"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion

<p>In the earlier FAQ thread, someone asked me why I even care about this issue, and I replied with a description of the life experiences that got me thinking about race relations in the United States in a post now updated here. I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older than most people who post on College Confidential. I distinctly remember the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement. </p>

<p>One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who moved back to Minnesota with his northern "white" parents after spending his early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes"), including killing babies, and I was very upset to hear about that kind of terrorism happening in the United States. He made me aware of a society in which people didn't all treat one another with decency and human compassion, unlike the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement, including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination, with great interest. </p>

<p>It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up. </p>

<p>One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC) affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor, "What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was, "I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent question really got me thinking. </p>

<p>I think one of the most effective tactics during the toughest years of the civil rights movement was when a black person would stand in a public place with a sign saying "I am a man." Really, it's that simple. To buy into the idea that "racial" categories make other people a different kind of people is to buy into the worldview of the segregationists. I am a human being, and you are a human being, and everyone else applying to your favorite college is a human being, and every member of the college admission committee is a human being, and we all have a lot more in common than we have in distinction. It's a radical idea, but it's a correct idea. Alas, I don't remember our visitor Henry's family name, or I would Google him up and thank him for getting me to think in the most concrete way possible about whether I acknowledge the humanity and individuality of all my fellow human beings. It is from this perspective that I am glad that there are many college applicants who decline the opportunity to self-report an ethnic affiliation and many colleges that admit many such students. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>More than thirty-nine years ago, when my fifth-grade class received that class visitor, I would never have imagined that people would still take "race" so seriously in the twenty-first century. (Indeed, that same fifth grade class I was in prepared a time capsule with predictions of the year 2001, which was opened that year, and in the time capsule can be found my prediction that "interracial" marriages would increase--I am part of one--and that people would learn to get over racial classifications. I guess we are still working on that, more slowly and less surely than I had thought we would.) Better late than never. </p>

<p>I refer to international comparisons in some of my online posts about this contentious subject. There is no reason for people in the United States to be unaware of the rest of the world when discussing public policy. Not all countries of the world classify ethnic groups the same way, which is another way of saying that the classifications of ethnic groups used in the United States are essentially fictional, and don't match any facts of biology. But it is a cultural and historical universal that wherever general government policies become ethnic-conscious, the citizenry becomes more ethnic-conscious, and ultimately inter-ethnic violence becomes much worse. The long civil war in Sri Lanka (among "Asian" ethnic groups that most Americans would be unable to distinguish), the former civil war in Lebanon (among "white" people by the United States Census classifications), the genocide in Rwanda (among "black" people), the disintegration of and genocide in Yugoslavia ("the land of the south Slavs," who all look alike even to other white people), and other troubling examples are why I don't think it is good public policy to attempt to classify people officially by ethnic categories. Maybe you think it is personally important to respond to ethnic questions on college forms or other government forms, but please don't impugn the motives of people who remind their neighbors and fellow citizens that responding to such questions is optional under United States law. </p>

<p>Let's move forward. Let's start calling Henry Henry, and calling our neighbors and fellow citizens our neighbors and fellow citizens. Let's not reify (regard as having existence in external reality) categories that are arbitrary and made up. I'd be happy to meet any of you in person and treat you as my fellow human being--it's as simple as that.</p>

<p>Without data, you will never know whether Americans of every race are being treated as equal human beings.</p>

<p>
[quote]
([#62[/url</a>] Without data, you will never know whether Americans of every race are being treated as equal human beings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Institutional (government and/or private) efforts towards the goal of everyone being treated as equal human beings pale (pun intended) in comparison to the individual actions we can all take towards being treated as equal human beings. If indeed that is the goal, then spouse selection should be done treating all potential mates as equal human beings. A circuitous (institutional) path to the goal avoids addressing it head-on.</p>

<p>Those interested in research into the psychology of 'race' may find this September 5, 2000 Science Times artilce of interest: [url=<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/05/science/05RACE.html?ex=1218340800&en=399ea98aba75590f&ei=5070%5DHow"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/05/science/05RACE.html?ex=1218340800&en=399ea98aba75590f&ei=5070]How&lt;/a>, but Not Why, the Brain Distinguishes Race](<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060826616-post62.html%5D#62%5B/url"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060826616-post62.html): </p>

<p>
[quote]
After a decade of mapping brains in tasks like recalling numbers, perceiving facial expressions and using verbs, neuroscientists have recently homed in on a much more controversial subject: the act of categorizing other human beings. </p>

<p>In recently published papers, two separate teams of brain scanners joined by social psychologists describe how one particular part of the brain becomes more active when people look at members of a different race.</p>

<p>Scientists involved in both studies emphasize that the work does not mean racial differences are more scientifically real than, say, ghosts or leprechauns — both of which would also produce measurable effects in the brains of people who were scared of them. Nor are they surprised that looking at people from a different race causes changes in the brain. "Everything causes changes in the brain," said Dr. Elizabeth A. Phelps, a neuroscientist at New York University.</p>

<p>But the two papers are the first published efforts to map exactly what happens in the brain when it perceives a racial difference. It is the first time neuroscientists have published papers on the kinds of messy questions many prefer to leave to social psychologists and sociologists...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Also from Science Times: Do</a> Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows:</p>

<p>
[quote]
...Scientists have long suspected that the racial categories recognized by society are not reflected on the genetic level.</p>

<p>But the more closely that researchers examine the human genome -- the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body -- the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" have little or no biological meaning...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And from the American</a> Anthropological Association Statement on "Race": </p>

<p>
[quote]
...In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Litigation has often been necessary to find out if college applicants were treated equally by colleges. (In many cases, the finding was that they were not.) The current federal method of gathering data does not do a particularly good job of identifying which colleges fail to practice "equal protection of the laws" and which follow the Constitution and applicable civil rights statutes.</p>

<p>If you havent noticed, colleges DO discriminate based on race if you look at the admission rates for people of varying ethnicities/genders.</p>

<p>Therefore, it sucks being asian/white, and it sucks being male. Reporting "race unknown" will probably result in them assuming you're either asian or white which will work towards your disadvantage.</p>

<p>Everyone should just put "african" since that's where all humans originally came from.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I request proof for this very broad statement. Show me some examples that are attested in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not really a question of science since race is not a scientific concept.
The achievement gap has been well documented.
Income gap: Income</a> gap between black, white families grows - Stocks & economy - MSNBC.com
Political divide: CNN.com</a> Election 2004</p>

<p>It's nice to talk about how we're all the same, but when one subset of the population lags behind in both income and education (for whatever reason), that's hard to ignore. And the fact remains that race is an important part of the identity not just of racist whites but of a large segment of the black community as well. I don't think it makes sense to advocate for a post-racial society when there is still such an obvious disparity of outcomes.</p>

<p>something can be technically true yet utterly false. My husband's ancestors were brought here in chains and his more recent relatives lived in the Jim Crow South and he himself attended segregated schools. So don't tell me there is no such thing as race.</p>

<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060827481-post67.html%5D#67%5B/url%5D"&gt;quote&lt;/a> something can be technically true yet utterly false. My husband's ancestors were brought here in chains and his more recent relatives lived in the Jim Crow South and he himself attended segregated schools. So don't tell me there is no such thing as race.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>History documents the hueman race's inhumanity and humanity. We control our present and future.</p>

<p>I agree with weasel. People can pretend that everything is nicey-nicey and that we're all past racism and every man is created equal, but that is just blatantly not true. Black people make less money than white people do, don't go to college as often, go to jail more, and die younger. To ignore all the statistical evidence that weasel provided is to imply that it isn't a problem, or that nothing can be done about it. Both of which are racist and untrue and imply that black people are just plain inferior. Affirmative Action is absolutely, absolutely necessary if we ever want an equal society. </p>

<p>Saying it's a good idea to have completely race blind admissions is naive. Yes, there are black candidates who have less "impressive" stats and go to more "impressive" schools. Do you think a kid from Compton, CA has the money to go on the same South American house-building trip that a kid from Andover goes on? Or that she has the connections at Harvard to intern her junior year as a lab assistant? This student gets rejected no question if you judge her solely on perceived "merit", on what's "important" to colleges. But she's smart. She's brilliant, even. She's just disadvantaged. She is the kind of kid who can most benefit from going to an "impressive" school.</p>

<p>If you really want an equal society, a society where it actually doesn't matter what skin color you have or what gender you are or what gender you're attracted to or whatever, you have to give the people who never had a chance a chance. Not doing so is just going to keep the elephant in the room. These selective institutions can, with AA, create a new class of minority, a class that has the kind of "education" valued so highly by society, a class with higher paying jobs and thus more stability. </p>

<p>We cannot pretend the race problem is over in the U.S. We aren't ostriches. We fix things, and this is how we will fix this thing.</p>

<p>Tokenadult.................what a great and well written post. Thank you for taking the time. I enjoyed reading your point of view. </p>

<p>Peace,
Pedsox</p>

<p>Re: #69</p>

<p>First, opposing racial preferences and believing everything is hunky dory are separate. Give me one reason why a person who opposes discrimination MUST believe that racism is extinct.</p>

<p>I’m always amazed as to how often pro-racial preference people conflate socioeconomics into their arguments for racial preferences. Your second paragraph intended to argue for racial preferences but actually argued for socioeconomic affirmative action. You were talking about lack of money, lack of connections, and an overall disadvantage. All of that is socioeconomic in nature. You didn’t mention racial discrimination even once in that paragraph.</p>

<p>
[quote]

If you really want an equal society, a society where it actually doesn't matter what skin color you have or what gender you are or what gender you're attracted to or whatever, you have to give the people who never had a chance a chance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you talking about equality of opportunity, or equality of result? If you’re talking about the former, then I’m with you all the way. I believe every child in our nation should have a shot at higher education if he so desires. However, if you’re talking about the latter, then count on me to oppose you every step of the way. I do not believe that anyone is entitled or guaranteed a place in higher education by virtue of his skin color.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but when one subset of the population lags behind in both income and education (for whatever reason), that's hard to ignore

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I guess that's why some scholars of economics advocate for affirmative action for the poor. </p>

<p>BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor </p>

<p>I'm 100 percent supportive of colleges making sure that applicants who are disadvantaged in one way or another have a way to indicate that on their application forms. (I think most college application forms have a question along the lines of "What else should we know?" or provide an opportunity to write an open-ended essay, which is what the Common Application provides.) And I'm 100 percent supportive of college admission committees looking individually at the information available for each applicant about what context that applicant grew up in and how that influenced the applicant's preparation for college. </p>

<p>If the assertion here is that colleges should seek socioeconomic diversity, for the better education of all students attending the college, that assertion will have no disagreement from me. If the assertion is that diversity of viewpoint or diversity of life experience is desirable among the enrolled class at a college, I agree with that too. And I fully agree that a college is more desirable, for me and for any of my hard-to-classify children, if the college enrolls students of every which ethnic group that anyone has ever claimed is meaningful. All I am disagreeing with here is that "race" or "ethnicity" is such a sure proxy for any other student diversity characteristic that the Republic will collapse if even larger percentages of students </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>decline to self-identify on college forms, as is their right under federal law.</p>

<p>One common argument against socioeconomic preferences is that it doesn’t take into account that racism still exists, that minorities still face discrimination and prejudice in their lives. I personally oppose any form of racial preference directed toward any group. But, my question for those who believe this argument is, why don’t you extend racial preferences to “overrepresented” minorities?</p>

<p>I am part of a minority group. That both my specific ethnicity and my broader continental group are “overrepresented” does not negate my groups’ minority statuses. I know racism exists, and I know this in a concrete sense, not an abstract one. Even though I don’t pretend for one second that my struggles are as bad as the ones that previous generations had to face, I’ve still encountered both discrimination and prejudice (*). So, for those who think that socioeconomics are insufficient because they don’t factor in racial discrimination, why not give racial preferences to all minorities?</p>

<p>(*) For the record, I think it’s utterly perverse to argue, “My ancestors struggled more than yours!”</p>

<p>
[quote]
All I am disagreeing with here is that "race" or "ethnicity" is such a sure proxy for any other student diversity characteristic that the Republic will collapse if even larger percentages of students

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Seems like we're talking past each other here. I interpreted your previous comments and your insistence on putting quotes around the word race to mean that you don't think race matters in society at large.</p>

<p>I don't think race has any biological reality. Usually StitchInTime is a good source of links to documents about that issue. I also think that whatever sociological reality it may have in one time or place is TRANSITORY, and the best way to make the problem go away is to make the categorization go away. That's why Yugoslavia disintegrated: all the people living there were "white," but they didn't feel any solidarity with one another because they took far too seriously ethnic distinctions that just seem silly in the context of the United States. The same was true in Rwanda: a bunch of people who would be classified as "black" on a college admission form but who thought they belonged to one or another group that had to kill the other group. That way is madness. </p>

<p>There is a reason that slave-owners and segregationists labored so hard and so long to classify people according to the "one drop rule" and to set up laws against "miscegenation," which I call "marrying the person you want to marry." I'm proud to say that my ancestors settled in a state that never, ever had laws against "miscegenation," </p>

<p>Loving</a> Day: Celebrate the Legalization of Interracial Couples </p>

<p>and today has one of the highest percentages of "interracial" marriages in the country. I enjoy confusing the categories. I am APPALLED that people who are younger than I am by decades, and who should have had good scientific educations in high school, have so much buy-in to the categories that they can refer to "my race" or "their race" as if those terms are meaningful at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's why Yugoslavia disintegrated: all the people living there were "white," but they didn't feel any solidarity with one another because they took far too seriously ethnic distinctions that just seem silly in the context of the United States.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This came across as rather arrogant.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also think that whatever sociological reality it may have in one time or place is TRANSITORY

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Transitory or not, race is very much a sociological reality. Many of us feel very strongly that we are a product of our environment and the environment of our ancestors. And given that race, social construct or not, played such a huge role in the lives of our ancestors (and us in many cases), I think that the words "my race" have ample meaning.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Many of us feel very strongly that we are a product of our environment and the environment of our ancestors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In what sense? Does "ancestors" go back to your earliest ancestors? What do the biology professors at various colleges say about this?</p>

<p>Ancestors is a catchall word, but I was thinking mostly of the past four generations--hardly the domain of whatever biological research you were alluding to. Take modern day descendants of African slaves for example. It would not be controversial to suggest that many of the disadvantages that this group faces today can be traced back to racial discrimination against their parents, their parents' parents, and all the way back to their slave ancestors. Many African Americans identify very much with being black because the racial discrimination which their ancestors faced has limited the opportunities they have today. </p>

<p>My basic point is this. When a person says "I am black" or "I am Asian" or "I am white," such a sentence derives its meaning from the current and historical experiences shared by a group of people, the biological basis for race itself notwithstanding.</p>

<p>My basic point is this. When a person says "I am black" or "I am Asian" or "I am white," such a sentence derives no more meaning from the current and historical experiences shared by a group of people than sentences such as "I am an American citizen," "I am a first-generation immigrant," "I am the first in my family to ever go to college," "We are really poor," "We always vote for Democrats," etc. All these associations are subject to reclassification, and all these associations are trumped by the commonality each human being has with every other human being, however little recent historical experience the two individuals have.</p>

<p>That's something we can agree on; however, it seems to be a weaker stance than what you stated earlier about race having no meaning.</p>