<p>
[quote]
But one's ethnicity does not necessarily equate with inequity at the primary or secondary education levels.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's right, but outward appearances still play a role in who has power and who does not. Who is seen as an outsider and who isn't. It usually defines the status quo. </p>
<p>See above post^^^^^.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why should a Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, or Black from the same school face different admission standards?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, because the Caucasian has benefited by his or her appearances, the Asian by the false assumption that they are the 'model minority' (used by those in power to great effect when debating about the necessity of considerations based on ethnicity), Latinos/as because they are discriminated based on skin color, and Blacks because they have historically been oppressed (also true currently in American society).</p>
<p>Treatment is not equal at the primary and secondary levels and society as a whole, usually because of appearances and characteristics defined by the status quo. Thus, holistic admissions is a better way than ignoring race/ethnicity because it gives context and background to an applicants performance both academic and non-academic. If you ignore that, then it is conceivable that one could do the same for income or any other characteristic during admissions, good or bad (ability, special talent, legacy status, geographic residence, athleticism, et al). That, I believe is also unfair to a candidate. </p>
<p>Wait. Are there not need-aware colleges out there? Yes, there are. There are also schools that do not meet need but use merit aid to attract students they want. What do they use in their determination of merit aid? Test scores and grades, not socioeconomic background. I don't think this is fair. Similarly, I don't think that one's sociological and personal background (including race/ethnicity) should be ignored. That is also suspect.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>There's no such thing as "too black" or "too Hispanic."</p>
<p>I don't quite understand your question, "how can you dispute the fact that the '50pt deduction' significantly impacts colleges' admissions decision?" I don't dispute it. As Espenshade et al. wrote, "Nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students would be filled by Asians."</p>
<p>What is my argument for not considering race? Race is a factor that is irrelevant to participation in university life. My being Asian doesn't mean I have any fewer or any more rights than my non-Asian peers.</p>
<p>IsleBoy, it seems that you are forgetting that the current status quo is racial preferences. A handful of states have restricted their use via initiatives, yes, but overall, the standard practice today is preferential treatment. It is interesting that you accuse opponents of racial preferences as being "for the status quo" when they are fighting to change it. In reality, you represent the status quo because you support what is today's standard fare.</p>
<p>There is no reason why race-blind admissions does not allow for the consideration of inequity at various levels. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, "the purpose of helping certain groups...perceived as victims of "societal discrimination" does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent..." Thus, historic discrimination is not an appropriate rationale for racial preferences. As somedumbnoob correctly observed, socioeconomic affirmative action can address inequity without considering race.</p>
<p>Race-blind does not "deny" anyone's ethnicity. It does not say, "You are not [insert ethnicity here]." It says, "We will treat all equally regardless of race."</p>
<p>You say that race-blind would favor those that have "traditionally" had the power. Let's be direct and just say whites. As research by Espenshade et al. has shown, that's not true. The elimination of racial preferences barely affects whites. It greatly affects Asians, though. Simply take a look at UC post Proposition 209. The defenders of the status quo, that is, people sharing your viewpoint on this matter, wailed about how it would benefit whites at the expense of "under-represented" minorities. Is that what happened? No. In many UC campuses, white enrollment as a percentage of the total student body declined after 1996. Whose percentage numbers increased? Asians, and not just those Asians who are "over-represented."</p>
<p>
[quote]
It never gets put out because the majority often uses stats and grades as the prima faci reason that an applicant should get into a college. That is because opponents to racial consideration in admissions uses that as a bar that separates the deserving from those that are not (ignoring historical as well as current discrimination based on the belief that white privilege has somehow been irradiated and that every person is equal in the eyes of society and the status quo). Non-URMs, by virtue of belonging to the group in power, has had more resources and political clout than URMs--rural and low-income whites excluded. The only benefits rural and low-income whites have is the fact that they look like those in power--reducing their oppression by the non-URMs that have enjoy it. It is not surprising that there would be in-fighting between rural and low-income white and URMs because both have suffered marginalization. Again, out groups fight amongst themselves for power.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is prima facie reason the same thing as the only reason? No.</p>
<p>There's a difference between arguing that stats are an obvious reason why an applicant should get into a college and arguing that stats are the only reason why an applicant should get into a college. The former allows for the addition of other factors, such as essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations. The latter does not allow for anything other than stats.</p>
<p>I oppose racial preferences, but I certainly agree that being white can help in many facets of American life. Moreover, I do not believe that every person is equal in the eyes of society. Racism still exists, and anyone can be a racist. I do, however, believe that every person is equal under the law. To reiterate, the status quo means racial preferences are acceptable. That is what you support. I'm against it. Please stop claiming that opponents of racial preferences are for the status quo. It is not only disingenuous but also nonsensical to claim that opposition to the current state of affairs means support for the current state of affairs.</p>
<p>The myopic views conveyed on this subject never cease to astound me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's no such thing as "too black" or "too Hispanic."
[/quote]
you're wrong. you were saying that being "too Asian" meant conforming to Asian stereotypes. using your logic, why wouldn't being "too black" or "too Hispanic" mean conforming to African American and Hispanic stereotypes, respectively?</p>
<p>i hope you don't think that Asians are the only group in this country that have to face stereotypes...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't quite understand your question, "how can you dispute the fact that the '50pt deduction' significantly impacts colleges' admissions decision?" I don't dispute it. As Espenshade et al. wrote, "Nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students would be filled by Asians."
[/quote]
my bad. i meant to say, "how can you make the assertion that the "50pt deduction" significantly impacts colleges' admissions decision? the only way to make that argument is to assume that SAT score is the most important component of an application, which just is not true."</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is my argument for not considering race? Race is a factor that is irrelevant to participation in university life. My being Asian doesn't mean I have any fewer or any more rights than my non-Asian peers.
[/quote]
this is irrelevant to this discussion. Affirmative Action has nothing to do with certain races having more rights than others; it's about legitimizing the goal of creating racial diversity.</p>
<p>anyways, using your logic, race-blind admissions is synonymous with "highest stats only." how are ECs, essays, etc. any more relevant to "participation in university life," whatever that means, than race is?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A handful of states have restricted their use via initiatives, yes, but overall, the standard practice today is preferential treatment.
[/quote]
is this right, though? can you say tyranny of the majority?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no reason why race-blind admissions does not allow for the consideration of inequity at various levels. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, "the purpose of helping certain groups...perceived as victims of "societal discrimination" does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent..."
[/quote]
the circumstances are TOTALLY different. the medical school had created an entirely separate admissions track for minorities. unless you are saying that schools still do this today, the Bakke case is irrelevant in our discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus, historic discrimination is not an appropriate rationale for racial preferences. As somedumbnoob correctly observed, socioeconomic affirmative action can address inequity without considering race.
[/quote]
the purpose of Affirmative Action is not necessarily to address inequality. it's more about allowing schools to legally consider race so that they may create a racially diverse student body. whether or not you think this is a legitimate goal is an entirely different discussion. (i would like to point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is.)</p>
<p>also, colleges look at the background of the applicant's high school which is probably more useful in determing how many opportunities were available to the applicant than how much money his family made.</p>
<p>lastly, i would like to point out that Asians would be severely hurt by socioeconomic AA due to the fact that they are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country. in addition, numerically, there are not very many poor/working class/lower middle class Asians. however, the opposite is true for Caucasians. under socioeconomic AA, Caucasians would benefit the most since, numerically, they make up most of the country's poor/working class/lower middle class people. if you can't already tell, a socioeconomic AA policy would not help colleges achieve their goal of creating a racially diverse student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As research by Espenshade et al. has shown, that's not true. The elimination of racial preferences barely affects whites.
[/quote]
Affirmative Action does not affect Whites, so what is your point? this actually reaffirms IsleBoy's argument. socioeconomic AA, race-based AA, race-blind, etc. admissions policies will remain neutral to Whites because they are the ethnic group with the power right now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In many UC campuses, white enrollment as a percentage of the total student body declined after 1996.
[/quote]
that's because Caucasians always leave when minorities come along. it's called white flight. haven't you heard about how more and more suburban White parents are sending their children to private high schools instead of their local highly ranked public high school so that their kids don't have to go to school with Asians?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do, however, believe that every person is equal under the law.
[/quote]
what does this have to do with AA and how colleges use it today?</p>
<p>anyways, this doesn't have much to do with AA, but i'd like to point out that sometimes equal protection under the law means treating different individuals differently.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just want to point out, though, that Asians are also by far the wealthiest of all the ethnic groups in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily – and just to clarify, Asians are a racial group made up of many ethnicities.</p>
<p>While it is true that Asian-Ams have the highest median household income, this is in part due to many Asian-Am households having a no. of persons contributing to the household income.</p>
<p>In terms of individual median income – all of the major Asian ethnic groups have LOWER median incomes than white Americans ($23,600) w/ the exception of Indian-Americans ($26,000; due to the large % of immigrants w/ skilled backgrounds such as medicine or IT) and Japanese-Americans ($26,000; who are for the most part 3rd, 4th or 5th gen). </p>
<p>Plus Asian-American males have a LOWER median income than white American males w/ the same education level</p>
<p>Furthermore, only 15% of white Americans have less than a HS education level. Contrast that w/ a 52% rate for Hmong/Laotians/Cambodians, 38% for Viets, 23% for Chinese, etc.</p>
<p>I would bet that the figures for Jewish Americans are significantly higher (or lower) than that for white Americans overall.</p>
<p>
[quote]
this is irrelevant, since "Jew" is not an ethnicity. racial/ethnic diversity is a legitimate goal but i doubt religious diversity is one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It’s not irrelevant since schools consider diversity beyond race (culture, religion, geographic dviversity, etc.). Admissions officials have used cultural diversity as a reason to justify the % of African immigrant students comprising such a high % of black students (40%) at Ivy League universities, and despite, already being “overrepresented” by Jews in the student body (in relation to the pop.), schools like USC (and others) have hired admissions officials to increase the % of Jewish students. </p>
<p>If Jews are simply “white” – why was there a need for schools like USC to actively recruit more Jewish students (nevermind that they were already “overrepresented”).</p>
<p>Besides, Jews are an ethnicity (separate from the religion) and can even be further divided into sub-groups of Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews (among others). There are Arabs (including Palestinians), who are among the oldest Christians in the world. Similarly, there are ethnic Jews who have changed religions or have become wholely secular - but still consider themselves Jewish in the ethnic sense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i don't understand your logic. in order to make that claim that "There is no way that Hmong, Cambodians, etc. have enough demographic nos. to come close to making up the majority of the 46% of Asian students attending CC" you need to know the actual number of Asian students attending community colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I’m afraid your logic needs a bit of help. 46% of ALL Asian-Am students attending higher education consists of students attending community college. It’s really not that hard to surmise that Hmong, etc. don’t consist of the majority of Asian-American university/college students due to their overall lack in nos.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, if American universities are ultimately forced to admit only the highest stat students, resulting in college campuses composed of only one or two races...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once again, who's arguing that universities should be forced to admit only the highest stat students? This is the straw man that never gets put out. For whatever reason, it is next to impossible for supporters of racial preferences to comprehend that race-blind admissions need not be "highest stats only."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Gee, I guess it must be PURE COINCIDENCE that Jews make up as high as 30% of the student body at Ivy League universities – which probably is around 50% of the white student body despite making up only 1.5% of the college age pop.</p>
<p>Plus, who's saying that blacks or non-white Hispanics should be left out? </p>
<p>Diversity doesn't mean that a college needs to be 60-70% white either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lastly, i would like to point out that Asians would be severely hurt by socioeconomic AA due to the fact that they are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country. in addition, numerically, there are not very many poor/working class/lower middle class Asians. however, the opposite is true for Caucasians. under socioeconomic AA, Caucasians would benefit the most since, numerically, they make up most of the country's poor/working class/lower middle class people. if you can't already tell, a socioeconomic AA policy would not help colleges achieve their goal of creating a racially diverse student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know where you are getting your info. from, but it totally flies in face w/ what the US Census data reports (and if anything, Jews would be hurt the most).</p>
<p>Plus, a "socio-economic test" would still involve applicants from the same socio-economic level to battle it out w/ respect to grades, scores, ECs, etc.</p>
<p>Just b/c there are more poor whites overall - doesn't mean that they will automatically see the most benefit.</p>
<p>And oh, 9% of white Americans live in poverty.</p>
<p>Compare that to 22% for Hmong/Cambodians/Laotians, 14% for Viets, 16% for Koreans and 13% for Chinese (even 8% of Indians live in poverty).</p>
<p>It seems somebody bought the "model minority" stereotype hook, line and sinker.</p>
<p>k&s:
[quote]
While it is true that Asian-Ams have the highest median household income, this is in part due to many Asian-Am households having a no. of persons contributing to the household income.</p>
<p>In terms of individual median income – all of the major Asian ethnic groups have LOWER median incomes than white Americans ($23,600) w/ the exception of Indian-Americans ($26,000; due to the large % of immigrants w/ skilled backgrounds such as medicine or IT) and Japanese-Americans ($26,000; who are for the most part 3rd, 4th or 5th gen). </p>
<p>Plus Asian-American males have a LOWER median income than white American males w/ the same education level</p>
<p>Furthermore, only 15% of white Americans have less than a HS education level. Contrast that w/ a 52% rate for Hmong/Laotians/Cambodians, 38% for Viets, 23% for Chinese, etc.
[/quote]
where did you get your information from?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It’s not irrelevant since schools consider diversity beyond race (culture, religion, geographic dviversity, etc.).
[/quote]
schools do not actively seek religious diversity. the fact that there is religious diversity on campuses is a consequence of colleges actively seeking to create racially diverse student bodies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I’m afraid your logic needs a bit of help. 46% of ALL Asian-Am students attending higher education consists of students attending community college. It’s really not that hard to surmise that Hmong, etc. don’t consist of the majority of Asian-American university/college students due to their overall lack in nos.
[/quote]
that's not true at all. African American males make up a small percentage of males in the general population yet they make up a more than significant percentage of males in jail. it's entirely possible that most of those Asian-Am attending community colleges are Hmong, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus, who's saying that blacks or non-white Hispanics should be left out?
[/quote]
i thought you and all of the other anti-Affirmative Action people were...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know where you are getting your info. from, but it totally flies in face w/ what the US Census data reports (and if anything, Jews would be hurt the most).
[/quote]
hey big guy, i never said Asians would be "hurt" the most. i was trying to point out that Asians (the ones applying Harvard/Princeton/etc.) would be more "disadvantaged" than they are now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus, a "socio-economic test" would still involve applicants from the same socio-economic level to battle it out w/ respect to grades, scores, ECs, etc.
[/quote]
colleges already do what you are talking about. the point of the holistic process is to assess your achievement in the context of the opportunities you were provided. </p>
<p>when people talk about socioeconomic AA, they essentially mean considering the applicant's family's income, which is pretty useless since it doesn't tell you what sorts of opportunities were actually available to the applicant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just b/c there are more poor whites overall - doesn't mean that they will automatically see the most benefit.
[/quote]
there are more whites in every socioeconomic class, so, yes, they would benefit the most.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And oh, 9% of white Americans live in poverty.</p>
<p>Compare that to 22% for Hmong/Cambodians/Laotians, 14% for Viets, 16% for Koreans and 13% for Chinese (even 8% of Indians live in poverty).
[/quote]
what matters is the poverty rate for Asians as a whole, which is 11.8%.</p>
<p>there are 221.3 million white Americans and 13.1 million Asians.
apply the rates and you find that there are 1,545,800 Asians living in poverty versus 19,917,000 whites living in poverty.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>I wrote Admissions officers fear asking whether an applicant is "too black" or "too Hispanic," but too many officers have no qualms asking if an applicant is "too Asian." They know that asking whether someone is "too black" or "too Hispanic" is racist, but for whatever reason, it's acceptable to wonder if someone is "too Asian." In actuality, asking whether an applicant is "too Asian" is no different for it is also a racist question.</p>
<p>My answer to your revised question is the same as the one I gave to the original question. See Espenshade et al. </p>
<p>I stand by the statement that race is irrelevant to participation in university life. My sentence about rights was meant to illustrate my point. How are extracurriculars relevant to university life? Well, consider the following: if I were editor of my high school's student newspaper, the chances of my being selected as staff for the university newspaper could increase because of my experience. If I were an active participant of high school mathematics competitions, I would be more likely to volunteer at my university's math competition than if I had never participated. As for essays, please keep in mind that writing ability is essential to success in university coursework. It's far more relevant than race is.</p>
<p>We live in a republic, not a democracy. There is no issue of "tyranny of the majority," for while the majority rule, they cannot take liberties away from the minority.</p>
<p>The principle behind Justice Powell's argument is very relevant to this discussion. Historical discrimination is not acceptable as justification for racial preferences.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court did rule, in Grutter, that diversity was a compelling state interest. I remind you that the Supreme Court also ruled, in Parents Involved, that racial balancing is not a compelling state interest. Justice Kennedy's controlling opinion noted that depending on the definition, diversity is very important. It's unfortunate that he wasn't more clear as to what definition is acceptable, but I highly doubt that Justice Kennedy would view any form of racial balancing as diversity.</p>
<p>It seems that you used percentages to argue that Asians would be hurt by socioeconomic affirmative action but magnitudes to argue that whites would benefit from the same policy. It may be true that Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country. Does that mean that there are more wealthy Asians than wealthy whites? I don't think so. Under your logic, whites would be negatively affected because numerically, they make up most of the country's wealthy people.</p>
<p>What is my point of stating that "the elimination of racial preferences barely affects whites?" IsleBoy claimed that race-blind admissions would benefit whites. I cited Espenshade et al. and UC data to disprove his assertion. Obviously, you weren't aware of the context of the statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...i'd like to point out that sometimes equal protection under the law means treating different individuals differently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>WHAT?</p>
<p>NO. NO. NO.</p>
<p>Please refer to Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, where he clearly states that "The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wrote Admissions officers fear asking whether an applicant is "too black" or "too Hispanic," but too many officers have no qualms asking if an applicant is "too Asian." They know that asking whether someone is "too black" or "too Hispanic" is racist, but for whatever reason, it's acceptable to wonder if someone is "too Asian." In actuality, asking whether an applicant is "too Asian" is no different for it is also a racist question.
[/quote]
this doesn't have anything to do with what i said. there is no such thing as an "applicant that is too black/hispanic/white." however, there definitely is a stereotypical Asian applicant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My answer to your revised question is the same as the one I gave to the original question. See Espenshade et al.
[/quote]
the study you keep referencing relies on the assumption that SAT scores would become more important in a system in which race, legacy status, etc. were no longer considered. in such a system, schools would probably limit their Asian population by "discriminating" against certain ECs like Math Club.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I stand by the statement that race is irrelevant to participation in university life. My sentence about rights was meant to illustrate my point. How are extracurriculars relevant to university life? Well, consider the following: if I were editor of my high school's student newspaper, the chances of my being selected as staff for the university newspaper could increase because of my experience. If I were an active participant of high school mathematics competitions, I would be more likely to volunteer at my university's math competition than if I had never participated. As for essays, please keep in mind that writing ability is essential to success in university coursework. It's far more relevant than race is.
[/quote]
using your logic, wouldn't race be relevant if the school had a <insert ethnicity=""> club or a multicultitural club?</insert></p>
<p>
[quote]
We live in a republic, not a democracy. There is no issue of "tyranny of the majority," for while the majority rule, they cannot take liberties away from the minority.
[/quote]
you do not understand what the concept of "tyranny of the majority." the majority can terrorize the minority in any form of government; it's just more difficult to do so in a republic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The principle behind Justice Powell's argument is very relevant to this discussion. Historical discrimination is not acceptable as justification for racial preferences.
[/quote]
you keep on referencing Justice Powell like his is some great role model. the guys homophobic and i wouldn't be surprised if were prejudiced against minorities too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I remind you that the Supreme Court also ruled, in Parents Involved, that racial balancing is not a compelling state interest.
[/quote]
we're not talking about racial balancing. also, we are not talking about high schools; we are talking about colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems that you used percentages to argue that Asians would be hurt by socioeconomic affirmative action but magnitudes to argue that whites would benefit from the same policy. It may be true that Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country. Does that mean that there are more wealthy Asians than wealthy whites? I don't think so. Under your logic, whites would be negatively affected because numerically, they make up most of the country's wealthy people.
[/quote]
i will be more specific. under a socioeconomic AA policy, Asians would more than likely see their representation reduced at a majority of colleges in the United States. whites, however, would see their representation increase significantly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is my point of stating that "the elimination of racial preferences barely affects whites?" IsleBoy claimed that race-blind admissions would benefit whites. I cited Espenshade et al. and UC data to disprove his assertion. Obviously, you weren't aware of the context of the statement.
[/quote]
i think that both system benefit whites.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please refer to Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, where he clearly states that "The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal."
[/quote]
lol, Justice Powell again... </p>
<p>anyways, you are sadly mistaken. there are many cases where equal protection means treating different people differently; for example, statutory rape laws treat men and women differently because of obvious anatomical differences, it's considered cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally disturbed or retarded individual, etc.</p>
<p>News you can use:</p>
<p>Any insights?</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>Are you saying that Asians are the exception? That it is impossible to be too black, too Hispanic, or too white but it is possible to be too Asian?</p>
<p>
[quote]
in such a system, schools would probably limit their Asian population by "discriminating" against certain ECs like Math Club.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, how would that work? A student who lists math club as an extracurricular is automatically flagged into the "possibly Asian, beware" pile?</p>
<p>For your information, two years ago, both the A and B squads of my state's ARML team had fifteen members. Ten students per squad were non-Asian. I'd really like to see how your system would work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
using your logic, wouldn't race be relevant if the school had a <insert ethnicity=""> club or a multicultitural club?
[/quote]
</insert></p>
<p>This would be true only if you assume that being part of an ethnicity means being intimately familiar with that ethnicity. For example, many American Chinese do not speak Chinese and are not familiar with Chinese culture at all. If the purpose of a Chinese club was to promote Chinese culture, these students would be the ones trying to attain benefits from the club, not the ones trying to benefit others. By comparison, a student with journalism experience from high school is familiar with how journalism works and thus has a higher chance of being a staff member on a university newspaper. A student who's done math competitions before knows what they're like and is more likely than a student who's never done one to volunteer if given an opportunity.</p>
<p>Attacking the personal character of Justice Powell, who was known among his peers as having excellent manners, does not further your argument one iota.</p>
<p>The Seattle school district claimed not to be talking about racial balancing. And, look what happened to them.</p>
<p>Earlier you stated that, "there are more whites in every socioeconomic class..." From this, you claimed that "numerically, they make up most of the country's poor/working class/lower middle class people." You then argued that because of this, socioeconomic affirmative action would benefit whites and hurt Asians, who percentage-wise, are the wealthiest ethnic group. But, if there are more whites in every socioeconomic class, then numerically, whites make up most of the country's wealthy people. Thus, under your reasoning, socioeconomic affirmative action would hurt whites.</p>
<p>In post 67, you stated that "Affirmative Action does not affect Whites." Later on in post 72, you said, "i think that both system benefit whites." These statements contradict each other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you saying that Asians are the exception? That it is impossible to be too black, too Hispanic, or too white but it is possible to be too Asian?
[/quote]
You need to quit changing the context of the arguments you're making. You were specifically talking about the college admissions process, so let's make sure to limit it to that. You and I both know that there is a stereotypical Asian applicant, or, as you put it, an applicant that is "too Asian." These Asians are considered to be "too Asian" because they overly identify with stereotypes about Asian students: they do math club, science club, etc. Likewise, if you were to say a student is "too Black" or "too Hispanic" you would be saying that they overly identify with African American or Hispanic stereotypes (not intelligent, gang members, high school drop outs, etc.), respectively. The stereotypical African American or Hispanic student would not be thinking about applying to college in the first place, so no, in regards to the college admissions process, there would not be a stereotypical Black or Hispanic applicant. The reason why there is no stereotypical Caucasian applicant is simply because they are arguably the most diverse applicant group in terms of socioeconomics, interests, etc. due to the group's size.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, how would that work? A student who lists math club as an extracurricular is automatically flagged into the "possibly Asian, beware" pile.
[/quote]
Colleges are committed to creating racially diverse student bodies, since it is in their best interest to do so. In a race-blind system colleges will simply use other methods, like looking at the applicant's name, looking at their interests, place of birth, etc., to figure out the applicant's ethnicity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This would be true only if you assume that being part of an ethnicity means being intimately familiar with that ethnicity.
[/quote]
I would think that, more often than not, it is a pretty good assumption to make.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Attacking the personal character of Justice Powell, who was known among his peers as having excellent manners, does not further your argument one iota.
[/quote]
So because his peers said he had "excellent manners" (table manners? :P) he also has good character? Look up Bowers v. Hardwick.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Seattle school district claimed not to be talking about racial balancing. And, look what happened to them.
[/quote]
Not a good point to make. You cannot compare going to a public high school to going to a college. The major difference being that you pay tuition to go to college, whether the college is public or private, whereas you pay for going to a specific high school entirely through taxes. Also, there are many more constraints that a school district has to deal with that a college does not. The school in this case was using race as a factor to determine where students ended up; thus, they actually trying to racially balance the student bodies. However, this is not even close to how race is used in regards to college admissions. I would be very surprised if this case were ever used as a precedent in a case related to college admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Earlier you stated that, "there are more whites in every socioeconomic class..." From this, you claimed that "numerically, they make up most of the country's poor/working class/lower middle class people." You then argued that because of this, socioeconomic affirmative action would benefit whites and hurt Asians, who percentage-wise, are the wealthiest ethnic group. But, if there are more whites in every socioeconomic class, then numerically, whites make up most of the country's wealthy people. Thus, under your reasoning, socioeconomic affirmative action would hurt whites.
[/quote]
I have already answered this. You are thinking "hurt" as in more of a certain group being rejected; I, however, mean hurt as in that certain group will see there representation at certain schools decreased. If you had read post #72, you would have seen that I specified what I meant by "hurt."</p>
<p>
[quote]
In post 67, you stated that "Affirmative Action does not affect Whites." Later on in post 72, you said, "i think that both system benefit whites." These statements contradict each other.
[/quote]
There is no contradiction there. The current race-based Affirmative Action policy benefits Whites because it does not affect them. They are not the ones who see their representation reduced in the name of more racial diversity: Asians do. As for a socio-economic Affirmative Action policy, I have already said why I think that Whites would also benefit from that system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
where did you get your information from?
[/quote]
Uhh, the US Census.</p>
<p>
[quote]
schools do not actively seek religious diversity. the fact that there is religious diversity on campuses is a consequence of colleges actively seeking to create racially diverse student bodies.
[/quote]
Really? </p>
<p>Then why did USC and a no. of other schools actively recruit Jewish students even tho Jews (much less white students) were already “overrepresented” (higher % of student body than pop. %) – going as far as hiring an admissions officer in charge of recruiting Jewish students?</p>
<p>And let’s be frank here – schools like USC did not need to actively recruit Jews to add “diversity” to their campus (since Jews were already “overrepresented”) – but this was their way of increasing the quality of their student body w/o having to increase the % of highly qualified non-white students (in other words – Asians).</p>
<p>
[quote]
that's not true at all. African American males make up a small percentage of males in the general population yet they make up a more than significant percentage of males in jail. it's entirely possible that most of those Asian-Am attending community colleges are Hmong, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your analogy is deeply flawed and frankly is a bit loopy (plus, I could use your argument to against your claim – since Hmong, Cambodians, etc., among the Asian groups, tend to have a higher % of their males incarcerated – since they have a higher % belonging to gangs, etc.)</p>
<p>And sorry – besides the fact that many Hmong, etc. don’t even go to community college (much less a 4 yr college), the demographics, alone, makes your assertion impossible.</p>
<p>There are LESS than 500k Hmong/Cambodians/Laotians in the US. Otoh, there are more than 2.7 million Chinese-Americans. Add the other major Asian-Am groups (Korean, Indian, Japanese, etc.) and we are talking about more than 10 million.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i thought you and all of the other anti-Affirmative Action people were...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You thought wrong.</p>
<p>I’m not anti-AA (tho – it should be reform to help more of the socio-economically disadvantaged URMs).</p>
<p>
[quote]
hey big guy, i never said Asians would be "hurt" the most. i was trying to point out that Asians (the ones applying Harvard/Princeton/etc.) would be more "disadvantaged" than they are now.
[/quote]
Uhh, but “little person” – Asian-Americans from higher socio-economic backgrounds may be disadvantaged, but there are plenty of Asian-Ams from lower socio-economic backgrounds who would benefit - and if anything, probably would end up w/ more Asian students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
colleges already do what you are talking about. the point of the holistic process is to assess your achievement in the context of the opportunities you were provided.
[/quote]
Of course – and you don’t think (putting aside the bias against Asian-Am applicants), that Asian applicants from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds wouldn’t generally have more impressive academic qualifications than their white counterparts (never-mind often the additional hurdles of having to learn a new language and adopt a new culture)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
there are more whites in every socioeconomic class, so, yes, they would benefit the most.
[/quote]
Sigh! You seem to be having a real difficulty w/ the concept of causation.</p>
<p>Under your premise – since there are vastly more white applicants from advantaged backgrounds than say, Asian-Am, then white students should dominate the student body at the Ivies and other elite universities (90% or higher) - but they don’t.</p>
<p>Furthermore, since there are vastly more WASP white applicants than Jewish applicants from advantaged backgrounds (purely on the basis of demographic nos.) – white WASP students should dominate the white student body at these schools – but they don’t.</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what matters is the poverty rate for Asians as a whole, which is 11.8%.
[/quote]
And?</p>
<p>That % is still higher than that for white Americans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there are 221.3 million white Americans and 13.1 million Asians.
apply the rates and you find that there are 1,545,800 Asians living in poverty versus 19,917,000 whites living in poverty.
[/quote]
Once again – you don’t seem to grasp the concept of causation very well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no contradiction there. The current race-based Affirmative Action policy benefits Whites because it does not affect them. They are not the ones who see their representation reduced in the name of more racial diversity: Asians do. As for a socio-economic Affirmative Action policy, I have already said why I think that Whites would also benefit from that system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should tell that to all the white students/applicants who brought lawsuits fighting AA (pretty much all of the anti-AA lawsuits were brought about by whites - UMich, UT, etc.).</p>
<p>And if you take away the "artificial cap" that is placed on Asian-Am applicants, you will likely see a rise in the % of Asian-Am students at the expense of white students (such as that seen at Cal and Stanford).</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>Earlier in this thread, I asked, "Why is it that Asians must disprove stereotypes in the admissions process while students from 'under-represented' do not have to disprove anything...[in the admissions process]?" It seems that you've proved my point. According to you, Asians and only Asians have to disprove stereotypes when they complete their applications. Stereotypical blacks and Hispanics don't apply to college, and there is no stereotypical white applicant. Thanks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In a race-blind system colleges will simply use other methods, like looking at the applicant's name, looking at their interests, place of birth, etc., to figure out the applicant's ethnicity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Names can be changed. In fact, our country has a long history of immigrants willingly changing their names to avoid discrimination. For example, Martin Sheen was born as Ram</p>
<p>I think I'm done here.</p>
<p>fabrizio:
At the end of the day it comes down to this: I value racial diversity; you think it's meaningless.</p>
<p>k&s:
We got lost somewhere in our discussion of socio-economic based Affirmative Action. If your ultimate goal is to promote racial diversity on college campuses, then socio-economic based AA is probably the worst means to achieve that goal. Think about it, if it were the best means to produce racially diverse student bodies, don't you think colleges would have been using it by now?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point remains about the Seattle school district. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, racial balancing does not go from "patently un-Constitutional" to "compelling state interest" simply by renaming it racial diversity. Keep that in mind.
[/quote]
I urge you to at least look up the Wikipedia article about this case. If you really understand the logic behind the court's decision, then you will see that it would be very difficult to use this case as a precedent in an Affirmative Action college admissions case.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>If being "done here" means you have no further defenses to your claim that interests can indicate an applicant's ethnicity, then by all means, feel free.</p>
<p>In one of the dissents to Parents Involved, Justice Breyer criticized his colleagues in the majority for overruling Grutter, which dealt with universities and not high schools. Clearly, Justice Breyer disagreed with you that Parents Involved had no connection to universities. Furthermore, you still fail to understand that renaming is what doesn't work. Renaming changes the external appearance but leaves the internal workings unmodified. That is why something that is patently un-Constitutional will always be patently un-Constitutional regardless of what it is called. That is what is applicable to future cases.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If being "done here" means you have no further defenses to your claim that interests can indicate an applicant's ethnicity, then by all means, feel free.
[/quote]
Nice. I honestly do not see the point of further debating that point. It has nothing to do with my argument for keeping race-based Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In one of the dissents to Parents Involved, Justice Breyer criticized his colleagues in the majority for overruling Grutter, which dealt with universities and not high schools. Clearly, Justice Breyer disagreed with you that Parents Involved had no connection to universities. Furthermore, you still fail to understand that renaming is what doesn't work. Renaming changes the external appearance but leaves the internal workings unmodified. That is why something that is patently un-Constitutional will always be patently un-Constitutional regardless of what it is called. That is what is applicable to future cases.
[/quote]
Actually, Grutter v. Bollinger had nothing to do with the case. Where did you read that it was overruled? Do you know what overruled means? If it had been overruled then Affirmative Action would not exist right now.</p>
<p>From <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZS.html:%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZS.html:</a>
[quote]
Moreover, these cases are not governed by Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 , in which the Court held that, for strict scrutiny purposes, a government interest in student body diversity “in the context of higher education” is compelling. That interest was not focused on race alone but encompassed “all factors that may contribute to student body diversity,” id., at 337, including, e.g., having “overcome personal adversity and family hardship,” id., at 338. Quoting Justice Powell’s articulation of diversity in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 , the Grutter Court noted that “ ‘it is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups,’ that can justify the use of race,” 539 U. S., at 324–325, but “ ‘a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element, ’ ” id., at 325. In the present cases, by contrast, race is not considered as part of a broader effort to achieve “exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints,” id., at 330; race, for some students, is determinative standing alone. The districts argue that other factors, such as student preferences, affect assignment decisions under their plans, but under each plan when race comes into play, it is decisive by itself. It is not simply one factor weighed with others in reaching a decision, as in Grutter; it is the factor. See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244 . Even as to race, the plans here employ only a limited notion of diversity, viewing race exclusively in white/nonwhite terms in Seattle and black/“other” terms in Jefferson County. The Grutter Court expressly limited its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to the sort of classifications at issue here. Pp. 11–17.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I copied more than I actually had to in hopes that you would read it and realize how Affirmative Action actually works.</p>