<p>There was nothing wrong with a kid expressing his emotions. Nadal cried when he lost and said he will work harder.</p>
<p>The truth is, again, that kid was compared with other Asians, not the whole pool.</p>
<p>It was either a ■■■■■ or someone very hysterical and neurotic.</p>
<p>And I don’t think there is any school with piles of applications divided by race which is explicitly illegal.</p>
<p>So that claim could be considered libelous if published.</p>
<p>As far as stats, nobody is saying the numbers are not outstanding and worthy of admission to a elite institution. But just from the post, it sounds like an institution of another kind may be more suited. If you can’t pick up on that then there is no point discussing it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We should do all of the above. Affirmative action has not made us any less aware of the education gap or less intent on stopping it. But it is part of the solution to that problem and to many others. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That interpretation is correct and it fosters nothing. People assign behaviors to racial classifications for reasons and based on experience, not arbitrarily. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when is marriage and labor force participation a good measure of cultural capital?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are these people representative samples of the black population in the early 20th century? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I can. The only reason the culture got worse was because of the development of already present-from-the-time-of-slavery processes mixing with novel processes of the late 20th century. For example, the late 20th century historical processes of urban decentralization and suburbanization interacted with racial realities during that time to lead to this thing called “white flight” which culminated in an environmental racism that exists to this day. The business practices of redlining, mortgage discrimination, and racially restrictive covenants contributed to the overcrowding and physical deterioration of areas where minorities chose to congregate.</p>
<p>These processes, along with American de-industrialization and reduced visibility of racial issues thanks to complacency after gains in the civil rights era, contributed to the geographic, social, economic and political isolation of blacks and are why black culture is the way it is today. </p>
<p>And you’re unwillingness to “point fingers” and expose to the light of rational discourse your opinions is pure intellectual dishonesty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Red herring. Whether AA should be improved or not to ensure that target groups are the ones actually benefitting from it does not directly relate to whether AA itself is worth having. That problem can be discussed, clarified and fixed without ever threatening AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without AA, some ethnic groups are already endowed with social, cultural, prejudicial and economic advantages as a result of their race (as the science I cited indicates, and much more would corroborate). AA’s aim is to counterbalance this reality.</p>
<hr>
<p>Look, I’m not a fan of AA. I have my own reasons for opposing it — specifically, its effect on race relations, its emphasis on ends over means, and the overall way it makes the liberal political agenda less compelling. It is not a very good law and the Gruter result reflects my exact sentiments about the policy.</p>
<p>What I oppose here is 1) you guys’s rationale for opposing affirmative action and 2) the flawed (and potentially racist) narrative about blacks with which you base this rationale. I’m just criticizing what I see as bad ideas, and would do the same if an AA advocate came on and did the same thing.</p>
<p>Also.</p>
<p>[Achievement</a> Gap Study Suggests Legislators Only Take Action When White Students Fail](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Achievement Gap Study Suggests Legislators Only Take Action When White Students Fail | HuffPost Voices)</p>
<p>Re #783</p>
<p>Getting at the real problems takes a lot of work and a lot of time. In addition, it takes time for the results to “show.” Why do this if you can achieve the same photo op result by granting preferences to the children of black and Hispanic professionals? Granting preferences to the children of well-to-do professionals is easy and gets you “results” very quickly at minimal cost. In case my point isn’t clear, the real problems will never be addressed so long as there is an “easy way out” in the form of racial preferences.</p>
<p>We shouldn’t assign behaviors to racial classifications, period. Doing well in school isn’t “white.” It isn’t “Asian.” It is something we should encourage all students to do; racial classification is completely irrelevant “doing well in school.” You were hurt because people do this, yet you defend the practice. That baffles me.</p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by cultural capital. But the previously higher marriage and labor force participation rates relative to whites show that “the black family” was not in tatters and ruins at a time when discrimination and racism were institutionalized and rampant. If you think Brown and Marshall are outliers, I welcome your examples of the prevalence of “messed up black culture” in the early 20th Century.</p>
<p>By claiming that “novel processes of the late 20th Century” contributed to the worsening of black culture, you have chosen to blame something OTHER than slavery and Jim Crow. Your argument is weakened by the fact that the destructive nature of these “processes” pales in comparison to that of slavery. Also, you shouldn’t copy and paste a sentence from Wikipedia verbatim without a citation.</p>
<p>You didn’t elaborate on your claim that “only affirmative action enables [first-generation African immigrations] to even near proportional representation in our colleges.” Also, you didn’t elaborate on how their success shows that blacks “aren’t limping behind because of their own foibles.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re suggesting that the education gap is being ignored because AA exists (for otherwise, the real problems are being addressed while AA is happening and that is sim-ply impossible, right?). That simply isn’t the case. Right now, there is work going on in many different domains to get at the real problems, even as AA is still a thing. Your argument is invalid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re baffled because you’re missing the point. Racial classification IS relevant to doing well in school. That’s why there are huge differences between black groups and asian groups in that domain. Recognizing is this is not “continuing the practice”; it’s seeing things as they are and should never be discouraged in favor of believing some equality fairy tale. You seem to suggesting we engage in a form of political correctness (changing our beliefs to suit some political idealism) that I didn’t think you’d favor.</p>
<p>I was hurt because people do this, but people do this for straightforward reasons based on the facts they perceive. Stereotyping does not occur in a vacuum. Race-consciousness is the only way we’ll be able to set our eyes on race-problems. </p>
<p>The problem is different groups’ values about education. When a member of a group that does not value education nonetheless focuses on and achieves in that domain, that is more difficult than a kid succeeding in a group that values it very much and ensures their children study every day – and more meritorious. The most visible negative differences in values about education (in the native american and black american populatons) are all results of the patterns of practices of white people that began at the start of America and continued through most of its history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then google it, like I am doing for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it shows that blacks married more and had jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t say I know how to find those. Brown and Marshall are a bit more high profile. I’ll keep my out for them, though. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to be cherry picking. I said, “The only reason the culture got worse was because of the development of already present-from-the-time-of-slavery processes mixing with novel processes of the late 20th century.” I am blaming the legacy of slavery and Jim Crowe for the way blacks were impacted by changes in the late 20th century.</p>
<p>These processes didn’t have to be as destructive as slavery because the destruction caused by slavery had hardly been undone. What these processes did was put a people already down even further down while stripping them of the sociopolitical, cultural, educational and economic resources (through reduced political visibility, geographic isolation, urban decentralization, suburbanization, and de-industrialization) they needed to maintain their gains.</p>
<p>Let it be known that everything I say, think, and post in this and all of my other posts is probably a c/p of some sentence from wikipedia, even this one. Amen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That first statement is either not mine or not what I intended to say. My argument was that the immigrants’ educational and economic success (which would occur without AA) shows that american black history contributes to the current gap.</p>
<p>You’ve also failed to address other claims in my recent posts. Specifically about your intellectual dishonesty?</p>
<p>When I derisively referred to what you call “diversity” a “photo op result,” I was talking about actions taken from the perspective of universities. The UC system, for example, only began to seriously try to tackle the real problems after racial preferences were abolished in California in 1996.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said, this approach takes a lot of effort and a lot of time, and “it is hard to know how much difference these programs make.” By contrast, it is so easy to grant preferences to the children of black and Hispanic professionals, and results are so quick and lend themselves so nicely to photo ops. Universities would never do this unless their “easy way out” was taken away from them.</p>
<p>Are you saying that the disparities in standardized test scores between blacks and Asians, for example, are due to RACIAL CLASSIFICATION? Again, it disappoints me that you continue to defend the practice of assigning behaviors to racial classifications even though you were hurt by it.</p>
<p>It was not until recently that “blacks do not value education.” [Thomas</a> Sowell](<a href=“Black Rednecks and White Liberals - Thomas Sowell - Google Books”>Black Rednecks and White Liberals - Thomas Sowell - Google Books) reports that in 1850, a majority of free blacks were literate even though education was forbidden to blacks in the South and the quality of schools in the North was uneven by racial classification. You need to stop blaming whites for blacks’ foibles.</p>
<p>If by cultural capital you are referring to "[non-financial</a> social assets that promote social mobility beyond economic means](<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital]non-financial">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital)," I don’t see how growing up in a two-parent household does not qualify. Perhaps you should try connecting some dots every now and then if you want to actually have a discussion?</p>
<p>I didn’t cherry pick anything. I said you claimed that “novel processes of the late 20th Century” contributed to the worsening of black culture; that is, you blamed something besides slavery and Jim Crow. You can cry racist all you want, but it remains that you need to stop blaming whites for everything.</p>
<p>I directly quoted you and only included “first-generation African immigrants” (not immigrations, my mistake) to replace a pronoun. If that’s not what you meant to say, then what did you mean to say? In addition, did you mean to say that their educational and economic success would not have occurred without racial preferences? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?</p>
<p>If you think I’m intellectually dishonest because I don’t want to point fingers, then you don’t have to discuss with me. It’s interesting that you think that way because one of your consistent “points” is that every problem that afflicts black Americans today is because of something whites did decades or centuries ago. In other words, that’s all you do: point fingers.</p>
<p>“And I don’t think there is any school with piles of applications divided by race which is explicitly illegal.</p>
<p>So that claim could be considered libelous if published.”</p>
<p>They don’t tell but people can think base on facts! So, go ahead, publish it.</p>
<p>[Office</a> of the Registrar - California Institute of Technology](<a href=“http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/statistics.htm]Office”>http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/statistics.htm)</p>
<p>In Caltech, where race is not an obvious factor for admission, Asian population is 40%. (Not including Internationals who are mostly Asians in America in the process of getting citizenship)</p>
<p>MIT, Ivy League universities, and other top universities all have less than 20% Asians. Without comparing Asians to Asians this low percentage would NOT be possible to achieve.</p>
<p>Enough said. I don’t need to waste more time.</p>
<p>Slavery, Black Codes, Sharecropping, Lien system, Jim Crow, exclusion from Progressive movement, de jure segregation, Great Society, “War on Drugs”: these are the reasons why black people receive an advantage in college admissions. America has always found a way, intentionally or inadvertently, to screw over black people. True story.</p>
<p>@Findmoreinfo: Don’t Asians constitute a higher percentage of the population on the West Coast? Wouldn’t they therefore comprise a higher percentage of the college population at Caltech than at the prestigious schools on the East Coast?</p>
<p>Hats off to Philovitist. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So these totally explain why [first-</a> or second-generation black Americans](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]first-”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black) are “overrepresented” by over 300% at the Ivy Leagues relative to their proportion among all blacks aged 18 or 19 in the U.S., right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Caltech is private. It has no obligation to admit California’s students. Moreover, the College Board reports that 63% of its students are out-of-state.</p>
<p>On my school records, I have been listed as Native American ever since freshman year, and so on my SAT, ACT, AP… registrations I’ve listed myself as Native American. I want to list myself as Native American during the college application process as well, but I’m not sure if that is okay.</p>
<p>I know most people claim Native American heritage like it’s some sort of fad. I’m registered with the Cherokee Nation as a member but my ancestry on my mom’s side (the Cherokee side) is not well documented because of lots of adoptions, divorces, and moving. So, with the United States Bureau of Indian affairs I’m only listed as 1/128. (I know, that’s tiny- but it is likely much more).</p>
<p>I’ve always told myself it’s okay because I’m really interested in Native American history and have read a lot of books surrounding the topic (both fiction and nonfiction). My family also went to visit a few museums they have in Oklahoma and I have even tried learning the Cherokee language.</p>
<p>So, should I list myself as Native American on college applications? Even if you think I should just for the sake of uniformity, or should I list myself as white? (I’m part German, Lithuanian, and Scottish/Irish)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, as first- and second- generation blacks have not suffered the inter-generational issues associated with slavery and oppression that are unique to the United States. Though a black immigrant is typically not subject to the problems of native-born blacks, he or she still receives the benefits that come with identifying as black; consequently, black immigrants are “overrepresented” while native-born blacks remain “underrepresented”. </p>
<p>Has anyone considered that the process of immigrant is, generally speaking, a self-selecting process in which typically more driven and motivated individuals take part? Immigrating to the United States is an arduous process requiring determination; wouldn’t immigrants - be they black, white, Hispanic, or Asian - be more determined and thus more academically successful? Just a hypothesis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While it sounds great (if un-Constitutional, see Bakke) that on paper, blacks receive racial preferences because of “Slavery, Black Codes, Sharecropping, etc.,” in reality, Americans who have no ancestors hurt by any of those stains of our history are disproportionately benefitting from these preferences. In fact, perversely, some of these Americans may be descended from Africans who enslaved other Africans and sent them to North America. So you have to ask yourself, is the policy you’re defending really achieving its “intended” purposes?</p>
<p>"@Findmoreinfo: Don’t Asians constitute a higher percentage of the population on the West Coast? Wouldn’t they therefore comprise a higher percentage of the college population at Caltech than at the prestigious schools on the East Coast?
"</p>
<p>West coast Asian population has nothing to do with Caltech’s high percentage of Asians admitted - because Caltech is private and there is no advantage for in-state applicants. Besides, tuition is the same for everyone. And most importantly, if their family can afford Caltech (with or without aid) most of the high-achieving Asian high school kids also apply to Ivy League and other East Coast universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the probability that these Black graduates will marry African Americans at a higher rate than the average white graduate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t know. This matters…because?</p>
<p>How did post #11 get in anyway? Did anyone see the gap in their SAT scores?</p>
<p>I’m tired of white people complaining that affirmative action is getting them rejected from college. My aunt is a college admission officer and she told me that so MANY Asian and and foreign students with amazing SAT scores and potential get turned down and the spots get filled with Americans born and raised in this country with slightly worse scores and resumes. There is a set amount of black students and Latinos that are going to get applied based on schools. The University of California did away with affirmative action and now Asians outnumber white kids on a huge marginal difference. Once affirmative action is gone a lot of white kids are going to lose their privileged to hard working foreign students. Google recently admitted that they support the immigration reform because they do not have enough Americans to fill their jobs, so they want to be able to give out more H1B visas. It’s in an article at HuffingtonPost.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: Let’s go to a period of history closer to modern times. White Americans were the ones who discriminated against African Americans. Remember George Wallace’s resistance to UA’s racial integration. Because African Americans found a difficult path to higher education, they found themselves disadvantaged socioeconomically. Now their children have to deal with these disadvantages. Universities established affirmative action to level the playing field. They are still needed. Digging into history and finding a factoid about how Africans enslaved other Africans is irrelevant to this discussion. I disagree with the way affirmative action is being executed right now but I do think it is better than the alternative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have many problems with your comment.</p>
<ol>
<li>That whites discriminated against blacks in the past doesn’t justify whites (much less Asians) bearing any “burden” in the present. Justice Powell said as much in Bakke:</li>
</ol>
<p>Hence, the purpose of helping certain groups whom the faculty of the Davis Medical School perceived as victims of “societal discrimination” does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent, who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered. To hold otherwise would be to convert a remedy heretofore reserved for violations of legal rights into a privilege that all institutions throughout the Nation could grant at their pleasure to whatever groups are perceived as victims of societal discrimination. That is a step we have never approved.</p>
<ol>
<li>Thomas Sowell documents that all around the world, we hear the same rhetoric for why affirmative action is needed: a level playing field. And yet, all around the world, we see the same results: the people who benefit from affirmative action are largely those who are already middle class or higher. I am only aware of data for one school in two years (Duke 2001-2002), but in that case, the average family income of incoming black freshmen was over $118,000 in 2001-2002 dollars. That’s more than $153,000 in today’s dollars.</li>
</ol>
<p>Sure, black freshmen came from households with the lowest average incomes, $1 in New York City isn’t the same as $1 in Iowa City, and income isn’t wealth. But the point remains: at least for Duke in those two years, black freshmen on average did not come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Your favored policy is basically a middle class entitlement for blacks and Hispanics. By the way, at Duke in those two years, Hispanic freshmen on average came from families that had higher incomes than Asians.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>That Africans enslaved other Africans and sent them to North America is relevant given that I have established that at least for one recent year, first- and second-generation black Americans (i.e. immigrants or the children of at least one immigrant) were “overrepresented” at the Ivy Leagues by over 300% relative to their population within all blacks aged 18 to 19 in the U.S. I’m not saying that all first- and second-generation black Americans are descended from blacks who enslaved other blacks. What I am saying is that if even one first- or second-generation black American student received a racial preference because he is black, even though he is descended from an African who enslaved another African, that is messed up.</p></li>
<li><p>What is “the” alternative? No preferences at all? Socioeconomic preferences? There are plenty of other options.</p></li>
</ol>