<p>From Harvard Magazine Article: Roots and Race:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In June, a New York Times article raised a long-simmering issue: the origins and ancestry of Harvard's black students. The piece described the celebratory mood at a reunion of African-American Harvard alumni, who applauded Harvard's progress over the past three decades in enrolling larger numbers of black students. But it also noted that this mood was broken when "some speakers brought up the thorny issue of exactly who those black students are." **The question arises because, even though in recent years 7 to 9 percent of Harvard's incoming freshmen (8.9 percent for the class of 2008) have been African Americans, some studies suggest that more than half of these students, and perhaps as many as two-thirds, are West Indian or African immigrants or their children. **A substantial number also identify themselves as children of biracial couples.</p>
<p>Using questionnaires and interviews, Haynie found that, while a clear majority identified themselves as "black American," African and Afro-Caribbean identifiers combined made up more than a third of the subjects, and her "bi-ethnic or bi-racial" category accounted for about a quarter
<p>About the data (75% vs. 40%) I think some colleges just don't know how many immigrant blacks attend.</p>
<p>"There is no consensus on the answers, and since most institutions say they do not look into the origins of their black students, the absence of hard data makes the discussion even more difficult."</p>
<p>This quote sums up what I think hotpiece and k&s are trying to say (please correct me if I am wrong):
"But I also think we need to revisit the question of diversity. Unlike our system of feel-good game-playing, we need to focus on the deeper question of how opportunities can be opened to everyone who was left behind by the civil rights revolution. We tend to look too often at every aspect of diversity except economic class."</p>
<p>I think economic diversity is most important. Of those black immigrants (whether 40% or 75%) and African Americans at top schools. How many of them have incomes greater than $100,000 or attended exclusive private schools (without scholarships)? I think Harvard and other top schools are trying to alleviate this problem.
"Harvard admissions officials say that they, too, are concerned about attracting more lower-income students of all races. They plan to spend an additional $300,000 to $375,000 a year to recruit more low-income students and provide more financial aid to these students."</p>
<p>I wasn't speaking to the statistics anymore, I was talking about my experience at Harvard. And as I said, there are WAY more immigrants at Harvard than African Americans. I go to school there, I see how few of us there are, I would know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wasn't speaking to the statistics anymore, I was talking about my experience at Harvard. And as I said, there are WAY more immigrants at Harvard than African Americans. I go to school there, I see how few of us there are, I would know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough, but anecdotal "evidence" is usually unreliable.</p>
True, but what other evidence is there. Since the administration won't release the official numbers and since Professer Gates and Guinier's studies are apparently unscientific, then anecdotal evidence is all we can go on.</p>
<p>Right - but their "guesstimates" range from 50% to 66% (quite a large range) - plus, in all likelihood, the figures are probably closer to the former, since Harvard is unlikely to have a 50%+ disparity with their Ivy brethren.</p>
<p>I already mentioned before how these statistics are meaningless without the average graduation rate of non-black students. Just keep selectively quoting from articles which clearly show that Blacks do worse in college on average than an average student.</p>
<p>Not to mention it is hard to flunk out of college.</p>
<p>My children are bi-racial (mother AfAm/father white), but I can guarantee you that they aren't thought of as "white" by anyone who looks at them. To most people, they are simply "black" (along with all the history, sociology, stereotypical assumptions, and sundry racial detritus that those things amount to in the minds of the majority of Americans). Practically speaking, the "one drop" rule in America still prevails, just as it has for hundreds of years. There have ALWAYS been "bi-racial" (half black/half white) people in America. In fact, historically, any amount of black mixed with white was given a very precise designation that still amounted to "black" (be it mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, etc.), thereby making that person worthy of slavery and almost immediately afterward, Jim Crow status. As much as the anti-AA tooth nashers would like to believe that 30 years of civil rights legislation have magically erased a legecy that took 300+ years to cultivate, my kids still labor under a decided social disadvantage. Great strides have indeed been realized, but the playing field is in NO WAY level. I fail to see how Professors Gates and Laineer designate my children as less-than African American, and therefore, outside the scope of the target beneficiaries of AA, as originally designed. Their father my be the son of german immigrants, but their mother spent half her primary school years in government mandated racial segregation, and would have been a classic subject for the "doll test". My ancestors were African slaves, and thereby, so were my children's.</p>
<p>I support AA, but not for the same reasons. There are many fields which suffer a disproportionate lack of representation from certain groups. Our society works better when professions are filled with people who look like how America really looks. If we are going to be a successful melting pot, then all Americans need to be able to see themselves as able to go anywhere, do anything. Colleges have an obligation to prepare the next generation of professionals. Not producing enough qualified graduates to coincide to some extent with a reasonable sampling of our population means they are not doing their job.</p>
<p>The fact that some support AA because of 300 years of suffering does not resonate with me. The majority of people who came to these shores either suffered terribly themselves, or came from people who did. Ranking the suffering of different groups is not helpful or necessary.</p>
<p>The fact that some support AA because of 300 years of "suffering does not resonate with me. The majority of people who came to these shores either suffered terribly themselves, or came from people who did. Ranking the suffering of different groups is not helpful or necessary."</p>
<p>It's people like you that cause these kinds of pro/against AA "discussions." Why bring it up? If you are an AA, be thankful for that I guess. On average, you'll be taller, be faster, be born with 6-packs, and have an advantage at getting into a top school. What's to "complain?"</p>
I don't think Gates and Lainier made those distinctions. I think they just noted that not nearly as many African Americans go to Harvard as African or Caribbean immigrants and biracial people (something I have noted as well). The article never discussed whether these groups were deserving of AA. I may have mentioned the original intent of AA was for African Americans who have been haunted by a legacy of discrimination in this country. But in that same scope, I also understand how the one drop rule is in full effect (I posted this same idea on another thread and people jumped down my throat). And, I have seen some biracial people (black/white) suffer the same, if not more, discrimination and hurt based on their skin color. They, too, have been stunted by years of discrimination and racism, so I think that they would be probably fall under the original intent of AA.</p>
<p>
What are you talking about?!?! I think you got some of your stereotypes wrong. If you wanna go on sterotypes (which you probably do considering that you posted that crazy sentence), it is Africans who supposedly run fast (not African Americans, per se). In addition, the majority of black people are considered overweight (have a BMI above 25), so they are not gonna have a six-pack. As for them being taller, I have never heard anything about that and I'm a short black girl, I barely break the 5'2 mark.</p>
<p>"I think they just noted that not nearly as many African Americans go to Harvard as African or Caribbean immigrants and biracial people"</p>
<p>The fact that my bi-racial children are, by implication in the study by Gates and Guinier, NOT African American enough, is the thing I take issue with. I don't believe there was ever a sign on any restroom door that said "Whites/Half Whites Only. You were either a Negro, and therefore NOT qualified to use the Whites Only restroom, or you were White. (Which brings me to ask: If you were Asian, or Native American in the south during that time, which bathroom did you use? Which school did you attend? What section of the bus/train did you occupy? :confused:)</p>