<p>MODERATOR NOTE: Per CCs Terms of Service, pro/con AA comments are not permitted. Please continue any further discussion ONLY on the Race FAQ sticky thread at the top of this forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is self-contradictory. Under the present demographics of the United States, whites make up ~60%-~70% of the population. You claim to have no problem if Princeton, for example, were to be ~70% white because that “reflects the demographics of the general population.” But ~70% is clearly “overwhelming numbers of one racial category” according to you, because you have previously indicated that you think a school that is 70% of any racial classification (e.g. Asian, black) has a problem.</p>
<p>Let’s put the two together. Why is a 70% white school “diverse” to you whereas a 70% Asian / black school is not?</p>
<p>I find it very sad that you hold these beliefs even though you overtly self-identify as Asian. As an individual, you’re free to believe whatever you want to believe, but it’s disappointing that you apparently think whites continue to contribute to “diversity” from ~40% to ~60-~70% whereas Asians and blacks do not from <6% / ~13% onwards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t be as calm in my reply to this as ucbalumnus was. Your post, coupled with a follow-up, betrays an absurd amount of hypocrisy, self-entitlement, and selfishness.</p>
<p>You benefitted because Princeton did not adhere to your worldview when you applied and were admitted. If you actually believed in anything you’ve written in this thread, you would never have applied to Princeton to begin with out of principle.</p>
<p>But you did. And now you say that Princeton should adopt your worldview so that future incoming classes should be <6% Asian. And of course, since you were admitted before the policy switch, it’s OK for you to stay.</p>
<p>How selfish! You got a benefit, now screw everybody else who comes after you? If you believed in any of the “fairness” / “justice” that you threw with gusto here, you’d share the burden with everybody else you want to take the benefit away from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is fair. People (especially college students whose minds are expanding!!!) can change their minds!</p>
<p>How liberals who support reverse discrimination reason:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>How do we see the remains of past discrimination? Obviously, it’s because URMs are underrepresented in higher education.</p></li>
<li><p>Why are URMs underrepresented in higher education? Obviously, it must be because of the remains of past discrimination.</p></li>
<li><p>Conclusion: we must correct the effects of past discrimination and the resulting URMs being underrepresented in higher education.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>And then they find ORMs (which I’m part of), which make them uneasy because they seem to have been recovered from the effects of past discrimination (they were actually discriminated against the most; see the internment camps and Chinese Exclusion Act) for some strange reason. So instead of blaming the URMs upon themselves and their culture, they use a duplicitous trick of the pen to “correct” the effects of the eponymous “discrimination,” for, to them, the blame rests not upon students but upon the environment; the blame rests upon that they are not truly free, that, no matter what, the causes can be judged by the effects.</p>
<p>
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</p>
<p>I believed that I used it once in that post. I used the wrong word. I think that you need a relative pronoun somewhere in your post. In any case, the misuse of one word doesn’t distract from the main purpose of my post.</p>
<p>
Views change. Can’t share the burden without leading to an absurd situation. It’s just not practical at all. Probably the stupidest suggestion I’ve ever heard. You can’t argue against my model of race-proportionate admissions and you attack me? How childish. I will not humor you and your personal attacks. Grow up and shut up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you in general that people can change their minds, though I must say that on an issue such as the use of racial classification in admissions, I think it’s very infrequent that people change their beliefs. Nonetheless, in this specific case, it is evident from how defensive 93tiger16’s posts are that he knows perfectly well that his actions do not comport with his words. He has chosen to reconcile this contradiction by waving his hands and saying that it’s impractical for him to leave instead of taking an action that would make it very clear that he believes fully in what he’s saying: transferring to a school that’s below <6% Asian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I can’t argue against your position? This is why you answered my questions in posts 42-43, right?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>So, let’s be 100% clear on this: you are saying that Asian enrollment at elites should be <6%? And whites should receive racial preferences, if need be, to get them from ~40% to ~60-~70%?</p></li>
<li><p>How is it that whites bring “racial and thus cultural diversity to the table” when they go from ~40% to ~60-~70% but Asians do not when they go from <6% to ~15%? </p></li>
<li><p>Why can’t you have a Georgian choir with a 70% Asian student body?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Your replies to ucbalumnus and to me are extremely defensive in nature, but in fairness, there’s nothing else you can say given that you refuse to transfer out of Princeton. Your position is not flawed because your actions are hypocritical and selfish; that would be an ad hominem. Your position is flawed for several reasons independent of your actions:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You believe that 70% white is “diverse” but 70% other racial classification is not. This is not consistent.</p></li>
<li><p>Related to #1, you believe that whites contribute to “diversity” from ~40% to ~60-~70%, but Asians / blacks do not from <6% / ~13% onward. This is also inconsistent.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Ironically, for someone who claims to be on the side of “underrepresented minorities,” your worldview is intimately tied to a belief that whites are different.</p>
<p>Do you believe in taxes? Are you saying that those who don’t believe in taxes should just stop paying? Do you believe in white supremacy? Are you saying that those who do should act on their beliefs? Oh, wait. Hitler already did that. Do you believe in human sacrifice? Should those who believe in it start sacrificing people? Did you believe in the invasion of Iraq? If so, why didn’t you enlist and ship out? If not, why didn’t you organize a rally and march on Washington? That’s what a charismatic leader such as yourself would have done, right? What I believe is my own. I recognize that the mainstream would not adopt it. Therefore, in order to survive in today’s society, I must go along with the mainstream. </p>
<p>
I believe that 70% white would be representative of the general population. Racial diversity can still be achieved with a 70% white population, depending on how you define it. I simply believe that an overrepresentation (RELATIVE TO THE GENERAL COLLEGE-AGE POPULATION) of any race is bad. </p>
<p>
I simply believe in a distribution that reflects the general population. We are at an impasse. You obviously can’t wrap your head around what I’m saying. You were attacking my personal actions as a substitute for arguments against my position in the posts previous to the last one. Or does that have to do with your pent-up anger of not getting into Princeton? I don’t give a damn in either case. Do you even lift, bro? I will no longer address your posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In general, people should take actions consistent with their beliefs. Taking one of your examples, yes, I absolutely believe that anybody who is calling for “action” against Syria (current event) should be willing to risk his own life and limb on behalf of the rebels and not just casually say, “Yes, we should do something.”</p>
<p>At some level, you seem to agree with this. But it seems your ultimate conclusion in the above paragraph is, “I will not take an action that is consistent with my words (i.e. leave Princeton).” Of course that is your right. But you should understand that if you are saying “there are too many Asians at Princeton,” and you are Asian, a question will naturally arise: why don’t you leave, then? What makes you so special that you’re exempt from your own worldview?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it that “racial diversity can still be achieved” with a 70% white student body but not a 70% black or 70% Asian student body?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s fine. But you have not yet explained why 70% white can be “diverse” but 70% black / 70% Asian cannot be “diverse.”</p>
<p>
That question does not follow from my “worldview”. My view is that the model will be implemented and take effect immediately, in admissions. That would call for NOBODY to leave, including myself. But it’s not me that’s special. No Asian at Princeton would be made to leave, so the question is, what makes the current Asians at Princeton there so special? The answer is: nothing. It’s simply how you institute change without causing massive interruptions. When you implement a new policy, you cannot apply it ex post facto. Same principle in law. For instance, in Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that a racial quota is impermissible. They did not, to the best of my knowledge, compel everybody who was admitted because of the quota to leave their medical schools. Because it would be close to impossible to determine which ones would have been admitted under the new policy, without causing massive interruptions. </p>
<p>Also, you interestingly have not answered my question: Did you believe in invading Iraq? If yes, did you enlist and fight? If no, did you organize a rally or march? If not on Washington, at least in your town? </p>
<p>
Okay, blast the diversity point. Even if I concede that “diversity” can be achieved with 70% of whatever race, I still believe that college demographics should be representative of the general population - simple as that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a convenient way of sidestepping the issue: you think there are too many Asians at Princeton, you’re an Asian at Princeton, so why not start with yourself and leave?</p>
<p>If Princeton continues its present admissions system, future incoming classes will likely remain somewhere in the ~20% Asian range, like [last</a> year](<a href=“http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2012.pdf]last”>http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2012.pdf). You are casually calling for Princeton to admit incoming classes that are <6% Asian. How is that any different from in effect asking ~14% of Princeton that is Asian to leave?</p>
<p>Let’s be honest here. You won’t leave Princeton because it’s a good school and you like it. That’s totally fair, but you shouldn’t be making such strong claims if you’re not willing to follow through on them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did answer your question in the context of Syria, a current event, rather than Iraq, a historical event. But if you desire an answer to a historical event, I disagreed with invading Iraq. I wrote to my House Representative and Senators asking them to vote against the Iraq Resolution, the most I could do given that I was in middle school when we invaded Iraq.</p>
<p>The point is really the same. Your worldview on admissions is no different from someone who aggressively says, “let’s attack Syria,” but is not willing to join the rebels and risk his life / limb.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But why is it so hard for you to “concede” that? What is it about whites that makes 70% whites “diverse” but 70% Asian or 70% black isn’t?</p>
<p>Do you think that whites are each unique while Asians and blacks are homogenous?</p>
<p>
Because it would not make any point. A critical mass is required. Besides, are you confident enough that I am NOT part of that 6% that would have been admitted under the new policy? The Supreme Court obviously didn’t see the logic in that for Bakke, so it does not make sense here. I see no point discussing this point further, as what you call for is ridiculous. </p>
<p>
The Iraq war continued for many years, through your high school years. I write on here and I advocate for race-proportionate admissions in my discussions as well. An appropriate action to follow up on that belief would be to physically distance yourself from the war and organize some sort of resistance. That is akin to you telling me to remove myself from the current admissions policy. </p>
<p>I am for launching cruise missiles at Syria. I cannot join the Navy without a massive disruption to my life. I have every intention to join the Air Force after I graduate, as I have long been an advocate of protecting American interests worldwide. As I said, what I advocate for would not apply ex post facto, similar to most changes in law and policy. What you are suggesting is unprecedented - to apply a law - which is what a change in admissions policy is tantamount to - ex post facto. As I said, if you can’t see that point, I see no point in continuing the discussion on this point. Your personal attacks are really starting to **** me off. So **** off. </p>
<p>I also conceded the diversity point. My position still stands. I simply believe that demographics should be representative of the general population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with some of your points. An applicant’s accomplishments should be considered in the context of the opportunities presented to them, and overcoming challenges like poverty should be included in a holistic review as a measure of merit (thus maintaining a meritocratic admissions process).</p>
<p>What really concerns me about your post, however, is your assumption that your own racial stereotypes apply to every member of that race. You seem to just assume that all whites and Asians are upper-middle-class kids with no hardships, and all African Americans are poor inner city kids. There are plenty of Asians who face poverty and hardships, and plenty of African Americans who grow in middle-class suburban families with all the same opportunities you claim whites and Asians have. Furthermore, African Americans and Hispanics are not the only demographic people who have been historically discriminated against. Remember, it wasn’t too long ago that cities like Seattle had intentionally segregated Asian ghettos where huge populations of Asian immigrants lived in poverty (remnants of these are probably still in existence today - to what extent, I don’t know).</p>
<p>What I’m trying to say is this: it makes sense to favor those who have succeeded in the face of hardship over those who had success come easier to them. However, this should be accomplished by individual assessments of a candidate’s background and opportunities, not by broad and often inaccurate racial stereotypes.</p>
<p>As for diversity: isn’t the ultimate goal of diversity to create a community of people with a broad variety of viewpoints and opinions? If so, why is discrimination for the sake of this diversity applied only to race (and sometimes gender)? Would it be OK for a college to give applicants an advantage or disadvantage based on their religion? How about political views? Would a college be justified in attempting to admit a student body with political opinions that reflect those of the general population?</p>
<p>Just my two cents. I do respect the views of those who disagree and I hope the opinions expressed above are not taken to be inflammatory, hostile, or offensive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it would make a huge point: [93tiger16] believes so strongly in “affirmative action” that he has voluntarily chosen to transfer out of Princeton University, one of the world’s most prestigious institutions of higher education, so that a white student can take his place and make Princeton look more like the United States. (No facetiousness or sarcasm.) How impressive that would be! What isn’t impressive at all is to make strong statements about “fairness” and “justice” and then come up with a laundry list of excuses for why you shouldn’t be the first Asian to transfer out of Princeton given your belief that there are “too many” Asians at Princeton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see. I continued to write to my House Representative and Senators, asking them to bring our troops home from both Afghanistan and Iraq. I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican Primaries, whose platform partially consisted of ending the needless foreign wars and bringing our troops home. I’d say I took appropriate actions to follow up on my opposition to the Iraq War.</p>
<p>What would have been an inappropriate course of action, akin to the gap between your actions and your words? How about making loud proclamations about how the Iraq war is unjust while voting for Mike Huckabee, who supported a continued U.S. presence in Iraq? I’d say that’s inconsistent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You invite these quote-quote-unquote “personal attacks” when you ostentatiously and self-righteously claim that you are for “fairness” and “justice” while quickly becoming defensive when you’re asked why you don’t act on your beliefs. It’s really hypocritical and selfish to say that there are “too many” Asians are Princeton, but you don’t have to leave because there are too many disruptions and inconveniences to your life.</p>
<p>In the end, it doesn’t matter. No elite will adopt your world view, which is un-Constitutional anyway. All you’ve done is show everyone that you expect other people to shoulder burdens that you think you should be exempt from.</p>
<p>
My point has never been that there are “too many” Asians at Princeton. It is that too many Asians are ADMITTED to Princeton. So the problem is not that there are too many there, it is that the policy admits too many and continues to do so. The solution, then, would be to change the policy. My issue is with the policy and that’s what I narrowly target. You are extrapolating and applying my model to something it does not apply to. </p>
<p>
NO Asians have to leave because that would represent a disruption to ALL Asians’ lives who were forced to leave. I’m not making this about myself. It’s about ALL Asians who don’t fall into the 6% range. </p>
<p>
You can keep spouting this off all you want but I’ve already demonstrated that as a matter practicality, any change in policy cannot be applied ex post facto. That would include a re-evaluation of the entire class that was admitted in order to cut people out in order to make the class representative. I would WILLINGLY leave if a re-evaluation was done and I was found to not be a part of the 6% or so of Asians that would have been admitted. THAT is acting upon my belief.</p>
<p>It is correct that few will adopt my view, but that’s besides the point. I am entitled to my view. The fact that few would adopt it simply states that it has small chance of being implemented at all. Though if it were, I would abide by it. </p>
<p>I am done here. You keep applying my model to something that is not relevant at all, per the terms of the model itself. You keep targeting me, when every other Asian who is not in the 6% range would be similarly situated. I’m not saying that they should leave. I’m not saying that I should leave. I’m saying that there should be a change in policy. And I outlined a practical way to apply it. You, on the other hand, keep spouting off stupid suggestions. College obviously did not teach you that you can’t set up a straw man just because it’ll help your argument. What an abomination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is suggesting an ex post facto policy change. But we are merely suggesting that you voluntarily and publicly practice what your preach (perhaps also trying to convince others to do so as well). This will show commitment to your cause. It can also allow you access to a Navy ROTC unit, or more convenient access to an Air Force ROTC unit than Princeton currently has (which involves participation in an Air Force ROTC unit at nearby Rutgers), if you choose to transfer to a school which has such ROTC units on its own campus.</p>
<p>Or you could at least take a baby step and try to convince the selective eating clubs at Princeton to implement your proposed policy (and if you are a member of such a club where Asian students are more than 5.6% of the members, you can show your commitment to your cause by switching to alternative dining options).</p>
<p>'Even if I concede that “diversity” can be achieved with 70% of whatever race, I still believe that college demographics should be representative of the general population - simple as that. '</p>
<p>WHY should this be applied to college campuses but not sports?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is disingenuous. Admitting fewer Asians leads to fewer Asians on campus; if <6% of all admits are Asian, Asians can’t make up more than 6% of Princeton’s incoming class.</p>
<p>The inverse, however, isn’t automatically true. Admitting more Asians doesn’t guarantee that more Asians will be on campus; admits, after all, can only accept one offer. Why, then, do so many Asian admits to Princeton accept their offers? Well, gee, isn’t the answer so obvious; it’s the same reason anybody accepts: Princeton is a good school.</p>
<p>So you see, the problem is absolutely not that Princeton admits “too many” Asians. The problem, from your perspective, is actually that Princeton is too good of a school. If you really want Princeton to have significantly fewer Asians on campus, then instead of discussing a “solution” that is un-Constitutional, I encourage you to take actions that will make you look bad on campus and blame your actions on your Asian group membership. That way, fewer Asians will apply to Princeton, and in turn, fewer Asians will be admitted, which will mean fewer Asians on campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course you are entitled to your view, just as I am entitled to point out the gaping flaw in your position - a school that is 70% white is fine, but 70% Asian / black isn’t fine - as well as how inherently selfish and hypocritical your proposal is. Don’t worry, though. I don’t blame Princeton for that; I’m pretty sure it’s a personal thing.</p>
<p>"Well, the white and Asians have the resources to prep for the SATs and also have the time to put in the work to get good grades. I mean, if you’re born into poverty, you most likely start working from a very young age to help support your family. That takes time away from ECs and homework, leading to lower grades. Then there’s the social stigma that associates doing well at school and going to top universities with “being white” - that aforementioned kid’s words, not mine. So it’s a lot more complicated than making it a meritocracy. It’d be a whole lot easier if people had the same opportunities, but the reality is, they don’t. "</p>
<p>You first advocated for White (to match the racial distribution of general public), then you advocated for non-White and non-Asian who were born into poverty, and later you refused to act as you preached to make a campus more like your ideal campus here and now… Somehow you are a bit confused. It looks like you don’t know what to go with. </p>
<p>In fact, many posters on the ‘Race’ threads promoted to factor in socioeconomic status for a race-blind admission process. I believe that will work better for everyone.</p>