<p>
</p>
<p>Please elaborate on why opposing affirmative action means supporting a “racist system of education in general.”</p>
<p>tokenadult,</p>
<p>Re post #213:</p>
<p>I agree that racial statistics alone do not prove or disprove discrimination by colleges, but they can provide prima facie evidence that colleges are NOT discriminating based on race, if students self-identified from each category are represented. I also recognize that while the statistics do not reveal how many applicants of each race were admitted from the applicant pool, they do reveal the admission chances of an applicant from any given (defined) race of the U.S. population. </p>
<p>Without statistics on race, I’m not sure how any student could bring a discrimination action against any university. It sounds as though you are proposing that rather than each race be protected by the statistics, they should be expected to figure out how to cope with and meet the expectations of admissions requirements. If such requirements were concrete and equally achievable by students of every race, then this would make sense. But I don’t think there is conclusive evidence that admissions standards used today (such as high test scores) are truly non-discriminatory nor even necessary for success in college and beyond.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong (and I apologize in advance if I am making faulty assumptions about Minnesota) , but sometimes I think that your practical experience with a mix of different races may be limited, based solely on your geographical location. Where I live, there are so many different races living in close proximity, that it is inconceivable to me that the mere checking of a tiny (optional) box on a college application can lead to an entire population of segregationists. The majority of Americans will never see that box, and those who do are not required to align themselves with any particular race.</p>
<p>But what we see right here in the thread is group thinking about “Asians,” “blacks,” etc., which I would hope that people who have actually met a lot of different people would not be so quick to adopt. </p>
<p>I think today the statistics are gathered and reported in a way that really protects the colleges, because nobody knows enough additional information to interpret the statistics thoughtfully. When litigation has happened, illegal practices have been discovered, even when the statistics looked just fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I want to take that statement seriously, but suggest to you a different way of looking at the most desirable policy. I don’t think that today there is anywhere near enough pressure brought to bear by underrepresented minority coalitions to improve K-12 education in the United States. Most young people in the United States who want to attend college will be admitted to some college somewhere, even though many young people are initially only ready for remedial courses in college that make up for poor preparation in high school. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/news/data/08/pdf/three.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/news/data/08/pdf/three.pdf</a> </p>
<p>The whole country’s education system would be better off if all people of all ethnic groups could count on their children getting quality education in the primary and secondary years. There might be more demand for that if all college applicants were assured that readiness for college is something that all applicants have to have before entering college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does that prove anything? Under your reasoning, Ivies didn’t discriminate against Jews in the 1920s because Jews were represented at the Ivies. Say it ain’t so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you still trying to argue that because Asians have the highest admit rate of any racial group, being Asian is beneficial? Ethnic breakdown in and of itself does not reveal anything about chances.</p>
<p>Fab, You’ve got it backwards. If there were NO Jewish students reflected in the admissions statistics at the Ivies in 1920, then the Ivies would not have prima facie evidence of non-discrimination. But this argument is irrelevant since to my knowledge no data on Jewish students was collected by the federal government either then or now. And racial data does in fact, reveal your chances for admission at a particular college as compared to every other race in America.</p>
<p>As you continually make the same arguments over and over, and refuse to acknowledge the veracity of any opposing argument, I will not likely respond to some of your challenges in the future.</p>
<p>I look forward to a decision in the Jian Li case, in hopes that this issue can be resolved, although I do not count on it. I think most of us understand that on an individual case-by-case basis, an argument can be made that certain students are being rejected solely upon their race. But this does not make the argument reality, nor does it override the compelling interest that this country has in ensuring that all of its citizens, regardless of race, have the opportunity to share in the educational bounty offered by colleges in the country. I admit that I may be proved wrong, but I am in the camp that believes that representation by all races at every university is more important than the prospect that some students might have to attend Georgetown or GeorgiaTech rather than Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I don’t think it applies to you personally Fabrizio, many of those that support the abolishment of AA policies in education do so without the perspective of noting that;</p>
<p>African Americans are disciplined at a substancial higher rate than their white peers for similar infractions;
Are placed in special educational programs disproportunately;
Are labled ADD disproportunately;
Are tracked into lesser challenging curriculums disproportunately even when testing indicates a more challenging level of instruction is warranted. These are just some examples that come to mind.</p>
<p>There is a long history of discrimanatory practices following the desegregation policies enacted via Brown vs Board of Education. Some of these have been deliberate and some are considered those acts that may be committed subconsciously due to negative stereotyping and lesser expectations. In any event, one who vehemently opposes AA against these historical scenarios could be labled as one who supports an educational system that has had a long history racial hangups. While many of the disparities in education are self inflicted by people of color, the teacher unions and other powers are not absolved of their policies and practices that perpetuate a culture of underperformance.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>I’ll acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing argument when it is legitimate.</p>
<p>Saying stuff like “Asians have the highest admit rate of any racial group, therefore being Asian is beneficial” is not a legitimate argument. Why do Asians have this distinction? It’s because on average, Asians have reasonably strong academic qualifications. Considering that most universities in our nation aren’t selective and admit mainly on the basis of stats, it’s not surprising that Asians have the highest admit rate. Alleging that being Asian is beneficial as opposed to having strong academic qualifications is intellectually sloppy at best and dishonest at worst.</p>
<p>Another poor argument is “If students self-identified from each category are represented, then there is prima facie evidence that colleges are NOT discriminating based on race.” In other words, if students of every race are present, then the college isn’t engaging in racial discrimination.</p>
<p>If you want to cop out from the reality of historic anti-Jewish discrimination at the Ivies by noting the dearth of federal data, fine. Let’s talk about Gratz, then. Students self-identified from each category were represented at the University of Michigan. Did that mean that Michigan didn’t discriminate based on race? You may think so, but the Court concluded otherwise in a 6-3 decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In and of itself no. But ethnicity in admissions I would assume is never looked at in a vacuum, and for many, certain assumptions will be made about one’s person. Whether it is a favorable “Asian model minority” assumption, or the negative " Asian grinder" or a host of other stereotypical values placed on individuals, in the admission game, some assertions are going to affect admission decisions.</p>
<p>Edit; given a little more time to meditate on this, in some schools you should know that one’s ethnicity is a big hook(all other considerations being relatively equal) When one is identified by race, they are placed in particular piles off the bat. Certainly this would impact one’s chances simply based on ethnicity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I cannot acknowledge the veracity of this argument because it contradicts itself.</p>
<p>You say that there is a “compelling interest that this country has in ensuring that all of its citizens, regardless of race, have the opportunity to share in the educational bounty offered by colleges in the country.” This is a reference to equality of opportunity, which I support.</p>
<p>However, right after that, you say you believe that “representation by all races at every university is more important than the prospect that some students might have to attend Georgetown or GeorgiaTech rather than Harvard.” This is a reference to equality of result, which by definition runs counter to equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>Bay: “Fab, You’ve got it backwards. If there were NO Jewish students reflected in the admissions statistics at the Ivies in 1920, then the Ivies would not have prima facie evidence of non-discrimination. But this argument is irrelevant since to my knowledge no data on Jewish students was collected by the federal government either then or now. And racial data does in fact, reveal your chances for admission at a particular college as compared to every other race in America.”</p>
<p>Well, the ivies themselves were tracking the amount of Jewish students because they had quotas. Jews were, in fact, over-represented with respect to their percentage in the U.S. population. Probably you are right that the federal government was not tracking it. However, clearly they were being discriminated against. In those days, there was no shame in it so university presidents spoke openly about it. </p>
<p>Having a higher admission rate or even higher numbers on campus is not evidence of non-discrimination. Purely from a logical standpoint, one can think of a scenario in which discrimination can occur even if a race has higher admission rate and/or presence on campus.</p>
<p>Obviously the case of having no Jews at all despite strong records would have been greater evidence of discrimination. I’m not sure if this was the point you were trying to make.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On your first point true. But also you must acknowlege that many Asians also come from households that have disproportunately highly college educated parents and siblings, income that corresponds, and the benefit of a culture that deeply emphasizes high academic attainment. IIRC, many Asian immigrants that were granted citizenship was based on the prerequisite that they be highly educated thus insuring a high correlation of their progeny attending college as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and I have said this several times. Please, people, you need to read posts more carefully before jumping to conclusions. So many arguments on this thread could be avoided if people would just read more carefully.</p>
<p>madville,</p>
<p>I don’t deny that there are at least some opponents of affirmative action who don’t appreciate the realities you listed. However, I would argue that affirmative action is a very inexact solution to those real problems. By the time affirmative action is applied, it will have been too late.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think if any opponent were to deny the facts you’ve listed, then he would be stubborn and hardheaded. But, he wouldn’t necessarily support a “racist system of education in general.” A refusal to acknowledge that there are unequal outcomes for similar inputs doesn’t imply advocacy for a discriminatory system. It just shows obstinacy.</p>
<p>A note to my comment made in post #233</p>
<p>“Indeed, Asian success in the U.S. relative to others is largely due to immigration policies that favor immigrants with pre-existing skills and education. As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly educated APA community already had college degrees before coming to the U.S., or were in college upon arrival. Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, APAs are two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to have a college degree. More than 8 in 10 Indian immigrants from 1966-1977 had advanced degrees and training in such areas as science, medicine or engineering.” </p>
<p>Such was the case with Jews and other western european immigrants. coming into the country with college educations and pre existing skills gave many a huge leg up when attempting to establish themselves economically.</p>
<p>madville: “On your first point true. But also you must acknowlege that many Asians also come from households that have disproportunately highly college educated parents and siblings, income that corresponds, and the benefit of a culture that deeply emphasizes high academic attainment. IIRC, many Asian immigrants that were granted citizenship was based on the prerequisite that they be highly educated thus insuring a high correlation of their progeny attending college as well.”</p>
<p>This is all true. However, I think it is also true that they are more intelligent than their countrymen from their original country. So I don’t think it is fair to handicap them in admissions just because only the smart people can emigrate here. We are effectively punishing them for innate ability. </p>
<p>I’m watching the olympics right now. If the U.S. only granted citizenship to Romanians that got to the olympics in gymnastics, then there’s a good chance their kids would be great gymnasts. But I don’t think you can just say it’s because their parents are teaching them how to do it or that their parents valued it. Obviously, genetic talent is a big, big part of it. And to be frank, I don’t think it would be fair to limit the number of Romanians that could get into gymnastics camp.</p>
<p>Similarly, if the brain drain causes only Chinese doctors to be able to get to the U.S., their kids are going to be smart and likely to have what it takes to be a good doctor. Some of this might be cultural, but a big part is also talent. It doesn’t make sense as a society to do logical gymnastics to avoid the fact that these Chinese immigrants are better at this. It’s not a racial argument; it’s just an artifact of the immigration filter we’ve set up. Another thing: sometimes one’s values grow out of your abilities. It’s hard to be completely devoted to bodybuilding unless you have some talent for it–otherwise you don’t get enough reward from it. </p>
<p>BTW, if it was purely about racial representation, the elite schools could attain equal representation in their student body by not making it harder for international students to get in. Right now, the schools have a strict quota such that only a few from each country can get in. I know from personal experience at a top 5 school that the people from Africa or South America were uniformly outstanding (just like the other international students.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the very thing about the contemporary versions of racism mutated from the old vestiges of overt racism. It’s more subtle, sophisticated, and harder to discern, but it’s there. I live, work, and have family members that subscribe to certain racial ideologies. I know that it is anecdotal, but there are others who make good arguments for the position that racism (even if it is covert) is a significant motivating force in those that are anti affirmative action. The institution of secondary education is one of many institutions that have perpetuated racism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some more intelligent. Some more fortunate, i.e. having the economic means and to be able to pass academic muster, get here, integrate/assimilate and further develop their human capital. There are millions deserving who just simply do not have the means to develop their abilities here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it were about a more strict meritocracy, there would be FAR more international students in the most elite schools. They would be the majority, IMO. The quotas are there in part to protect the indigenous population. Among the indigenous population priorities/considerations are given to the majority(whites). I’m no anthropologist, but historically, self preservation and nationalism are huge motivating factors. As it is applied economically to those things that are most coveted, i.e. jobs, housing, elite education, relationships, etc, it is no surprise to me that any real or perceived encroachment by those peoples labled less deserving or policies giving them a leg up would be vehemently attacked. Race as we understand it, is one of the most divisive criteria.</p>