<p>“But you are a beneficiary of the existing policy.”</p>
<p>What makes you say that? Do you know me? I went to an HBCU. Who’s spot did I take? I didn’t care about “elite admissions”. I was totally psyched about beig with “people like me”.</p>
<p>Maybe you mean my ROTC scholarship. I think I, like a lot of low income kids, was the one who got taken advantage of.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s strange that I have other things to think about. I work with a variety of psychiatrically and otherwise impaired kids. Not ONE has benefited form a bump in admissions to some elite college. I just hope they benefit from me looking out for their best interests.</p>
<p>On second thought, perhaps I AM the beneficiary. My dad, half African American, half Native American, was born in Alabama in 1908. He went to Columbia, I’m thinking in the 50’s. It wasn’t until recently that I realized just how amazing this was. Not sure about dates, but I remember what he said about them telling him it “wasn’t the right time for a Black man to get his PhD”. Do I feel bad about it? Please!</p>
<p>“Out of curiosity, do you think Jian Li was wrong to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights”</p>
<p>No. I am not a judge of wrong or right. He does his thing, I’ll do mine.</p>
<p>In post 432, you wrote that you and your husband’s alma maters are Howard, Albert Einstein (Yeshiva?), Columbia, USC, Cal (Berkeley?), and UCLA. When you say that “[you] went to an HBCU,” am I to understand that your alma mater is Howard, whereas your husband’s alma maters are the remaining institutions? If not, then obviously my assumption that the division of those six schools was a bit more equitable than 1 & 5 was wrong, and you are not a beneficiary of the existing policy.</p>
<p>If I am to understand that, however, at least one of those remaining five institutions is also your alma mater, then I find it hard to argue that you are not a beneficiary of the existing policy, given that your previous posts on this thread make it clear that you belong to a racial classification deemed “underrepresented” by the powers that be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not. The time of college admissions has long since passed you. Heck, for that matter, it’s long since passed me, as well. But if it had not long since passed you, then your being a member of an “underrepresented” minority does make you a potential beneficiary. Unsurprisingly, you would also have the option of declining to be a beneficiary, an option that you may have exercised.</p>
<p>I did undergrad and medical school at Howard, internship, residency at Einstein, and fellowship at UCLA/NPI… H was apparently into the Ivy thing…that’s why he is still paying loans, 20 years later, and he’s how I ended up on college confidential. Oh well, first gen and all that.</p>
<p>Look, I don’t want to discount any of your achievements. You’re obviously a very successful person. And to clarify, I never said, nor will I say, that you “took” anyone’s “spot.”</p>
<p>With that preface out of the way, if your fellowship at UCLA was before 1996, can you honestly say that you were not a beneficiary of the existing policy? Like I said, that doesn’t mean your achievements are denigrated, and it doesn’t mean that you “took” anyone’s “spot.” But racial preferences were allowed in the California public university system before 1996, and if you started your fellowship before that year, then I’m not sure how fair it is to say that you are not a beneficiary, period.</p>
<p>Thanks for the story regarding student loans. Makes me feel a lot better that I didn’t ask my parents to fork over six figures for my undergraduate education.</p>
<p>“I’m not sure how fair it is to say that you are not a beneficiary, period.”</p>
<p>I don’t think I said I wasn’t a beneficiary. (Never thought of it before coming to CC. Thanks for that!) I asked what made you say that. I wondered what you knew about me. I feel the beneficiary of many things. I think am supremely blessed. I think my father blessed me with SAT taking skills. I do not take credit for that. But asking our parents for money was not an option.</p>
Generally, you’re right. I think our energy would be better focused discussing alternatives to affirmative action that would work towards and not contradict the goal of getting rid of the minority disparity. But with people who still believe affirmative action is something we will benefit from as a society going forward, “complaining” is really a way to change their opinions, so that we can maybe take the next step towards searching for that alternative.</p>
<p>Of course, we can start right now. I propose the million dollar question: What can be done to eliminate the minority disparity? The problem itself lies in two areas, as far as I can tell:
Quality of education
Cultural emphasis (also relevant but to a lesser extent, stereotype fear)</p>
<p>Quality of education is the one that always gets discussed. Of course, this one is a tough cookie that I can only guess would cost billions to attempt to solve. It is mainly relevant because although it generally varies directly with income, there is a higher percentage of poor minorities so this definitely skews the minority numbers down. But is it the sole cause, or even the main cause, for the disparity? Looking at this article that I’ve quoted about a billion times here on CC ([News:</a> Testing for ‘Mismatch’ - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch)), you can see that, despite Asians and Latinos having near-identical income distributions, Asians significantly outweigh Latinos in each category. I definitely think quality of education should be discussed, but we have to realize that 1) it ain’t easy to solve and 2) it’s not the only thing that ought to be discussed.</p>
<p>Cultural emphasis? People talk about this topic once in a blue moon yet I think it deserves more attention, partially because it can’t simply be responded to with the platitude, “reform!” and also partially because I’m really stumped and would genuinely like to know what people think can be done. Ideas of addressing this issue?</p>
<p>No, you didn’t say you weren’t a beneficiary. (I hate double negatives…) But the tone of your post led me to (wrongly) interpret it as, “No, I was not a beneficiary. What makes you say that? Do you know me?”</p>
<p>I don’t know you personally. As I said in #444, all I know is that your posts in this thread made it abundantly clear that you belong to an “underrepresented” minority group who are beneficiaries of the existing policy. I hope you weren’t asking the question, “What makes you say that?” because you somehow thought I know who you are in real-life. I don’t. I simply remembered some of your previous posts on this thread, namely the one about adequate dating opportunities for black women as a necessary condition for sufficient black student representation.</p>
<p>I stand by my point, however, that I don’t find it surprising that one who benefits from a policy will believe that it’s a trivial matter (ie. “just not worth thinking about”), unless, of course, the trivial matter is threatened by state voter initiative…</p>
<p>“the goal SHOULD be to eventually have a significant minority representation at top colleges without the use of any discriminatory means.”</p>
<p>Laudable, but achievable? You might achieve significant representation, but representation in proportion to the ethnic makeup of the individual states and the whole of the US respectively is an impossibility (if that is what you consider “significant”), unless AA runs rampant. </p>
<p>What can be done to eliminate the minority disparity? </p>
<p>Your options are good, but frankly, it won’t cure all. Culture and quality of education can be improved to an extent, but I would argue, a lot of the difference, can’t be fixed by environment or external factors. </p>
<p>The only “final solution” for this problem (that I hope will never happen in my lifetime, I am not Hitler) is going to be a form of eugenics. Sterilize the intellectual underclass of under-represented minorities. Keep the smart people. Let them reproduce. Condemn everyone else.</p>
<p>I didn’t say it was a trivial matter. I have often said I can understand why it would be pressing for posters here. I am only saying in MY world, a world where hardldly anyone cares abort elite colleges, and many don’t graduate high school, I have more pressing concerns. </p>
<p>And I meant do you “know me” as a CC poster. Have I led you/folks to believe I have attended an “elite” school. I DO believe my D had lower SAT’s than her peers, but I think she met their “holistic” criteria, and I believe she has brought everything to her campus they wanted. I also know she was not taking it easy in HS, thinking about URM status. She worked hard, and was involved, because that’s who she is. Nothing to do with going to an “elite college”. I just don’t think most URM’s think in those terms. Of course there are exceptions, but it is not the norm like it might be for other groups. I’m not sure there is anything wrong with that.Just in case, outreach helps.</p>
<p>If threatened by state voter initiative, I don’t have a problem with that…I wonder if you are as supportive of all voter initiatives.</p>
<p>Ok, my H is getting really worried about how much time I’m spending here. Peace out!</p>
<p>@ #451:
Bold post, I’m sad to disagree with this. Changing the culture and quality of education will work, in my opinion - the difficult part is figuring out how to change the culture. We can already improve it “to an extent”, but it’s not enough… unless some real effort is put out by the URM communities (and I don’t know what would motivate them that much).
It just seems like a stretch to say that certain ethnicities are naturally less smart than others. Individuals of certain ethnicities can be naturally less academically talented, but entire ethnicities, as a whole? That doesn’t seem reasonable.</p>
<p>And I disagree about AA solving nothing; besides educating URM on the college level, URM who will eventually become educated parents to a new generation of URM, how else are we to change the non-academic culture of many URM communities?</p>
<p>This is scary, not only in its allusion, but also at the heart of what you are saying. To assert that my ethnicity warrants sterilization is ridiculous, and I sincerely hope you are not serious.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that it IS trivial. The hypothetical student who gets displaced got displaced from Yale because of me probably went to Harvard or Princeton (two schools where I was rejected). Looking through the RD decisions on this website it is abundantly clear that the entire hypothetical rhetoric about stolen opportunities are false. If a student was on the cusp of being accepted to one Ivy League school and was displaced by a minority then they probably end up at another Ivy or Ivy caliber school. </p>
<p>And for the VAST majority of people AA is not a policy that will impact them at all. It is only whiny, nervous, insecure children who constantly worry about a policy that has little (if any) impact on them. As evidenced by the sheer size of this thread.</p>
<p>Thanks to the other participant who quoted this for disagreement. I too disagree. The statement of the supposed problem is based on erroneous ideas of human genetics, and I’m glad to say that this kind of thinking is discredited in current society. But I and others will have to point out how many scientific issues are missed by eugenics advocates to keep these kinds of policies from being implemented again. </p>
<p>No, it’s not trivial, and it is illogical to deem it trivial when it is not. If it truly were inconsequential, then we would not see its supporters fight tooth-and-nail to keep it from state ballots in election years. That type of behavior is not congruous with a policy that is “trivial.”</p>
<p>The main problem I have with your argument is that it justifies racial discrimination so long as it is on a small-scale. But racial discrimination is never justifiable, no matter how minute or “trivial” it is. Obviously, those who believe that positive discrimination is a good thing won’t agree with me. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but when it comes to racial discrimination, I would rather have a “little mind” than have a contorted philosophy that holds negative discrimination to be an unspeakable evil and positive discrimination an unquestionable good.</p>
<p>The secondary problem is that you presume that the only people who are against affirmative action are those who were “hurt” (notice the quotation marks, indicating my disapproval of the term) by it. I was not “hurt” by affirmative action three years ago; I had a 100% acceptance rate. I was happy to be accepted by every school on my list, I made my choice, and I am happy with my choice. I oppose affirmative action because I believe that positive discrimination is fundamentally no different than negative discrimination and that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.</p>
<p>Just to answer this question, my answer is ‘no.’ If I lived in California, I would certainly have voted against Proposition 8 in 2008. I would not, however, have fought against its placement on the ballot. Something like that is supposed to be decided by the states. If some states feel that having racial preferences in their public university systems is wrong, then they can vote against it (e.g. California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska). But if some states feel that having them is a good thing, then they can vote for them (e.g. Colorado). What they shouldn’t do is use dirty tactics to keep the initiative off the ballot (e.g. Missouri, Arizona).</p>
<p>Dbate, Was I being whiny ? Aw shucks,…seriously though, there’s no room on this thread for demeaning language. Doing so only serves to diminish your credibility. I feel all the points have been well stated, and thought out. Perhaps a read of Clarence Thomas’ supreme court opinions on the matter would disabuse you of the notion that this is a view held by whiny, nervous, insecure children.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is your statement that this is trivial actually grounded in fact? Your reading the RD results in the CC forums is anecdotal, and can hardly be construed as persuasive data. Rather than just expecting me to swallow your comments whole hog without question, prove them.</p>
<p>It is just a thought experiment, though you are misrepresenting my point. I was just wondering what would happen if we got rid of all the dull people, regardless of race, like the first eugenicist’s from Britain and the US wondered. This would lead to an disproportionate amount of people of certain ethnicities to be targeted in the thought experiment. You certainly would not be targeted in such a thought experiment. Obviously, we are much obliged not to think in this particular manner nowadays. </p>
<p>“It just seems like a stretch to say that certain ethnicities are naturally less smart than others.”</p>
<p>No, it is actually a reasonable, and very probable, though crazily unpopular scientific position. </p>
<p>I want the admissions process to be more transparent. Of course, points systems are unconstitutional after Gratz v. Bollinger, but I would much prefer it to the smoke and mirrors act put on by many elite Universities today. </p>
<p>Diversity is important , and schools should have every right to practice diversity selection/discrimination/affirmative action however they choose as long as they do not receive public money.</p>