<p>First, this paragraph alone contains several straw man arguments. It is far from perfectly okay for white admissions to be reduced. Asian applicants do not deserve admissions any more or any less than their peers, and they are not entitled to anything except a bias-free evaluation. Enrollment caps are unacceptable, period; all groups should have theoretically “UNLIMITED access” to the nation’s best universities.</p>
<p>Second, just what is an enrollment cap, exactly? It sounds awfully similarly to a quota, doesn’t it? Oh, but of course, it can’t be a quota because quotas are illegal. Riight.</p>
<p>I mean, seriously, this is exactly why the defenders of the status quo will lose. They have a vested interest in “enrollment caps” so they can pursue their draconian view of what constitutes a diverse campus and what doesn’t. It is little wonder that civil rights initiatives have seen success in four of the five states that have had them.</p>
<p>tokenadult brings up a good point, and it’s why I almost always enclose these terms in quotation marks. I don’t believe it is possible for any group to be “overrepresented,” as I have long thought that the term implies that there is some “right” level of representation, which is of course a quota.</p>
<p>If the terms must be used, though, then I would choose standard B in tokenadult’s earlier post. As I understand it, that’s closest to the standard the supporters of those two terms have in mind.</p>
Disparaging? Ease up there; I’m only suggesting a possibility that I think subconsciously lingers in the back of our minds. I have no racial biases in any direction; I’m multiracial myself.</p>
<p>Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that AA is a way the elites in America stay in power? Perhaps this is not limited to Caucasians, but I would say for the most part that this group excludes Asians. Why? Think about this: What nations are becoming global economic powers? Asian nations. Heck, where is the economic powerhouse of the world today? Certainly not the US; it is China that has become the dominant force of the world. Let’s face it: the US is dwindling as a world power, and I think many of the elite are intimidated at the possibility of the US becoming a second-rate nation economically. And do I think AA was started to deter the Chinese? Certainly not; affirmative action has been going on for years, and I’m sure it started with the rather noble purpose of racial equality. But is it possible that AA has evolved to serve as some sort of a counter to the increasing dominance of the Asian nations? I think so.</p>
<p>Is there no difference then between state and private schools in this regard? I thought that the affirmative action changes of recent decades have all but closed an explicit ethnic diversity category for state colleges, but remained open for private schools.</p>
<p>You misunderstand my position. The ruling class anywhere would do anything to maintain power. “Divide and conquer” has always been effective. Did ancient Rome not use it against early Christians when one emperor’s representative told the Christians that the emperor will consider their demands, but they, however, must first agree among themselves what they want from Rome? The result was predictable: the infighting was so great the emperor was never bothered again. “Divide and conquer”, brilliantly executed.</p>
<p>My position has nothing to do with race, but has everything to do with maintaining power. In fact, if you were to check some of my previous posts, you will see my position is very clear on this topic.</p>
<p>This seems like a stretch for rationalizing the existence of AA. If anything, it makes some sense that colleges probably support AA as a business decision, more than anything. Just like with gender imbalance, they are probably aware of a “tipping point” in the student body’s racial composition, at which the college will become less appealing to some applicants, and ultimately it will hurt the school’s ability to attract the best and brightest.</p>
<p>Having just perused another threat on gender imbalance, apparently over 60% is the magic number for gender. I don’t know what the “tipping point” is for race, but racial demographics statistics are readily available for each college, and therefore must be a relevant criterion for prospective students.</p>
<p>(Btw, gender AA raises similar legal isues as racial AA.)</p>
<p>Monster, your argument that because you are multiracial means you lack racial biases is offensive. As mentioned in my previous post, my experience as a black African growing up in a poor borough of NYC has been that people of color are very often racially judgmental. Indeed, because the indictment of being labeled a racist seems limited to white people, some people of color feel free to make sweeping conclusions based on race. So please do not tell me that you are incapable of racial bias since you are not white. Your statements that affirmative action “is a convoluted system meant to maintain the elite hierarchy held by White Americans” that “the group that benefits socially from AA is, far and away, upper-class Caucasian America” and that “there is an underlying sense of superiority amongst Caucasians because of the lower bar they have to reach over in order to get admitted at top schools” reflect a strong bias against white Americans. Perhaps you’re more capable of racial bias than you would like to believe. Or perhaps you are just like many other people of color and believe white people are fair blame targets for any discomfort you feel or imagine. </p>
<p>I believe it is well beyond a “stretch” to conclude that affirmative action was designed to allow elites to stay in power. Such a conclusion strikes me as being similar to the “September 11th and the Apollo landings were a hoax” arguments. </p>
<p>The idea that a small group of elite white people decide the social direction of this country and then develop a way to force every college and university in this nation to follow their mandate is beyond ridiculous. Keep in mind that many of those who sit on admissions committees are the very people of color that AA was designed to assist. In your mind are these people of color so ignorant, so gullible, that they make decisions to harm students of color in order to serve the evil desires of a small group of white elites? This makes sense to you? </p>
<p>The most offensive argument you made was the one in which you argue that white elites are so afraid of growing Asian economies, they’ve decide to prevent Asians from attending top colleges and universities. Implicit in this argument is the notion that Asian students want to attend top schools in order to benefit countries other than the US. I’m sure the third generation Asian-American who doesn’t speak his family’s native tongue will find this notion amusing. Virtually every Asian graduate I’ve known at Columbia, be they American citizens or holders of student visas, very much wants to stay in the US post-graduation. How, specifically, do these Asian students help countries like China became dominate the world? How does preventing them from attending top colleges ensure that America does not “become a second-rate nation economically”?</p>
<p>There’s really just one fundamental flaw in the arguments for and against AA.</p>
<p>Top colleges - really any college that gets attention on CC - aren’t looking for the students with the highest statistics. Therefore, no one is being “beaten” by someone who is “less qualified”.</p>
<p>I (and others) have said this a million times. Those screaming “discrimination” just don’t want to hear it. They’d rather define their own standards of admission (which they feel entitled to define), and then “prove” that an entire (combined) group is systematically excluded or severely reduced in representation based on standards they have created. Never mind that they aren’t systematically excluded but specifically admitted in higher numbers than any other group, and further, that large numbers of them refuse offers of admission at some Ivies to accept offers at other Ivies or similar schools.</p>