<p>Kam,</p>
<p>How about this, does it count for anything? - Virtually every university in the country (other than those prohibited by law from doing so) considers race as a factor in admissions, because racial diversity matters to them.</p>
<p>Bay, no that doesn't count. You're describing a current practice. What are the college's reasons for doing so? And where is the body of work that supports them? </p>
<p>According to Thomas Sowell (An African-American at Stanford, an institution which practices AA), it doesn't exist. And after reading articles such as the one in Scientific American, I've come to the conclusion that there is no body of proof out there. </p>
<p>After reiterating this once again, I have to ask hoedown whether or not he bothered to even read what I'd written before.</p>
<p>??</p>
<p>Speculations and theories? </p>
<p>I gave a link to the Sommers article. I referred to work by those who have used CIRP data to investigate this issue (for example, Mitch Chang did his dissertation on it) and Pat Gurin, who summarized a lot of people's work in this area when she provided evidence in the Gratz case. It's hard for me, as a social science researcher, to conclude that these things constitute "NO evidence." FWIW, the Supreme Court seemed to think there was evidence there--that case would have had the outcome it did if the supreme court hadn't believed that there are "educationally compelling" reasons for wanting diversity. </p>
<p>I also noted how your own source--the two org behavior researchers--found that diverse workteams are actually better for some kinds of tasks. They found decidedly mixed results results for the workplace. I don't know how can you hold up research that has found some evidence of the value of diversity to the CC community that there is NO evidence of the value of diversity. Regrettably, I haven't read Sowell's work, so I haven't commented upon it except to challenge your incorrect assertion that black people have enjoyed exemption from charges of bias.</p>
<p>In the interest of a fair and broad discussion, I also shared why, to some extent, the research I mentioned leaves something to be desired. But to say in constitutes "no evidence?" Well, I'm flummoxed. If you said there was mixed evidence? I'd agree with you. But "no evidence" doesn't make sense to me.</p>
<p>If the evidence is "mixed," which is definitly seems to be to me after reading everything in this thread and from the fact that is a debate in academia that isn't even close to being resolve, then shouldn't we be cautious and not implement policies that are clearly in violation of the principle of non-discrimination. We could quickly implement policies based on the "evidence" in The Bell Curve, and not consider counter-arguments, but it would seem a bit imprudent. Social policy should be grounded in solid reasoning, esp. when dealing with an issue of human rights. (I'm more or less a utilitarian, so I'd be willing to sacrifice human rights like equal opportunity if people as a whole would benefit, e.g. if diveristy actually served a really compelling interest to everyone. But some people would never reject one of the key principles of justice as articulated in the very influence A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, so that gives us all the more reason to be cautious.) I honestly have not been convinced diversity of race is good for much of anything aside from special-interest politics, although I'm pretty sure diversity of thought is good (too an extent, we don't need to be "diverse" enough to include Nazi philosophy in our classrooms).</p>
<p>Just_Browsing, I think you should review some of your statements on page 1 because I think you'd agree the word choice of "silly," "stupid," and "racist." Even if I were a so-called racist, I think there are more contructive words to choose, especially when I could have easily reversed the assertion as you quoted Hans Eyesnck, a defender of The Bell Curve (a book that infamously asserted that there are racial and ethnic differences in IQ that cannot be explained by enviornment).</p>
<p>To clarify about why I said that most Hispanics are white: there are indeed about 20x as many white Hispanics as black Hispanics in the U.S. according to the 2000 census. There is also a significant "other" population that is it hard to draw much of a racial conclusion about. My intuition is that there is more European blood in the Hispanic population in the US since historically there was not a particularly large Native American population (compared to European population) and there was a major genocide of Native Americans leading to Hispanic culture having more influence of Spanish people. This is reflected in the name. Of course there are many Native American Hispanics and many more of mixed blood (more or less everyone is mixed these days, even all the "white" people where I live), but I think the biggest influence is Spanish ancestors and the Spanish are white. So, in conclusion, given how few non-Hispanic Native Americans there are in the U.S. I would find it suprising that most Hispanic people are not significantly descended from European people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the evidence is "mixed," which is definitly seems to be to me after reading everything in this thread and from the fact that is a debate in academia that isn't even close to being resolve, then shouldn't we be cautious and not implement policies that are clearly in violation of the principle of non-discrimination.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's a very compelling question. </p>
<p>I also think is summarizes why many regular folks aren't in favor of affirmative action. Not racism, not extremism, not a blind adherence to dogma or a refusal to aknowledge the other side of the issue. However, the debates we see and hear are dominated by extremists on the issue (both sides), rather than on people who hold this kind of nuanced position.</p>
<p>That said, I think there are a couple of reasons why people wouldn't draw the same conclusion (that we should be cautious and not practice AA). I can't speak for them all, but I can suggest several reasons. For one thing, not all would agree that it's "clearly in violation" of the principle of non-discrimination. People certainly have different views about that. </p>
<p>Also, some people weight benefits differently. They may believe the positive results of affirmative action outweigh the negative results. I'm not just talking about finding some research more credible than other research (although that's a factor, too) but the different value that people put on certain kinds of outcomes (both good and bad). I think you've summarized it nicely when you noted you're willing to sacrifice some kinds of rights for a substantial enough benefit. People on the other side of the issue feel the same way--but they are weighing those benefits differently.</p>
<p>Where I've learned the most about this issue (or, frankly, any issue!) is in talking with people who are willing to debate these particular sorts of fine lines and grey areas. I wish we had more threads where this happened.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My intuition is that there is more European blood in the Hispanic population in the US since historically there was not a particularly large Native American population (compared to European population) and there was a major genocide of Native Americans leading to Hispanic culture having more influence of Spanish people...
So, in conclusion, given how few non-Hispanic Native Americans there are in the U.S. I would find it suprising that most Hispanic people are not significantly descended from European people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whoa, do you live in the U.S.A.? I am understanding that you actually think our Hispanic population is derived from U.S. Native Americans?? Have you ever heard of immigration from Mexico, South America, Cuba and Puerto Rico?
I'd suggest you check the U.S. census for more accurate information. If I remember correctly, those figures show that less than 50% of Hispanics self-report as "white." And this doesn't even figure in the millions of illegal immigrants that are not counted.</p>
<p>hoedown,
Well actually I think it's quite valid to be frank about negatives, as well as positives. That is, while I do obviously come down much more on the side of AA for a variety of educational & societal reasons, I appreciate the nuanced positions as well. But what troubles me the most (I guess) -- in addition to the gross misunderstandings of both the rationale & mechanics of AA that esp. some students hold -- is the failure to understand that a reversal or disappearance of AA will not result in significantly better admissions results for students in the "ORM" category. In the final analysis, URM admissions are still small, but particular <em>U.S.</em> resident URM admissions. And since internationals themselves are a smaller admit segment than U.S. residents, we're not talking a sea-change here. </p>
<p>Take a look (everyone) at some of the posts on the TJHSST thread on PF. Clearly there is controversy -- with a great many pluses & minuses balancing each other out -- over UVA admissions & how those are determined. The demand & the qualified pool so overwhelms the available slots at any high profile school, public or private. Like the privates, UVA has had to pick-&-choose as well. This is largely about ORM admissions. Like Harvard, Yale, & Princeton, other schools have had to pass over entire equivalent classes of qualified, promising students.</p>
<p>So while an occasional deserving ORM at an Elite is denied admission versus an occasional URM, many more ORM's than that are denied due to selectivity & detail issues completely unrelated to race, nationality, ethnicity. </p>
<p>I also think -- as many students have discussed on several threads -- the intermarriages & future difficulty of a student naming a "predominant" ethnic slot, as well as eventual greater economic mobility of URM's -- these factors will make the ethnic diversity choices somewhat more complex on the colleges' part. People of evenly mixed ancestry, and URM's themselves will not necessarily be significantly more advantaged, the more "diversified" individual families become. But colleges will undoubtedly continue to seek diversity on many fronts, however those needs change.</p>
<p>That's a good point, epiphany--I've seen the math on it.</p>
<p>I meant that such wholesale absence of acceptances at some of the most competitive colleges include ORM's <em>and majority</em> students.</p>
<p>The point is, AA is not the culprit or The Evildoer that some imagine or assume it to be, with regard to its effects on non-URM's. The greatest "Satan," if you will, is the ratio of highly qualified applicants, globally, to the available spaces at the few schools that many students are focused on attending. When colleges have stated that they seek variety in ways far beyond race, you are lowering your chances for admission to limit your serious interest to colleges where there will be the greatest number of students applying who are very much like yourself. (Same school or style of school, same region, same courses, similar e.c.'s, similar academic concentrations.) </p>
<p>If 50 States were to declare themselves AA-free tomorrow, you would not suddenly be at a dramatically different advantage at the most visible colleges. Mathematically speaking, the best way to increase your chances of admission to an Elite is to be "different" relative to other applicants, in ways other than race. Don't hold your breath for Ward Connerly or anyone else.</p>
<p>Or here's a radical thought: Include the less visible U's, as well, or any additional institution where you for whatever reason will be considered the exception. (For example, geographically) Many fine U's sometimes are looking for majors in particular areas, or are just beginning departments in some cutting-edge areas. It requires doing research, not just banking on what your peers assume is prestigious or what a family insists is a "top" college. This applies to all ethnic groups.</p>