NYTimes Article on Asians at Cal

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>"For four centuries the 1 percent have controlled the 99% through a system aimed soley at profit and stressing inferiority. Part of that is creating a false competitiveness between races and outright oppression of some in order create a feeling of inferiority. All of that done in the name of progress."</p>

<p>Actually, the ones who are pitting the races against each other and are doing the oppressing are the people who write this kinds of articles. You got it perfectly right, "all in the name of progress". Some of these people are well-intentioned but misguided people who can't think very clearly. Others are closet racists and Asian-haters under the guise of being a "progressive". </p>

<p>Although he makes a decent effort to hide his clear bias, this NYT reporter would really love to penalize Asians to increase representation of blacks/Hispanics (never mind that it's not the Asians who are responsible). Notice his choice of words - for example, since when does 37%, which isn't even a majority, become "overwhelmingly" Asian? Top private schools like Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, etc., which are thought to be some of the most diverse campuses in the country, could then all be called "overwhelmingly" white since whites make up the majority in each of these campuses. Notice how the reporter elaborates how Chinese is spoken frequently on campus and how Asian this and that is seen all over the place - all descriptions to appeal to xenophobia and stir up resentment against Asians. How about the title "Little Asia on the Hill"? Yep, those foreigners are taking over our great university!</p>

<p>These closet racists should be exposed for what they really are.</p>

22

<p>Let's consider an analogy:</p>

<p>Why are Asians so underrepresented in professional sports? For example, I can't think of a single Asian football player in the NFL. Could it be:</p>

<p>1) Asian kids are not encouraged to be jocks at home. Instead, their parents want them to study hard, go to good schools, and become professionals.
2) Asian kids have no role models and are subjected to social stereotypes that portray them as nerdy and not athletic.
3) Asians have smaller bodies on the average and are physically less competitive in certain power sports that favor large muscular bodies (e.g. football). This isn't to say that they are bad at sports, period. Asians excel in other sports that favor skill, strategy, speed, etc. China usually places in the top 3 in the Olympics, South Korea in the top 10, and Japan in the top 15 to 20. But they clearly tend to do better in certain types of sports than others.</p>

<p>I think there's some truth to all three possibilities, but I would have to say reason #1 is by far the most important. Only when enough Asian parents feel secure enough to let their children pursue careers in sports will the situation get better. Does anyone think that because Asians make up 25% of the San Francisco population, we should pass a law mandating that all San Francisco sports teams have 25% Asian players? After all, these athletes get paid millions of dollars a year and they are role models to many kids - aren't Asian kids entitled to their share of role models to look up to? </p>

<p>If you think that's crazy, well, this affirmative action argument you make is just as crazy. Once you start seeing them as individuals, each with a dream and a life story, and not as member of some monolithic "Asian race", you will not be able to make that kind of racist arguments.</p>

23

<p>Yup, you got me....i can't stand dollar noodles and facless mounds of people playing WoW and crunching numbers. that's just it, not because I want to see a multitude of ideas, foods, art, literature, and civilizations to learn from and understand...yup,...must be racism, and a desire for better drivers.</p>

<p>get real, more diversity is better for us to learn from. There are more people of european descent in the u.s., part of the reason there are more of them at those private schools; but also....those european elite that rose to that 1% have had a hand (conscious or not) in creating de facto segregation and poor quality schools and neighborhoods that allow them to get into good colleges.</p>

<p>Race shouldn't be the most important thing in college admissions, the advancement of society should be, at least for institutions of THE PEOPLE like Cal. We shouldn't exclude minorities and multiculturalism just because of past circumstance, but because of future potential. Again, the first sentence in our Constitution.</p>

24

<p>I thought this was education, not sports.
btw, i had an asian kid run over my line in high school, Sushi Tsu, he was big and kick ass in the trenches, and that d-line had some big fools rushing, so there's potential for athleticism everywhere.</p>

25

<p>I have been privileged to go to a highly selective private school that featured a highly diverse student body. It was absolutely great. But the diversity that made it so great was the diversity of ideas, interests, talents, and personalities, not the diversity of skin color. </p>

<p>Although it is often asserted that students emerge with a better education when they are at an ethnically diverse campus, that is just a hypothesis, not a fact. I say it's actually false. Is Berkeley turning out students who are less equipped to deal with a multicultural society than, say, Stanford, which has a somewhat larger black student population? I don't think so.</p>

26

<p>Hmm, if blacks should get in at a higher rate because of their potential, are you saying that blacks on the average have a higher potential than Asians?</p>

27

<p>Well im totally for having diverse schools, but employing AA or balancing schools based on race isn't fair; having a racial advantage is not something we all have an opportunity to strive for or earn, but something you're simply born with. The best, most qualified and well rounded students should get in regardless of race, and if blacks and latinos are in that category then that is great. However, we should not tip the scales simply to give others a chance that no one else is elgible of having.</p>

28

<p>"but something you're simply born with."
Being born with advantage doesn't mean you deserve advantage. this friedman-esque thinking that we're all free within the market of education is just stupid (it ignores all other factors of competition). schools shouldn't be about competing with other students but about ensuring the best education is provided equally to everyone. right now, the best education is not provided to everyone, hispanics and african americans are often times the victims of the bad part of the educational equation, AA was put in place to try and stop that when school districts wouldn't (and still don't) integrate.
It's not as simple as competition and survival of the fittest; that's social darwinism. we're human beings not animals. organizing ourselves to help promote the GENERAL welfare is what makes us special, that's why we need to integrate all schools, starting with elementary, going into college, that means busing, that means balancing funding for rich and poor areas, and it means making college a right for everyone, a fundamental, free right; this at least untill white flight ends and neighborhoods too become integrated.
The crap about "the best winning at all costs, no matter what their circumstances" hasn't worked for 400 years to ensure the general welfare and help the whole of society, what makes you think it'll work now. Progress and peace comes at the expense of comforts like being around the same people. For a balanced, peaceful, cooperatvie society, we need an integrated society.</p>

29

<p>"hispanics and african americans are often times the victims of the bad part of the educational equation"</p>

<p>This is because they're more likely to be poor. Poor education has to do with economics, not race. Poor whites and asians also get bad educations. And wealthy blacks and hispanics can get good educations. Poor whites and asians have the same lack of opportunity as poor blacks and hispanics; wealthy blacks and hispanics have the same opportunities as wealthy whites and asians.</p>

<p>AA that pays attention to race, not economics, makes it so that a wealthy black or hispanic person who has worse grades than a poor white or asian (despite more opportunities) would be chosen over that poor white or asian.</p>

<p>The problem with your argument is that you are assuming is that all blacks and hispanics by definition have fewer opportunities than all whites and asians.</p>

<p>This isn't true. </p>

<p>The lack of opportunity is based on economics, not race. It is true that whites/asians on average academically outperform blacks/hispanics at most income levels, but that has to do with things other than opportunity and advantage.</p>

<p>Just as a side note, I think punkdudeus' talk about integration and society and stuff is bs (no offense). That's just how colleges justify AA. The reality is colleges use AA because they are self-serving. They know people wouldn't want to be at a school full of upper-middle class whites and asians (which is what top schools would largely be without any AA), and they like having a lot of applicants so they have high USNews rankings. Berkeley does manage to get economic diversity, though (which is really more important than racial, imo). And what AA really amounts to is getting a few thousand minorities into some top schools that they otherwise would have been less likely to get into. That's pretty unlikely to change the makeup of American society, which seems to be what you're claiming.</p>

<p>But just my opinion. I should be doing work.</p>

30

<p>college isn't a right. not everybody should go to college. thousands and thousands of students go to college just because they feel like they have to. meanwhile, they dig themselves into a hole of debt learning liberal arts when they could be going to trade school and learning skills they will actually use.</p>

31

<p>If it should be economic then, why do we still segregate economic classes in education. The way its set up now, poor kids go to school with poor kids, and rich kids with rich kids (generally meaning segregation between whites and people of color). On the whole, education is segregated still, by generally separating rich and poor, whites and people of color by area and funding.<br>
If that's not done, what do you expect colleges to do? Just sit there and wait untill school districts act. If you don't like AA programs cause they discriminate againts rich white kids or rich asian kids, then work to fix the problem where it starts or be ready to lose your spot.
And yes, college is a right, the ability to be able to go to college if you want is part of having a quality education, part of the general welfare. Once again, I refer you to the preamble.</p>

32

<p>is it fair to keep out a black who grows up in compton and can only study an hour a day due to gangs etc and instead take in an asian who's only priority in life is to study 10 hours a day?</p>

33

<p>apparently</p>

34

<p>"If it should be economic then, why do we still segregate economic classes in education. The way its set up now, poor kids go to school with poor kids, and rich kids with rich kids (generally meaning segregation between whites and people of color). On the whole, education is segregated still, by generally separating rich and poor, whites and people of color by area and funding."</p>

<p>One big reason public schools in wealthy suburbs are better than public schools in poor urban areas is that the suburban schools are given money from the community through taxes, donations, etc. Also, upper-class kids tend to be more academically motivated than lower-class kids, so the school environment is safer and more serious. If you bus in poor kids, the upper-class will flee to private schools or places without busing, and the school will lose its funding and its academic environment.</p>

<p>Of course, I'm sure there are a lot more pros and cons for busing, but that's what would happen if busing started for my school, at least. </p>

<p>"If that's not done, what do you expect colleges to do? Just sit there and wait untill school districts act. If you don't like AA programs cause they discriminate againts rich white kids or rich asian kids, then work to fix the problem where it starts or be ready to lose your spot."</p>

<p>My issue with them isn't that they discriminate against rich white or asian kids. It's that not much of a line is drawn between them and poor white and asian kids. How has a wealthy hispanic kid faced more adversity than a poor white kid? And AA programs don't work to fix the problem at all. How does putting a few minorities in prestigious colleges solve the problem of bad education?</p>

<p>"is it fair to keep out a black who grows up in compton and can only study an hour a day due to gangs etc and instead take in an asian who's only priority in life is to study 10 hours a day?"</p>

<p>Firstly, what does "can only study an hour a day due to gangs" even mean? Kids being too busy gangbanging to study for their calc quizzes has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is poor education for the lower class (and not just minorities).</p>

<p>Secondly, do you think it's fair to keep out a poor white kid whose school doesn't have textbooks and who has to work thirty hours/week and instead take in a wealthy african-american prep-school kid with lower SATs and grades?</p>

<p>Race is only the issue in that blacks/hispanics are more likely to be poor than whites/asians, and unlike jews and many asians, academic achievement doesn't tend to be as much of a cultural value. AA won't fix either of those things.</p>

35

<p>no, but its a start. a black man who grew up in a slum but ended up going to harvard would make academic achievment a priority for his children and immediate family. it wont fix the problem, but it would help.</p>

36

<p>punk- notice how you say refer to how the asian makes it a priority to study 10 hours a day. PRIORITY.
Life is full of choices and many of these choices reflect who we are under it all.
If a black person can't get ap classes because he or she is in a poor environment, sure, that's fine. More props should go to him if he goes out and finds another way to self study or find a community college. but that should be equal to everybody.
As mentioned before, it's a larger social problem then anything else.AA is trying to solve top down, which won't be effective if we can't prevent the problem. Much like medical problems, it's less costly to prevent than to cure.
In this game, the cost is other more qualified applicants that have tried harder and schools with less prestige/academic rigor/ enviromental quality basically, the pool of students that go to the school aren't as qualified. That's not fair to everybody else. aka Cost don't justify the means.
If they want to really prevent racial inequality, we need to have a grassroots movement all the way down to elementary school or preschool or even middle/highschool where study habits and decision making skills are developed. As seen with President Regan (I think) the trickle down theory doesn't work quite that well with money as well..and I think it can be applied to this issue. Meaning the hispanics and blacks who are accepted into these schools won't pass down the benefits to their offspring. They won't pass down the most critical skill of study habits and work ethics because they never had them to begin with and if they do gain them in college..who says another student can't gain them as well or these skills won't be quite as refined as those practicing them througout their lives (in most cases, there are of course those who make a complete turnover). At that point, what is the benefit asides from these admits get better jobs?</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
is it fair to keep out a black who grows up in compton and can only study an hour a day due to gangs etc and instead take in an asian who's only priority in life is to study 10 hours a day?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But we have to look even deeper. Why do Koreans in poor parts of LA (which have gangs) tend to outperform their black and Latino neighbors at the same schools? Why did Jews perform well in slums back during the first half of the 20th century?</p>

<p>We can't just look at the problems, but also the causes. What explains the underperformance of blacks and to a lesser extent Latinos? It's not PC to consider it, but how much is it culture within those communities? How much is it how blacks are treated in the same classrooms? How much is is institutional from start to finish?</p>

<p>I don't have the source, but a study demonstrated that black students will receive comparatively less personal attention during the latter end of secondary schooling than other groups. This is troubling, and should be more of a concern (in my opinion) than admission to elite universities.</p>

<p>Furthermore, are we really doing students who perform comparatively worse than the average admit in school and on standardized tests a huge favor if we send them to college and they don't get through? Is it really improving their lot? That's questionable. They may be better off at slightly less competitive colleges.</p>

<p>It's a complicated issue with no really good answers, unfortunately...</p>

38

<p>AA fixes nothing, and this is coming from someone who supports it as a necessary evil.</p>

<p>Accept underperforming students and they will do poorly in school. Their employment options will be no better than counterparts from schools with lesser reknown. </p>

<p>In this discussion, there seems to be a severe mistake of associating the lack of AA with a denied admission to college. What a load of crap! You simply go to another college, albeit a lower-ranked one. Inner city youth are not destined to a life of poverty and low human capital. EVERY college application ALLOWS YOU TO EXPLICITLY ILLUSTRATE "UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES". Hell, the essay section is weighed heavily and there for a reason. </p>

<p>If you get denied admission to Berkeley, go somewhere else. The "historical suppression" argument doesn't hold water anymore. Plenty of impoverished and surpressed immigrants have achieved social mobility, including blacks. If anything, debilitating circumstances have tremendous utility in college apps, research opportunities, jobs, and even politics. AA just reeks of whineyness.</p>

39

<p>Right on, TropicalTriceps.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
I don't have the source, but a study demonstrated that black students will receive comparatively less personal attention during the latter end of secondary schooling than other groups. This is troubling, and should be more of a concern (in my opinion) than admission to elite universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's a form of self-fulfilling prophesy and has been best chronicled by Berkeley's own Rhona Weinstein. I highly recommend her book.</p>

<p><a href="http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/psychology/faculty/profiles/rweinstein.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/psychology/faculty/profiles/rweinstein.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>