<p>State Bans on Affirmative Action Have Been of Little Benefit to Asian-American Students, Report Says</p>
<p>Chronicle of Higher Education 6-21-2006
By PAULA WASLEY</p>
<p>Contrary to predictions in a widely cited 2005 study that said Asian-American students were the biggest losers in affirmative action, those students made only minor gains at law schools when the practice was banned in three states, according to a new study.</p>
<p>The article can be found at:</p>
<p>Thanks or the post Tsdad. I wonder if the Asian Americal Legal Defense Fund has addressed the recent study. Also do you have any idea where Clinton Deputy US Attorney for Civil Rights, Bill Lan Lee is working today?</p>
<p>I think part of the reason why these law schools have not seen a substantial increase is that there are not nearly as many Asians interested in policy and law as there are Asians looking towards science, medicine, engineering, and even business.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lieffcabraser.com/bios/lee.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.lieffcabraser.com/bios/lee.htm</a></p>
<p>In response to your question, take a look at paragrap 4 of my initial post.</p>
<p>During the University of Michigan Law School case, one rep from the law school disclosed the stats based on race. In every cell (LSAT and GPA) Asian Americans had the lowest acceptance rate. Most Asian students say that they are better off not declaring a race on the app.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When a political talk show host on cable TV makes a yellow peril
prediction that absent affirmative action, by 2007 APAs will be 80% of the
class at the UCLA Law School, one hopes most scholars will easily dismiss
that as nonsense. </p>
<p>However, when the recent chair of the Sociology Department at Princeton suggests in a well respected peer-reviewed social
science journal that APAs would occupy four out of every five seats created
by ending affirmative action for African Americans and Latinos, such
a claim is taken very seriously by social scientists, policymakers, and the
press. In this case, that is unfortunate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One could hope to see the same analysis performed on undergraduate admissions.</p>
<p>Thanks Tsdad.</p>
<p>If the Republican Judiciary Committee had allowed for the 'regular' appointment of Lee during the Clinton Administration, I believe we would have heard quite insightful and different perspectives on civil rights/discrimination/remedies from this Asian-American lawyer. Albeit a left-of-center perspective, but insight nonetheless.</p>
<p>I mean, can anyone even name G.W. Bush's Assistant A.G. for Civil Rights? That used to be a highly respected position in the federal government.</p>
<p>So confused... Asian-Americans are the biggest losers in affirmative action, which means that, with affirm. action, they don't do as well... so when you ban affirm. action, they should do better... right? But they've made only modest gains?</p>
<p>Is some of it that affirm. action is still practiced to some extent, even though it isn't legal? Or is some of it much like the way that elite schools keep up their supply of wealthy students - by valuing the characteristics that come with being white or non-Asian?</p>
<p>ariesathena: if you are confused, I think you are in good company. The issue of Asian Americans vis a vis AA, reverse discrimination, quotas etc. is a real hornet's nest - for medical and law schools as well as for undergraduate programs. Often touted as being a "model minority" there is even a debate as to whether or not this group constitutes a real minority or not. On top of that controversy, the shift toward holistic admissions that use different criteria of diversity, and that would include admission strategies that look to SE rather than racial and ethnic factors, can cut both ways. Little wonder that any ban on AA would be of little benefit to this heterogenous group.</p>
<p>astersikea: I am impressed with your knowledge on AA issues. Who are you? a student, parent? How come such an indepth knowledge?</p>
<p>Simba, thanks so much for your kind words. :) I just wrote about this particular case of AA the way I see it, in response to Ariesathena's post - in most cases when people are confused about an issue it is because, well it is just that: confusing. If the truth be known, I am constantly impressed by CCers' in depth knowledge - including yours, I may add, not just of AA but just about everything. The subject of AA came up and became interwoven in the discussion on the "Admissions Revolution" thread, and like Jazzymom, I hadn't thought about so many issues connected to AA in a long time. I find the inter-connections between AA, diversity, and the admissions process (particularly holistic admissions) both complex and fascinating. I guess you haven't read the posts on that thread :( or you would have picked up that I am a parent - although I should add that, at heart, I am and always will be a student - certainly makes life more interesting. I suppose that is we all like to post on CC. :)</p>
<p>*, re your post #11:</p>
<p>Another aspect of irony/complexity/contradictions is that while for many situations & many categories of "diversity" and "value to the college," etc., the "holistic" admissions policies & strategies of Privates would seem to be superior to Publics, in reality they may not always be. (And though I'm one person strongly supportive of holistic admissions.)</p>
<p>That is, the "point" system of some of the publics like U.C. tend to correct for the heterogeneity among Asians. For example, SES is figured in, overtly, but so is immigrant status, so is the applicant's own educational disadvantage, so is the parents' educational disadvantage, so is the level of English fluency in the home.</p>
<p>Now, with U.C., you're dealing with a heavy in-State Asian applicant population to begin with, most of whom are highly qualified for U.C. & have long-standing U.S. resident status. An immigrant from Southeast Asia with serious educational challenges, but who has been here long enough to apply as a CA resident, would still have to prove academic eligibility for U.C. There's no getting around that. That is why one tends to see very large percentages of middle & upper-middle SES (esp. non-immigrant or not First Generation) Asians at the U.C.'s.</p>
<p>Why should graduate or professional schools have AA at all? At the undergraduate level a reasonable case can be made for disparity in the school system. But after four years of equal level educational access, it should all be equal - isn't that the goal of AA? Only the strong and capable should survive. Why should graduate and professional schools 'lower' their standards and socially engineer the calss make up?</p>
<p>Once the underqualified are pushed to get a degree, they come in to work force - they underform their as well and it is more damaging to society when incompetent people are give position of responsibility. emraldkitty illustrated the case of an incompetent principal. I am sure we all can find anecdotal evidences of imcompetent people whose degree and level of expertise don't match.</p>
<p>And why is that the insitutions have to follow AA when in our own personal lives we select the most competent person to perform our personal tasks. It can be white, black, brown or yellow. We hire qualified doctors, lawyer, accountants, financial advisors, auto mechanics, barbers, home repair contractors etc etc. We don't say I will be getting 12 haircuts/year, let me practice AA and go once or twice to a minority barber?</p>
<p>By definition, AA is racial discrimination. Even if you believe that a person should be "given" opportunity at the college level because of their ethnic background, why does it last a lifetime? AA impacts undergrad, grad, gov contracting, employment, ect..</p>
<p>Simba:</p>
<p>I think the situation is different for professional as opposed to graduate schools. I think that graduate schools do not practice AA. For professional schools, the Supreme Court's reasoning was that there is value to having doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc... represent the community they serve to some degree. This is why the Supreme Court allowed for race/ethnicity to be one among many factors but not the sole factor, nor to have specific weight.</p>
<p>Simba - you know why schools insist on affirmative action. If they didn't the number of black (and to a lesser degree hispanic) students at top law and medical schools, for example, would be so small that the schools, overwhelmingly liberal to the core, would be deeply embarassed at the great source of assuaging guilt being so greatly diluted. This is not a statement either against or for affirmative action, but data matters, and one must start from the premise that without it top schools would be largely bereft of URM's. My good friend is one of the better law school admission advisers in the country. URM's enjoy a 15 point LSAT advantage over others. He doesn't necessarily think this is such great news. As UCLA's Richard Sander's research reflects, many don't do well starting considerably behind their counterparts and bottom of the class anywhere (even at Harvard) is a fairly devastating thing - affecting bar admission and disaffection with the profession. Yes, there are critics of Sander, but I'll take my friend's input - a practitioner in the finest sense of the word, who charges a pretty penny for his services (yet does plenty of free or low charge work for those that cannot afford it). He often advises students to go with their Tier II acceptance - advice they virtually never take. Again, not a pro or con against AA - but lets recognize the realities as they exist.</p>
<p>To my knowledge, there is only one state in the US that publishes bar pass rates based on race. That state is California (Calbar site) and the stats support that the bar pass rate for blacks is consistently about half that of caucasians. The stats also show students at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford Law Schools fail the bar (but they do not identify the race of the person who failed) Interpret the data as you see fit.</p>