<p>No, it doesn’t.</p>
<p>
There were black kids in D&S’s school who didn’t have any more or any less hardship than the rest of the class, and were “busy enjoying life in white suburbia” who get a benefit from AA. There are Asian kids living in poor neighborhoods in schools with poor outcomes who are tagged by their ethnicity all in the name of AA.</p>
<p>I am in favor of colleges bringing true diversity to their campuses, because such policies enrich the college experience for ALL students. </p>
<p>However, I know that there are many suburban kids who are racially/ethnically URMs but who have lived all their lives in affluent, privileged environments. These kids are, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from their white and asian classmates. These kids will add no true diversity to campus, except perhaps skin color diversity if they are dark skinned. I am not convinced that these kids need to be preferenced over their white and asian counterparts. </p>
<p>I know of a kid who had a fairly undistinguished high school and extracurricular record, lived in a luxurious mansion, got driven to school in a Maserati, and was completely white in appearance. It was only after she got into HYP, did people realize- she was a Hispanic. That was probably the first and only time that her ethnicity had made any difference in how she had been treated by anyone. She is a nice kid and I’m happy for her, but I’m not sure that she was going to “contribute” to college life any more than another white or asian kid.</p>
<p>By preferencing this kid and others like her, colleges betray a rather hypocritical attitude towards their stated commitment to diversity on campus.</p>
<p>Look, I support AA but do think it has to be a combination of race and socioeconomic…that way the people who DO need a boost get one(and you can’t tell me a poor kid from a crappy neighborhood doesn’t need a boost, they’ve worked twice as hard as a rich kid for everything theyve achieved)…</p>
<p>So, as long as both are being addressed, I have no issue with AA (then again, I’m a low income URM…so I guess I’m biased)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this may appear to be true at first sight, it breaks down upon closer inspection. [As</a> recounted by Malcolm Gladwell](<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker), in 1922, Jews made up over 20% of that year’s freshman class at Harvard. Lowell, the President of Harvard at the time, was an anti-Semite and detested what he viewed as an excessively high Jewish enrollment. He attempted to curtail Jewish admissions through several mechanisms, none of which was successful until he had an epiphany: simply redefine “merit” to obtain the results you desire. Holistic admissions as we know it was born and by 1933, the last year of his administration, Jewish enrollment had declined to 15%.</p>
<p>Thus, as the history of the Jews at Harvard so clearly demonstrates, a group can be penalized and still be “overrepresented.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Be careful. The “counterweight…oppression” rationale has never been approved by the Supreme Court as an acceptable defense of affirmative action. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke,</p>
<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>
<p>Justice O’Connor later echoed this sentiment in Croson,</p>
<p>“To accept Richmond’s claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims for ‘remedial relief’ for every disadvantaged group. The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs.”</p>
<p>There is only one acceptable defense of affirmative action in higher education: the promotion and development of “diversity.” You can thank Justice Kennedy that this rationale, weak as it is, still exists. Had he agreed completely with Chief Justice Roberts in Parents Involved, Grutter would have been overturned, and the inane “diversity” rationale would have been erased as an acceptable defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, as others have mentioned, there is a comical double standard reflected in the above quotation. The author rails against other members’ allegedly slighting blacks and yet is himself not above slighting whites. Having said that, onto the substantive rebuttal…</p>
<p>If indeed the black student we are takling about “grew up in a single parent home,…,and generally led an underprivileged existence for most of his life…,” then if preference is to be awarded at all, it ought to be awarded on the basis of socioeconomics as opposed to racial classification. In your description, you made no reference to the black student’s being a victim of societal prejudice or discrimination. You focused entirely on his family’s socioeconomic status. It does not make sense to argue on the basis of socioeconomic status and then advocate racial preferences, but it makes a lot of sense to argue on the basis of socioeconomic status and then advocate socioeconomic preferences.</p>
<p>Moreover, I highly contest the final argument, “URMs from privileged backgrounds don’t benefit from AA much, if at all.” According to [Inside</a> Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]Inside”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black), almost 41% of the black students at Ivy Leagues are either first- or second-generation blacks. Among the ten most selective universities studied, almost 36% of the black students were either first- or second-generation. These students were more likely to be raised by two parents, were more likely to have highly educated fathers, and by a wide margin were more likely to have attended private schools.</p>
<p>It’s beyond cheap to argue that affirmative action is all right because it helps poor black kids from the ghetto. It helps wealthy blacks from Menlo Park and Pacific Palisades far, far, far more than poor blacks from the ghetto.</p>
<p>Is this another affirmative action debate topic? Cool.</p>
<p>@ Dad<em>of</em>3</p>
<p>How do you know whether or not those children were not under any hardship? Do you think the parents of those children had the same privileges as you? Do you think their grandparents did? Do those few black kids in your high school have White privilege? Do you honestly believe AA should be scrapped because a few well off Blacks might be able to benefit from it? Don’t you agree the overwhelming majority of blacks in this country go to underfunded inner city schools a world away from White suburbia? </p>
<p>And once again, I don’t believe Asians face the same obstacles African Americans do. Most Asians are from comfortably middle class families with TWO parents. They also get a lot more support at home than Blacks do. If Asians were discriminated against they wouldn’t be so ridiculously overrepresented at every College. Why is it that Asians are only 9% of the population yet they make up atleast 20% of Ivy League students and 44% at UC Berkley? </p>
<p>I think the problem most Asians and Whites suffer from on this forum is a ridiculous sense of entitlement. You are not entitled admission into a certain College simply because you have the numbers! You are only granted admission if you demonstrate in your application that you have something the College wants. The people who bash AA on this forum are bitter folks who would have been rejected even without AA and are blaming the few minority kids who got in for their own failure.</p>
<p>Re 39</p>
<p>My posts #35 and #37 answer your second paragraph. Jews were discriminated against in the 1920s and 1930s, and yet they were still “overrepresented” at Harvard. How do you explain that? Many first- and second-generation blacks are also from “comfortably middle class families with TWO parents” and also “get a lot more support at home than Blacks [from the ghetto] do.” It is any surprise, then, that they make up almost 41% of all blacks at Ivy League schools? I for one don’t find it the least bit surprising.</p>
<p>As for your third paragraph, it’s a huge straw man. No one on this thread has advocated that the United States adopt the international system of college admissions, where one test determines your life. To argue that racial classification should not be considered in admissions is not to argue that we should structure college admissions the way our neighbor to the North does.</p>
<p>Affirmative action did not “hurt” me. I do not oppose it out of any alleged "bitter"ness. Three years ago, I had a 100% acceptance rate and this fall, I’ll be attending the grad school of my dreams. No, I staunchly oppose racial preferences because I am opposed to all forms of racial discrimination. Positive racial discrimination is still racial discrimination, even if it’s “well intentioned.”</p>
<p>@ fabrizio
What do you mean by “allegedly slighting blacks”? He clearly made a bigoted and offensive remark about the names of Black people. I merely asked him whether or not he was on crew, how is that offensive towards White people? </p>
<p>Anyway, I already spoke about White privilege and the rampant societal discrimination against Black people in my other posts, I apologize that I didn’t mention it in the post you quoted. I myself have been a victim of the racism inherently apart of the system. Not only did I grow up economically disadvantaged and in a single parent home, but I faced racism and obstacles at the school. I remember when I was entering high school the counselor refused to place me in honors courses even though I met the prerequisites. Only when I raised hell in the office and asked my teachers to pressure him did he finally place me in those courses. I am doing smashingly in those courses now, mind you.</p>
<p>Another example of being victimized by the system comes from the special APP or “Advanced Placement Program” that my district uses. The APP program is overwhelmingly White and Asian. Children in the APP program are removed from the normal district schools, sent off to special schools (with their own dedicated bus service) and given superior instruction by more qualified teachers in smaller classes. More often than not the parents of talented black children are not made aware of this program, and thus we never benefit from it. Even though the APP program technically ends in middle school, the APP kids are still given first choice in their scheduling in high school and transportation to and from their high schools (even though the district refuses to give us bus service). </p>
<p>And even at the top schools minority children are still disadvantaged. White teachers usually subconsciously prefer other white kids. My black friends who go to private schools complain about this all the time. The White teachers probably prefer the white kids because they may remind them of their younger self’s or their children. Also white students have advantages over black students, because a black student would feel uncomfortable going to a study group made up of white kids (while a white kid wouldn’t)….there are many other reasons I don’t want to list out here.</p>
<p>@ fabrizio</p>
<p>I don’t think Harvard started out discriminating against Jewish people. If it did, they wouldn’t have become overrepresented in the first place. Only when A. Lawrence Lowell became the President of Harvard and proposed a quota system did Jews face discrimination. During this period Jews were fighting for Ivy League seats, Black people couldn’t even sit in the front of the bus or eat at non colored restaurants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As everyone can see, the thread that originally raised this question as a separate thread is now merged into the latest instance of the FAQ and Discussion thread (which was linked to in the first reply to the former separate thread). </p>
<p>Read the FAQ posts (most of the first dozen or so posts in this merged thread) for information about rules and regulations (with links to those) and examples of the composition of the enrolled classes at various colleges. </p>
<p>See also [post</a> # 11](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064033910-post11.html]post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064033910-post11.html) of this thread for the important question, what does “underrepresented” mean? There are a lot of ways to interpret the term “underrepresented,” and it’s not clear that all groups that are deemed to be underrepresented are underrepresented, if they are at all, in the same way or to the same degree. </p>
<p>See </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/three.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/three.pdf</a> </p>
<p>for differences in college readiness and course rigor during high school among persons in various self-identified race or ethnicity categories.</p>
<p>A historical fact: persons of all races have been able to attend my alma mater, and have, since it was founded before my state was even a state. My alma mater, and most (all?) Big Ten universities had black alumni, for sure, and probably Asian, American Indian, and Hispanic alumni before my grandfather was born. The era of college opportunity for all persons of all races in the United States began long before the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. </p>
<p><a href=“Google Scholar”>Google Scholar; </p>
<p>Many examples of odious, legally enforced discrimination and segregation continued into my lifetime, but the process of change in the correct direction of opportunity for all didn’t begin that late, and some places in the United States essentially never had discrimination against applicants by race in higher education.</p>
<p>@tokenadult</p>
<p>Was there a significant black population at your alma matter before Brown vs Board of Education or simply a few token minorities here and there ?</p>
<p>Re (new) 151</p>
<p>I can’t find my reply from the original unmerged thread, so if it was misplaced, then I want to emphasize my strong disagreement with the way the final paragraph in the new post 151 was written.</p>
<p>To argue along the lines of “White teachers usually subconsciously prefer other white kids” is very, very dangerous. It naturally implies that “Black teachers usually subconsciously prefer other black kids” for the same asserted reason: “[the students] may remind [the teachers] of their younger [selves] or their children.” The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that separate-but-equal segregated educational facilities are beneficial to blacks. After all, if black students feel uncomfortable going to a study group made up of white kids, as Romulus wrote, surely they’d feel comfortable going to a study group made up of black kids.</p>
<p>But is that really what you want?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This kind of statement that makes an invidious assumption about another participant is against the Terms of Service here. </p>
<p>[College</a> Confidential - FAQ: College Discussion - TOS & FAQ](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item]College”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item) </p>
<p>Most regular participants here have learned by the good example of other participants here that they will be more persuasive if they avoid personal comments and stick to the facts. There are people of varying points of view on the issue of college admission policies who have won admiration from people of differing points of view by their cool, reasoned replies on this contentious issue. </p>
<p>On my part, I think my family adequately knows the life of some black people who literally live under the same roof (in an adjacent townhouse) as our family, and we have acquaintance with people of every which race in our neighborhood (which, to be sure, is in the suburbs, but which is also integrated). While I was a student I lived in various inner-city neighborhoods, where the general economic level was much poorer than the neighborhood I now live in. I have plenty of relatives who live in rural areas in various parts of the United States, and I have immediate family members with many relatives outside the United States. I’ve been around and I have seen various places. What I have observed in three countries about economic progress for the poor and relations between ethnic groups who share the same country colors my opinion about what is best social policy for the twenty-first century United States. I expect to learn from other people here who have had different personal experiences, and I expect everyone here to be polite and willing to listen to other people’s points of view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In spite of rabid and institutionalized anti-Semitism at the time, Harvard probably didn’t start out actively discriminating against Jews. Lowell obviously was willing to live with Harvard that was 15% Jewish, but 20% was 5% too much for him.</p>
<p>But that is not the point. The point is that the Jews at Harvard demonstrate that a group can still be “overrepresented” even when the deck is purposefully stacked against them. Thus, to assert that Asians are currently “overrepresented” does not negate the possibility that they are the victims of “negative action.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many students does it take to have more than a token number of minority students? By the definition of “minority,” it’s hardly to be expected that a majority of students at a state university will come from some “minority” group, however that group is defined, but there has ALWAYS been opportunity to apply and to be admitted to my alma mater for anyone, of any race. Race has never been a barrier there. George Washington Carver </p>
<p>[George</a> Washington Carver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“George Washington Carver - Wikipedia”>George Washington Carver - Wikipedia) </p>
<p>earned his academic degrees back before my (paternal) grandfather was born at another Big Ten state university. Students like him don’t come along every day, from any race, but less amazing students have also been admitted to those colleges throughout their history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a factually correct statement. It may or may not be that some group or another could be considered “overrepresented” by some definition that would correspond to some other group being “underrepresented,” but that would not show that there isn’t active invidious prejudice against that group. And to show what is “overrepresented” and what is “underrepresented” would take defining those terms, first of all, in the context of college admission policies.</p>