, a hypothetical Black applicant who is self-motivated and driven to succeed amidst an unsupportive environment. I firmly believe that he can be accepted by most, if not all, of the colleges on his list under a race-blind policy for the reason you gave - he is unique because he is Black. It would show in his essays.
[/quote]
Do you have any idea what you are saying here? Johnny may write well enough to equal any white or Asian, but it could easily be that his uniqueness does not typically manifest itself in the written word. It may in fact show up in his ability to rally students to his cause. He may be a dynamic speaker, employing the techniques and rhythms that are part of many sectors of black culture and that have made many black speakers famous. It could manifest itself in many ways that would never show in an application.</p>
<p>Also, race in America has a definite effect on the meaning of phrases. Without knowing the race of the applicant, much of the context surrounding his essay is likely to be lost. That means much of the meaning and gravity of the essay is gonna be lost. At a gathering of blacks, if a white guy says I donât like watermelon, no one will really blink an eye. But if a black guy says it, he may fall under suspicion. There are likely many blacks who donât like it (I donât because of the slimy seeds. Deseed it, and I am good to go). But if I say I donât like it and donât clarify, many blacks will think I am just ashamed to support the stereotype others use against us, and they will be angry with me. I have actually had this happen. Race can significantly affect the meaning of words in this place. Though as arbitrary, it is not as insignificant as hair-color.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No White or Asian applicant would be able to write like him. He would stand out in a very positive way. He certainly wouldn't be 'left behind.'
[/quote]
He could very well write uniquely, but not in a way that makes him more of a stand out than any other topmost applicant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, I highly disagree with your statement that a Black student is unique because of his race, but hey - if it's true, then it'll show in the essays.
[/quote]
A high performing black American is unique given the history that brought him here and that has kept his entire lineage down for the entire time it has existed in America. He is part of a marvelous story that is still being written.</p>