I wish I weren't Asian

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>OK, yes, thank you, finally.</p>

<p>"However, the number of qualified URM's in that 90% group is small."</p>

<p>That's not good. I do not smile at that statement. A lot of parents can't seem to get this, but those numbers do not please me. I consider that a problem, and I would support policies that try to make more competitive "under-represented" minority students.</p>

<p>Once more. That does **not make me happy**.</p>

<p>This'll be my last post.</p>

<p>I guess it has to be a generational difference. We all see inequities in the educational system, but we severely disagree on how to approach them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Despite my best efforts, I cannot see the world in the eyes of a redemptive liberal or grievance elite unless I want to shock myself.

[/quote]
I don’t think you are being honest here, and that this is why you fail. The reason I don’t think you are being honest is that several of us have told you plainly that we feel no sense of guilt or anything like it, and yet you still insist on claiming the source of our desire to fix our problems is the need for ‘redemption’. It will be impossible for you to find common ground, perchance to join with those with whom you disagree, if you continue with this sort of willful and invincible ignorance.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe slavery and segregation were terrible sins. Yet, I do not feel that reparations must be paid through racial preferences. I have no white guilt in that sense. The reparations should be paid through equal treatment, not preferential treatment.

[/quote]
Here again, we see only more invincible ignorance. The treatment is not preferential because the preferences already exist against blacks – and this is quite obvious. Were we to look around today, we would see blacks generally at the bottom of our country’s socio-economic ladder while other groups have come and prospered. Were we able to look around twenty years ago, we would see the same thing. This would be true were we able to look around fifty years ago, or one hundred years ago, or two hundred years ago, or three hundred years ago, or even nearly four hundred years ago, stretching back to 1619. The one constant here is that blacks have been bitterly suppressed for their entire American experience while other groups have been given preferences.</p>

<p>The only fair treatment here is to suppress other groups in the same way and for the same amount of time, while giving the same preference to blacks that they have all enjoyed. Of course that would be immoral. What race-sensitive policies aim to do is take into account an individual’s barriers so that if despite them he is discovered to have performed as well as others, he will not be lost to statistical chances. He is special, and there is no doubt about it. He is also well qualified to attend whatever school he can. Since he is already qualified quantitatively, there is no harm done in making it surer that he does not get lost in a statistical swamp.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Previously, we had a discussion about Johnny. I was very interested in finding ways that would increase the number of students who were as academically focused as Johnny, but you were very interested in finding the existing students like him so that he would eventually serve as a role model and create more.

[/quote]
C’mon guy. You can’t be serious here. Reread those posts and you will see that at EVERY turn I also supported increasing the number of students who were as focused as Johnny. But I am also a lot more aware than you are of the pressures that exist in the poor black community. I know that you can most efficiently increase that number by implementing your ideas and by implementing mine.</p>

<p>When Johnny works as hard as Asians and whites at his work, and when because of his circumstances he has to work even harder than most Asians and whites just to get to the same level of performance, and when Asians and whites are going to elites by the truckload while the Johnnys in our country keep getting overlooked because the statistical odds are against them, it creates a disincentive in kids who live in the black communities. Asians and whites get to see truckloads of people like them excelling, while those blacks you claim to want to help get to see almost none. This is despite the fact that there are black kids working even harder than the whites and Asians who celebrate every year. It just creates yet another downward pressure that makes the job harder.</p>

<p>A more efficient approach is to help the low performing kids perform better, while pointing them to Johnny so that they can see the sorts of effects their hard work can produce. If there are no Johnnys, well, it just makes everything that much more difficult to achieve.</p>

<p>
[quote]
From what I remember, you consistently supported finding the existing students with potential and giving them preferential treatment as a sort of boost.

[/quote]
I consistently supported it only because you consistently refused to hear what I was saying. I continually have to state, restate, clarify and re-clarify things with you, which just increases the illusion of consistency here. You claim the treatment I advocate is preferential when I claim preferences already exist against URMs. Can we really deny this? I can’t, not when I am looking around and seeing it everyday, not when I myself feel it—not when I have always felt it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I did not see how your plan directly affected the 90% group. Your plan heavily relied on the good will of the talented tenth.

[/quote]
This is false. I only dealt with a part of the plan because that is the part you are attacking. But I have been very clear with you that I also support your ideas. I think we need a comprehensive support of these students so that we do no harm to any of them. It will be hard to help the bottom 90% of blacks when they can see no hope of continuing their success beyond grade school. The distractions in the communities are just too many. But let them see what it is all about, and the job gets easier – not easy – but easier.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, yes, I apologize because you are interested in helping the remaining 90%, albeit in an indirect way. I'm more interested in directly helping them.

[/quote]
LOL. I live, teach, and suffer here. The last I checked, there were no Asians working with me to give direct help.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And, for the n-th time, that's why I support programs like AVID. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I do like its idea. Much more so than racial preferences. Sir, I'm just really glad that you express views which place you in an extreme minority.

[/quote]
LOL. Okay. Well, you just keep “supporting” AVID. What I find is that people who attack race-sensitive policies while claiming to support other helpful programs, really support nothing but themselves. Support doesn’t take place just because one SAYs one likes something. It takes place when one puts life behind it. In truth, if you are like 99% of anti-AA folks I have seen, you in fact DO NOT support AVID. And if you really do support it, then you’ve expressed views that truly are in the extreme minority.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I guess it has to be a generational difference. We all see inequities in the educational system, but we severely disagree on how to approach them.

[/quote]
No. It is not a generational difference. Ward Connerly is not of your generation, and neither are the millions and millions of people who vote to support his initiatives. I do not think Connerly means to harm blacks. I think he is one of the very few anti-AA folk who wishes to help. I just think the brotha is misguided. He longs to do what should have been done a hundred and fifty years ago. He is too far removed from the modern reality of the black community to know that this ship has sailed.</p>

<p>I decided to reverse my own ignorance of one aspect of this discussion, i.e., AVID. As I read it, this is for mid-level students. Nothing wrong with that, nor with the success of the organization's efforts. But it's interesting to me that the minority students that I teach are rarely in the middle, by any measure. They tend to fall in one of 2 extremes, which AVID is clear about excluding: the remedial student and the gifted student. There are few options for either of these 2 categories in the public system in our State, but interestingly, it is the gifted student who is most ignored -- mostly minority, secondarily white. </p>

<p>The gifted & motivated African-American student, who is mentally focused on his goals & wishes to go beyond the life of his minimum-wage-earning mother & beyond the parameters of his community, but whose only home parent has a 4th grade-equivalent education, where the heck is he supposed to go for the mentoring he so deserves? And GATE funds have been totally jettisoned in our region. The priorities are, in this order:</p>

<p>a) Special Education, with all its subdivisions
b) Second Language students
c) Remediation
d) Average students
e) Gifted Students</p>

<p>Ideally, of course, all students should receive the academic support they need. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, the real world rarely, if ever, aligns with the ideal.</p>

<p>I don't think it's about "idealism." I think it's about pragmatics. I think it's about the fact that not a lot of average and below-average students will be seeking admission to Elite U's, let alone obtaining admission.</p>

<p>In my region there is a history behind the re-ordering of education from one of comprehensive & generous support to one of triage -- a history I won't go into here & has been tangentially a subject of other threads. But suffice it to say that to be young, gifted, and black or Hispanic is more problematic in some regions than in others -- from the viewpoint of Elite college admissions.</p>

<p>I couldn't agree more, Epiphany.</p>

<p>I hope you understood that I wasn't calling you an idealistic but instead was commenting on what would be ideal. If all students were equally supported in school as well as in the community and at home, there would be no need to include race as part of college admissions. Until that happens, however, colleges should be admired for recognizing intelligent students fighting against the odds.</p>

<p>Those who claim to understand that "scores aren't everything" still resort to the "Asians must have higher SATs" and "URMs have SATs lower than whites and Asians" arguments as discrimination against Asians. Those two statements are contradictory. ANY applicant who fails to show leadership/natural curiosity/complexity will be at a disadvantage in the admissions process, no matter the race. As AdOfficer pointed out, students must demonstrate that they've taken full advantage of the opportunities available to them. </p>

<p>I agree that, if discrimination against Asians is discovered, then universities should be held accountable. However, I simply do not believe that such a bias exists. Perhaps I'm wrong. Anecdotally, the only two students I know who were accepted into Princeton last year were middle-class Asians; all the whites I know who applied were rejected - and that included two legacies with good SAT scores, grades, and activities. Did the two Asians deserve to be admitted? Absolutely. They are talented, intelligent, and passionate. Did the other not measure up? That's more questionable.</p>

<p>Agree with that (post 487), but especially this part:</p>

<p>"colleges should be admired for recognizing intelligent students fighting against the odds."</p>

<p>I think more & more of them have discovered ways to identify these. I was particularly interested in such a post from CMA1 in Parents Forum, in the thread re: SAT scores in Maryland.</p>

<p>whoops, correction: That was in the "Princeton Answers...." thread.</p>

<p>My mistake.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Those two statements are contradictory. ANY applicant who fails to show leadership/natural curiosity/complexity will be at a disadvantage in the admissions process, no matter the race. As AdOfficer pointed out, students must demonstrate that they've taken full advantage of the opportunities available to them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And where's the basis that Asian-Am students have less leadership, "natural curiosity"/"complexity" or all the other supposedly activities that make up a "well-rounded" applicant? The fact that you imply that Asian-Am applicants lack "natural curiosity" and "complexity" (whatever that is) shows your stereotyping and bias with regard to Asian-Ams.</p>

<p>Btw, all these stuff is hog-wash anyways - a number of studies on extra-curricular activities of students have shown that the EC activities of Asian-Am students is no different from that of white students.</p>

<p>Since Jews make up less than 2% of the pop. and make up about 25% of the Ivy League student body - does that mean that Jews have significantly more leadership, natural curiosity/complexity, etc. qualities than other white (non-Jew) applicants? </p>

<p>I guess it's just purely coincidence that the % of the Jewish student body at the Ivy League is presently (roughly) the same as it was prior to use of the Jewish quota system - (or maybe the Jews, over the years, indeed became more "curious", more "complex" and showed more "leadership").</p>

<p>And let's not kid ourselves - all these codewords - "leadership", "natural curiosity", "complexity", etc. - are words depicting "white qualities", which, at the same time, imply that Asian-Ams don't possess such qualities.</p>

<p>Interesting that no one (still) has given any reason as to why the no. of Jews in the student body at Ivy League colleges would be materially greater than that of Asian-Ams - when "whitewashed" Asian-Am applicants (those who would purportedly have these "white qualities" by virtue of their environment) are equal to that of Jewish applicants in numbers.</p>

<p>Btw, if "diversity" is the goal (as so many people here insist) - then why is it that the argument for preference in admissions for "well-rounded" students seems to warrant a preference for Asian students who are basically the SAME as their white counterparts?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree that, if discrimination against Asians is discovered, then universities should be held accountable. However, I simply do not believe that such a bias exists. Perhaps I'm wrong. Anecdotally, the only two students I know who were accepted into Princeton last year were middle-class Asians; all the whites I know who applied were rejected - and that included two legacies with good SAT scores, grades, and activities. Did the two Asians deserve to be admitted? Absolutely. They are talented, intelligent, and passionate. Did the other not measure up? That's more questionable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And we all know that anecdotal evidence is soooo reliable.</p>

<p>Well - the US Justice Dept investigations have shown that there indeed was a quota system at Berkeley and that other schools (like Stanford) also did something along the same lines (which Stanford apologized for).</p>

<p>While the Justice Dept. hasn't gone as far to say the same thing with the Ivy League - it did point out the discrepancy in admit rates.</p>

<p>Let's get rid of all this controversy and move to a total meritocracy. Race blind admissions would deny those with prejudices from exercising them.</p>

<p>Post 490:</p>

<p>Again, with the lack of science.<br>
And again, "groups" are not admitted to Universities, individuals are. Any individual who can stand out in any academically positive & promising way -- not "against" "type" or "within" his/her group, but among the thousands of applicants to that college -- is the individual who will get noticed, regardless of race. Race can additionally come into play to assure a minimum degree of inclusion within an already, & cross-racially, overwhelmingly qualified group of individuals, but no one in admissions is looking for "types."</p>

<p>To say that one group's e.c.'s are "not materially different than another's" is a statement regarding a broad spectrum of individuals & activities. It is a meaningless statement relative to theoretical qualifications of a "group," and even more meaningless (out of context) relative to actual, determined value of a specific individual's e.c.'s in a particular admissions cycle. Groups are not qualified; individuals are. E.c.'s are an aspect of those qualifications. The more unusual any applicant's e.c.'s are, as well as the more impressive & high-profile (international level, etc) those are, the better that applicant will have of being noticed among thousands of applicants from many races, who may share many e.c.'s in common.</p>

<p>ninja - </p>

<p>until every student in this country has the same exact opportunities to succeed and achieve as every other student in this country, a meritocracy is impossible. until racism, poverty, sexism, homophobia, and other kinds of social problems are solved, it ain't gonna happen...</p>

<p>It disturbs me how blatantly prejudice some people can be. The scary thing is: they don’t know it.</p>

<p>gumgum - Who are you referring to?</p>

<p>I'm purple, sucks, I know...</p>

<p>"The fact that you imply that Asian-Am applicants lack "natural curiosity" and "complexity" (whatever that is) shows your stereotyping and bias with regard to Asian-Ams."</p>

<p>Absolutely not. I implied nothing of the sort. There are boring individuals with great test scores of all races -- and they are more at a disadvantage than they think -- but there are also dynamic individuals of all races.</p>

<p>" And let's not kid ourselves - all these codewords - "leadership", "natural curiosity", "complexity", etc. - are words depicting "white qualities"</p>

<p>If these are depicting white qualities, then you are racist yourself. Are YOU assuming that Asians cannot compete in these areas? If so, you're dead wrong. Are you assuming that whites naturally fit into these categories as well? Wrong.</p>

<p>Whether these are "white qualities" or not, they are what these schools want. Why would a student who didn't want to be in this kind of environment choose an Ivy? The prestige of these schools comes from both the quality of the education and the kind of people who graduate, and the last is tied to the type of people they admit. Because leadership, natural curiosity, and complexity are found in people of all races, these schools are much more racially diverse than they were even 20 years ago. There is a reason why these schools are so difficult to get into - and it has nothing to do with race.</p>

<p>Well, I am an Asian and I am lovin' it. And as far as k&s's comments r concernd..well..that's his/her's point of view..none's point of view can change the mental and physical abilities of any person nor can anyone describe anyone's true qualities.</p>

<p>"The</a> Trouble With Diversity" </p>

<p>Call me a cynic, but this is the most interesting article on diversity I have ever read. If only I can write like this.</p>