<p>
</p>
<p>There is no bickering here. We can find plenty of Asian Americans using Chinese last names and speaking the Chinese language in the USA. How many African American families still exist with African last names, speaking their native African tongue in the USA? It was a systematic and competete destruction of the cultural identity of an entire race of humans on the continent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, for I refuse to engage in that sort of discussion. I will repeat some of my questions instead.</p>
<ol>
<li>Are you implying that the “black church” is not a “properly functioning institution”? </li>
<li>Should we have “wealthy [insert racial classification here] communities” in the 21st Century? Why should wealthy blacks limit themselves to communities that only have other wealthy blacks? </li>
<li>So why shouldn’t all students who face severe hardships receive “proper consideration” regardless of racial classification?</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>The entire African American population on our continent lost it’s cultural identity, including it’s language and last name and you do not want to discuss it? Perhaps, if you could acknowledge this fact then you would see the need for why a ‘race’ based preference is needed for African Americans (since the entire race lost it’s identity).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know, but this is what Asian Americans have in the USA:</p>
<p>[Milpitas</a>, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milpitas,_California]Milpitas”>Milpitas, California - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not want to discuss whose ancestors were oppressed more, which is what all assertions like “They have to be factored in because they were used to discriminate” devolve into. I note that your initial statement as I quoted it has nothing to say about severity of discrimination; that is something you added later on to rationalize why Asians should not receive racial preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that all Americans of Asian descent live in cities like Milpitas? If not, are you suggesting that all Americans of Asian descent could live in cities like Milpitas?</p>
<p>And I’d still like to know. Is the “black church” not a “properly functioning institution”?</p>
<p>Interesting evolution in this thread. Just my opinion, but now more intellectual and less finger-pointing at URMs. </p>
<p>Here’s my scoop: far more kids this year not identifying their ethnic background. Yes, you can see surname, country parents born in, some cultural affiliations (eg, traditional Indian dance in the ECs, etc.) This applies to many ethnic categories. But, in the rush to get through piles of apps, “race” is the least of my concerns. </p>
<p>Far fewer kids this year with what I deem an appropriate balance of ECs that rounds out the picture of their interests, pursuits, responsibilities, leadership and ability to climb out of the sweet little hs box. I mean, in direct relation to the major they checked off- how can you claim a drive to major in STEM and save the world when all you’ve done is sit in class, do a little recycling at school and helped plan the prom?</p>
<p>Many kids from the lowest high schools nonethless do have AP classes available to them- and they take them. Even if one suggests their A grades represent lesser depth in the material covered and generous curves in grading, these kids are going out and getting 4 and 5 on the AP exams- not only in the first level, say, AP bio, but in subjects like AP Calculus BC. Even if you suggest, well, they must be getting a lot of coaching for the tests themselves, this scoring isn’t random- it’s all their APs or backed up by SAT2 scores. I can’t believe these rock-bottom high schools have the resources to train across the board for this stat performance.</p>
<p>What I am trying to describe here is that the “it factor” is not as simple as saying one category, ethnically or socio-economically, has inherent advantages or disadvantages- it boils down to the kid. He either gets off his duff and achieves, gets involved in significant activities, can write a decent essay on a decent topic- or not.</p>
<p>So, merit and meritocratic, here on CC, should move down to this individualistic level. It doesn’t matter that more or fewer kids from a certain group perform at certain levels across the board, stick with STEM majors in greater numbers or whatever. What matters is who little Johnny or Susie really is. Does he or she deserve the seat in this college’s freshman class.</p>
<p>My observation- only my observation and only this year- is that one’s ethnic background does NOT assure the whole package will be there. Plenty of kids from all backgrounds are failing to live up to the target “it factor.” So, why even look at enthicity? Because it’s one factor in the diversity many colleges desire, one factor among many.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think there was any finger-pointing at “URMs” to begin with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why is it a factor? What do we gain by “ensuring” (through means that magically do not involve quotas) that there is “enough” “representation” from ethnicity X?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The question to me, is not when I mentioned it, but rather, why you would not be aware of the severity and breadth of the discrimination, without my mentioning it?</p>
<p>lookingforward - Do you see unidentified race going above the 12% that is reflected currently by some of the Ivies?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is your question to which I was responding:
</p>
<p>Now why don’t you insert Asian for racial classification and figure out the answer for yourself? Otherwise, it seems like you want Asians to have such communities but trouble understainding why anyone else such as Blacks may too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I am not saying that you had to mention the degree of severity with respect to blacks in the United States. I am saying that your statement as you originally wrote it, "“They have to be factored in because they were used to discriminate,” does not rule out the granting of racial preferences for Asians. You only ruled it out later because you said the severity of discrimination was not as great as it was for blacks and Native Americans. That’s rationalization.</p>
<p>While we’re on this subject, according to you, should racial preferences be granted to Hispanics? And should the children of immigrants from Caribbean and African nations be granted racial preferences?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want me to answer my own questions, they are as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>No.</li>
<li>They should not; no racial classification should.</li>
</ol>
<p>So therein lies the difference between us. I am not in favor of blacks’ limiting themselves to “wealthy black communities”; you are. Ironic then that you have portrayed yourself as the defender of diversity!</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Why is the “black church” not a “properly functioning institution”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Defender of Diversity does not mean one has to stand for a homogeneous society and the destruction of cultural differences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do realize that your support for blacks’ limiting themselves to “wealthy black communities” amounts to voluntary segregation, yes?</p>
<p>Also, should Hispanics and the children of Caribbean / African immigrants receive racial preferences? And is the “black church” not a “properly functioning institution”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does not have a Pope sitting in the Vatican with billions if not trillions of dollars in holdings. </p>
<p>It does not have connections to the richest men in the country.</p>
<p>The number of wealthy and well educated members of a black church is small compared to the needs of the poorest members of the congregation. Hence, money and information does not flow as freely to poor members as it does in many white churches.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying that all “white churches” are Catholic and/or “have connections to the richest men in the country”?</p>
<p>Moving on, do you realize that your support for blacks’ limiting themselves to “wealthy black communities” amounts to voluntary segregation? And should Hispanics and the children of Caribbean / African immigrants receive racial preferences?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, rich White and Asian communities do not amount to voluntary segregation, but if there were such a thing as a rich Black community it would be voluntary segregation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am saying that while Whites have access to wealthy White Churches, Blacks do not. This is part of the world in which poor Blacks live that poor Whites do not. In other words, how easy or difficult is it to find a solution to the same problem confronted by a Black applicant and White applicant? For this reason, adcoms would like to be able to keep all Black applicants in a separate pile. I do not see anything wrong with that do you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no such thing as a Hispanic race, it is an ethnic category. so, i believe there is no such thing as a Hispanic racial preference. Also, I do not believe all Hispanics deserve equal preferential treatment. However, I can understand why adcoms may want to divide the applicant pools into Hispanics, Blacks, Whites and others. Are you having a hard time understanding why they do that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No and no. To the extent that there are “rich white communities,” it could very well be the result of voluntary segregation. In the past, I have called out some parents for supporting “diversity taxes” while living in affluent mostly white suburbs. I have no problems with “rich black communities”; but unlike you, I do not believe that black families should LIMIT themselves to such communities. THAT is also voluntary segregation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying that wealthy white churches do not welcome black worshippers? Or are you saying that there are no wealthy black churches? If it’s the former, do you have any evidence for that? If it’s the latter, what do you make of [Trinity</a> United Church of Christ](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ]Trinity”>Trinity United Church of Christ - Wikipedia)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. What about the children of Caribbean / African immigrants?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why yes, yes I am. I would love to read your explanation as to why they do that, especially since such divisions by racial classification caused such harm in our country in the past.</p>
<p>What equal educational opportunity means in the United States context: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter1011/Schmidt.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter1011/Schmidt.pdf</a> </p>
<p>Hi, perazziman, I see you joined College Confidential when I was not very active here, between updates of this FAQ thread. Welcome aboard. Have you had a chance to look back at the first dozen or so posts in this now lengthy thread, the stock FAQ posts with links out to official sources of information? One issue that participants here have to watch out for is that there is settled law on some of the social policy questions we discuss here, with the Supreme Court having ruled a few times now on rationales that are accepted (and rejected) for certain types of college admission policies. (Some previous policies of colleges have been specifically held illegal by the Supreme Court.) I know some of the participants here attempt to give a close, nonlawyer’s-but-legally-informed reading to those cases as they discuss the issues here. Some of what might be interesting fair game for general discussion of social policy related to these controversial issues will not be likely to have legal effect in an actual court case, because the arguments have been made before and have lost.</p>