<p>Here is an interesting personal account, published in a metropolitan daily newspaper, about one edge case in race classification. </p>
<p>[The</a> colors of a family - latimes.com](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-streeter-20111227,0,7856333,full.column]The”>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-streeter-20111227,0,7856333,full.column)</p>
<p>^ ^ ^ There is no doubt that Pakistan is part of “Asia” for the federal definitions. (See the FAQ posts at the beginning of this long thread for the links to the federal documents. Pakistani people are not regarded as “Middle Eastern,” and thus “white,” people but rather are explicitly listed as an example of “Asian” people. This is so even though there are ethnic groups that live on both sides of the border of Iran and Pakistan, for example.) </p>
<p>As said in the first reply you received, one of the features of federal law on the subject of student “race” identification is that such identification is OPTIONAL. If you don’t think the categories as now defined by federal law fit you, you can decline to mark any category on a college application form. Some colleges that are well liked by many applicants admit and enroll quite a few students reported to the federal government as “race unknown.” </p>
<p>[U-CAN:</a> Harvard University](<a href=“http://members.ucan-network.org/harvard]U-CAN:”>http://members.ucan-network.org/harvard)</p>
<p>The definitions are in [post</a> #2](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13396828-post2.html]post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13396828-post2.html) on the first page of this thread, with links out to the Census Bureau website. Additional quotations of the definitions with links appear in other FAQ posts early in the thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a piece. So complicated. Race as a factor is on the way out, slowly.</p>
<p>From a report in the Ames Tribune: [New</a> federal affirmative action policy divides Iowa’s higher education experts](<a href=“http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2011/12/10/ames_tribune/news/doc4ee401da40544089914091.txt]New”>http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2011/12/10/ames_tribune/news/doc4ee401da40544089914091.txt):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the Northwestern University Law Review: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sooo an Asian in Hawaii is an Asian.</p>
<p>A non-Asian (genetically) from an Asian country is Asian.</p>
<p>Pure discrimination.</p>
<p>What is the national percentage of students who do not specify race in their college application? I figure this should be easily Google-able, but I was unsuccessful in my attempts.</p>
<p>I was looking at HYP stats: Harvard has 11% unspecified, Yale has 9%, and Princeton has 3%. I would imagine these three schools to have very similar applicant pools, so I wonder if Princeton views unspecified race negatively.</p>
<p>Okay, so theoretically, if my parents were born in Pakistan, but were ethnically Persian, for example (this is all hypothetical), I could put white? I mean, your parents’ birthplace, from what I understand from the previous posts, isn’t necessarily an indicator as to what your ethnicity is. </p>
<p>I’ll probably end up just skipping the section and take my chances. Thanks for the help!</p>
<p>^ To this degree, the definitions are vague about what they are looking for. Here in my state, there are a large number of “trans-racial” adoptive families, and it is not at all clear what the expected answer on the form is for a child who was born in Korea of ethnically Korean parents but brought up in a “white” household of adoptive parents in a largely “white” neighborhood and surrounding culture, for example. The definitions are political, not scientific.</p>
<p>It’s B.S. that eliminating affirmative action would result in significant numbers of URMs (who would go to college with AA) not going to college. The only thing that would change is that they might go to OTHER colleges. I doubt if the URMs who didn’t go to Berkeley or UCLA (after California outlawed using ethnicity in admissions) gave up on higher education completely…they probably just ended up at San Jose State or UC-Irvine or Long Beach State. Just because you get turned down a supermodel, it doesn’t mean you give up on women completely.</p>
<p>^ I believe the data showed “they”; the number of black, UC eligible students, remained within the UC system. The number may have remained the same, but many believe the most high performing left for privates. But who cares?</p>
<p>Hello,
I have a question in regards as what I should put down for my ethnicity. </p>
<p>My paternal grandfather is Bahraini and a descendant of the Al-Nasir tribe (which moved first to `Iraq and Iran and then later to Afghanistan). My paternal grandmother is Irani from her father and an Afghan from her mother.
My father was born in Iran and grew up there.
My maternal grandfather is an Arab `Iraqi from the al-Husayni Tribe and my maternal grandmother is the exactly same but instead she is an Arab Irani since she (and her parents) were born in Iran. </p>
<p>My mother was born in Pakistan since my maternal grandfather worked in several nations as a hydroelectric engineer. She grew up in Pakistan for awhile and later moved to Iran.</p>
<p>Should I mark “Asian” since all of these nations are in Asia, should I mark “White” even though I don’t see myself this way, or should I simply consider myself as “Other”?</p>
<p>Thank you for your response.</p>
<p>EDIT: What would somebody who is purely a descendant of Afghans do?</p>
<p>^ If ancestral ethnicity is really the issue (but of course the federal definitions are not entirely clear about that), then it looks to me like your ancestors are “Middle Eastern” in the broad sense of how that term is used in the United States, and in turn Middle Eastern people are classified as “white” by the federal definitions of “race” groups. Your other choice is to mark nothing at all (there isn’t an option of marking “other” on college application forms, by federal regulation, as there was on the decennial census form). There was an attempt to set up a separate “Middle Eastern” category for race the last time the categories were revised, but that didn’t happen, so for the moment the federal category that includes Arab, Persian, Kurdish, and PRESUMABLY other Middle Eastern ethnic groups (the exact boundaries are not clear, as the federal government doesn’t list examples exhaustively) is “white.” If you don’t think that is the category that really fits you, you are allowed to not mark any category at all, as many other applicants also choose to do for a variety of reasons. </p>
<p>Good luck in your applications.</p>
<p>Thank you for your reply.</p>
<p>I suppose I would see myself as “Middle Eastern” from a cultural perspective as well–mainly Bahraini and `Iraqi culture as I’m proud to be part of the al-Nasir tribe which is feared for their strength in war and known for their genorisity and the al-Husayni tribe known for their religiosity and intelligence. I also know Arabic and Farsi as well.</p>
<p>I’ll probably mark nothing though (which is weird since most of the Middle East is in Asia).</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13710008-post575.html]#575[/url]”>quote</a> …I’m proud to be part of the al-Nasir tribe which is feared for their strength in war and known for their genorisity and the al-Husayni tribe known for their religiosity and intelligence…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your future studies in college would be a great time to learn about the benefits and disadvantages of [Tribalism[/url</a>]. Like most things, it can be a double-edged sword.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By doing so, you will be joining a [url=<a href=“http://www.vcstar.com/news/2008/jul/06/not-stating-race-for-college-entry-a-growing/]growing”>http://www.vcstar.com/news/2008/jul/06/not-stating-race-for-college-entry-a-growing/]growing</a> trend](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism]Tribalism[/url”>Tribalism - Wikipedia) amongst your peers.</p>
<p>[Lee</a> Bollinger’s op-ed in the Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/college-diversity-at-risk/2012/01/13/gIQACxpn1P_story.html]Lee”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/college-diversity-at-risk/2012/01/13/gIQACxpn1P_story.html) today has the usual warning of dire consequences should racial preferences be abolished in the usual style: many assertions that not only aren’t but also can’t be supported.</p>
<p>The author of a new book </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Line-Secret-History-America/dp/0143120638/[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Line-Secret-History-America/dp/0143120638/</a> </p>
<p>is being interviewed right now on my local public radio affiliate station.</p>
<p>^ ^ The Bollinger editorial ignores the historical issue that it’s the Columbia Universities and their ilk that used to do the most to exclude students from their own surrounding neighborhoods from higher education, while the land-grant universities were admitting applications from every which kind of background, near and far, of all “races,” since before when my late grandfather was born. In other words, the editorial is based on a completely phony premise.</p>
<p>Interesting commentary on American history by Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic: </p>
<p>[Why</a> Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War? - Magazine - The Atlantic](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/02/why-do-so-few-blacks-study-the-civil-war/8831/]Why”>Ta-Nehisi Coates: Why Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War? - The Atlantic)</p>