<p>I think there’s a guy who went to Stanford called Richard Rodriguez or something that has written a few interesting articles on affirmative actually. The gist of his argument is that AA helps the smart URMs, but does little for the vast majority of them.</p>
<p>saints2009, you don’t happen to live in Louisiana, do you? :P</p>
<p>Oh yeah. Asian people have DEFINITELY been discriminated against in the US, though perhaps their/ our particular record isn’t quite as long. The Pacific Railroad was built by Chinese is pretty crappy situations for starters, and was perhaps even worse than slavery, because they were expendable and not property.</p>
<p>Senior0991, I hope someday Stanford will give you enough exposure to people of other races and socioeconomic demographics that you begin to judge people as individuals rather than by the color of their skin or their family’s income bracket. Yes, I do have a huge issue with you thinking that a school with a 50% Asian population is not American, just as I would if an Asian tells me that Memphis isn’t acceptable or “American” enough because it has a high percentage of black denizens and isn’t your white, middle-upper class “American” suburban neighborhood. However, I do concede that the reality is the opposite, that unfortunately, people in this country still discriminate and define themselves so much based on race and that they cannot bear to step out of their comfort zone to be even slightly open-minded enough to contemplate an alternative.</p>
<p>And, after reading finally your reply to what I wrote previously, I also have a problem with your disparaging tone towards low-income students throughout this thread, as though they somehow lack some mysterious quality of social grace such that it’s even possible to distinguish a low-income student at the first glance------until you get to know the person, most of the times you can’t, as proven by so many of my experiences. </p>
<p>Also, I’m sure you’re aware that the underrepresented minority groups at top colleges are statistically more likely to be low income, live in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and less likely to have that “class” you frequently referenced some pages back. Your insistence on college admitting a particular percentage of black students merely for the sake of their skin color so that the college can maintain a very specific racial composition on campus and your dislike of Stanford for lacking “class” are inherently contradictory in nature, unless you believe that only privileged, upper class URM students are to be admitted to top colleges.</p>
<p>According to my brother, a Stanford senior, the kids who do not belong at Stanford cross race, gender , and scioeconomic lines. He has been surprised by the many slackers of all types and has no idea how they were accepted. Conversely, his friend group is multicultural and comprise students of various economic means. Without exception, they are successful students and several are in techie majors like engineering disciplines. In sum, it appears tha Stanford, as other top schools admit development cases for many reasons from big donations, to football, to diversity. Whether you are the one from a cultural group who gets admitted without the creds is a matter of luck, as it is for the one of many 2300/4.0 kids who is not accepted.</p>
Okay, I apologize if you’re offended so easily. But I would take offense to a University with a 50% Asian population, or a 40% black population, or a 90% white population. These do not fit my American ideal, where races are all represented in good amounts with whites having the most percentage. I only mentioned the Asians originally because that seems to be the most likely un-diversifying race these days. By the way you still haven’t answered my question of how I am being racist here. </p>
<p>
Is this a problem? We define ourselves based on gender, religion, ethnicity, and class. Why should race be an exception? </p>
<p>As long as things don’t turn into racism, I don’t have a problem with defining myself and discriminating others based on race. Why do you? </p>
<p>
It may be mysterious to you, but it’s not to me and a lot of people I’ve talked to this about. I can decipher most people’s economic class in spending a couple minutes with them. I should clarify (again) that there is nothing in my book saying a lower-class person can’t have class. Just that if someone lacks class it is necessarily a non-upper class person. That’s an important distinction. </p>
<p>
I don’t think so. Like I said earlier I just think Stanford has to be pickier on the lower ends (for all races) and make sure they’ll get people who fit into the social model I’m advocating. No university can be perfect in all regards, but it should at the minimum keep class in mind in admissions.</p>
<p>You may think I’m creepy, but I think I’m more the guy that says what’s on everyone’s minds- I’m a man of the people. Once you are able to abandon your fear of critique, instead embracing dissent from those who are still mired in political correctness, you are able to accept a whole bunch of facts and judgments that seemed so “wrong” before. </p>
<p>I know more than you because I’m not afraid of reaching a scary conclusion.</p>
Are the people who don’t belong at Stanford those who realize what college is and what it isn’t? </p>
<p>I’m 97 percent sure my future job won’t require a 4.0 or an engineering degree, yet here I am as an engineering student with a 4.0. I’m the fool here. I envy those who have the courage to stop caring, who go have fun on Wednesdays instead of doing a math PSET. Those are the real men of genius at Stanford.</p>
<p>@Senior0991: Uhhh. What makes them not care if they just want to loosen up a little? There’s nothing immediately wrong with that. They (and you) may have had restraints placed upon you as a teen in high school, but it’s college - a time and place where they can be free, yes, to party if they want and also to study at the same time. Why can’t people relax? There is literally no reason why people should have to stay in a dorm (or wherever) all day and study to maintain a 4.0 unless they’re planning on becoming a super scholar or something.</p>
<p>You’re basically saying (in your posts) that only the most affluent and studious students should enroll at Stanford. Sorry if maybe I’m missing a detail or something, but that’s what I’ve been absorbing for the last few pages. “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Senior0991… I understand your comments as being quite discriminatory. I don’t understand it. I said it once, I’ll say it again. Americans can’t be separate entities. Think of it in the umbrella formula. “American” simply encompasses several races and/or socioeconomic groups. As I said before, I am a minority where I live in CA… and guess what? Yeah, I’m white. It doesn’t matter. This country has become (actually it’s always sort of really been) a tremendous mix of ethnicities.</p>
<p>And as for the low-income students, yeah maybe there are those who are unqualified, yet apply to Stanford. But I’m pretty sure, actually definitely sure that Stanford as a reason for admitting them, even if it doesn’t seem that way for you. And you aren’t permitted to say you’ve heard things from friends/classmates because secondhand knowledge isn’t worth much. I’m pretty sure admissions decisions remain privately sealed away at the office of admissions for a reason.</p>
<p>I could rant on and on, but I tend to lose focus and go on tangents, thereby becoming hard to understand. So I’ll leave it at the above…</p>
<p>“Racism: racial prejudice or discrimination”
“Discrimination: a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment”
“Prejudice: a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge”</p>
<p>Sorry, I guess i don’t quite understand what you mean?
Sure, everyone’s a little bid racist sometimes, we all make racist jokes and what not, but discriminating people purely based on race in the work force, education, and housing is NOT OK in my book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Woah woah woah there, stop insinuating that we’re a bunch of insecure fools who dwell endlessly in the sea of political correctness. “I’m a man of the people […] I know more than you because i’m not afraid to reach a scary conclusion”? A bid of unwarranted self importance much? </p>
<p>I respect YOUR opinion, but I completely disagree with it.</p>
<p>The point is not to have some racial quota that enforce a false facade of diversity, the point is to provide people with (restrictively more) equal opportunities. Of course, some people will always be more equal than others, but thats not a reason to stop striving for a more “just” admissions process.</p>
What I’ve been doing is more applicable to the first definition, not the second. Not much wrong with the first; we do it everyday in all kinds of situations. </p>
<p>
I’ve been doing neither. </p>
<p>
When they say discrimination here, they mean the second definition of discrimination (prejudiced outlook…). My definition of racism is: “a belief in the superiority of a particular race” (Oxford English Dictionary by the way, so you know it’s right). How am I a racist in that regard? That’s right I’m not. </p>
<p>
Again, by the definition to discriminate is “make or see a distinction; differentiate” (again the OED). You discriminate between candidates when you interview to see which one is better. You discriminate when you select one car over another. You discriminate when your company recruits at MIT but not Oakland Community College. </p>
<p>
And you know this how? Race-based AA also benefits the wealthy black guy who has had more opportunities than some middle class white kid. That kind of disproves your point, unless you think being black/Hispanic in America is a significant burden in its own right, regardless of class. </p>
<p>I don’t want a strict quota btw. I think there is some room for flexibility.</p>
Bro why don’t you reread my post? I agree with you here, in case you still can’t wrap your mind around what I say. </p>
<p>
Not only are did you completely misinterpret me with the “studious students” part, but you are vastly oversimplifying for the “affluent” parts. You are missing lots of details. </p>
<p>
Exactly! So why should Asians, a minority race in America (5% of population), take up half of the spots in a university? Is that a true representation of America? No. Yes there are towns like that in America, but would you think “man, this is a true American town” when driving through one of those? No. You’ll think you’re in Asia. </p>
<p>Hence why I do not support racially based AA. A “just” admission process to me would take into account the opportunities that each individuals were afforded in life, and how well did they take advantages of it. </p>
<p>
The first case you are discriminating based on ability, second case you are discriminating based on brand, third case, you are again discriminating based on an assumption of ability. (If you want to stretch that logic of assumption of ability, then it would be more advantageous for colleges to get more asians, who are statistically more successful academically than other races, not saying I support that at all.)</p>
<p>Discrimination purely based on race, ie, when a black guy applies to buy a house in a certain area and gets denied, and later a white guy with the same background applies and is approved, or when companies systematically takes members of a certain race over others even though the others might be more qualified for the job.
Again, purely racial discrimination, is racism. You believe that a member of a certain race is superior to another only through the judgement of their race. (otherwise, why would you choose one over the other?)</p>
<p>Racial quotas is racism. AA is racism. However, whether or not it’s justified is debatable.</p>
Would the Twilight directors be racist if they called for only whites to audition for Edward’s role? Or were the Gran Torino directors being racist when they only cast Asians instead of blacks or whites to play the Asian gang roles? Am I a racist for wanting to keep members of all races in check at American universities? </p>
<p>These are all cases of discriminating based on race. I could think of many more examples. All would have generally valid motives for the discrimination. By discriminating races you acknowledge that races are different, not necessarily superior or inferior to others. </p>
<p>
No it’s not. AA does not recognize or infer that one race is superior or inferior to another. In no way does it do that.</p>
<p>Casting roles is very different from a university admissions process. By placing an analogy between these two events, you are assuming that a university SHOULD have the exact representation of the American population, that they should “cast” members of different races to fill their respective “roles” on the university. Using that to prove your point is circular logic (your assumption is your point of contention.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AA is racism because it give the opportunity of going to a top school to a different person purely based on their race. Denying opportunities to people purely based on their race is racism. </p>
<p>By the way, I think you are confusing racial chauvinism/racial bigotry with institutional racism. </p>
<p>By denying certain sects of society opportunity purely based on the premise of their race, you are committing an act of racism.</p>
<p>URM are not just underrepresented in colleges; they are also URMs in America as a whole, from the medical field to the engineering field. AA guarantees to increase the representation of these minorities in higher levels of education, career, etc. Yeah, that sounds totally racist. How dare they strive for a multicultural atmosphere!</p>
<p>Your argument sounds extremely narrow-minded. Stanford is among the best universities in America; I suppose you believe that they endorse racism? That they don’t have the thinking capability to understand what AA is and does for a society? Why would you want to apply to a college that supports racism, anyway? There are plenty of other prestigious, public universities that will suffice to your demands. </p>
<p>They aren’t denying Asians the chance to go to their college; in fact, over 20% of their student body comprises of Asian, more than African-Americans or Hispanics combined. God forbid Stanford enrolls their usual ~130 African Americans into their class this year, right?</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence cannot be used to prove a point. </p>
<p>If there is not an equal opportunity for people of all races if we control for every other factors, then thats racism. (institutional racism, by definition)</p>
<p>Whether or not its justified or not is another matter. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said they were not completely justified in reverse discrimination policies, I merely stated that there are probably better ways to make admissions process more just since the current system unfairly benefits minorities of upper class backgrounds.</p>
<p>Go look up the definition of institutional racism, and tell me AA is not racist.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not trying to insinuate that Stanford, or any of the other major universities practicing AA is racially bigotry towards certain races, I’m only stating the fact that what they are doing is considered institutional racism under the textbook definition.</p>
<p>Now whether or not its justified or not should be debated. I actually think it is a good thing to have a diversified campus, but at what cost? As a economist would say, we must balance the marginal cost of AA against the marginal benefit of a diverse campus.</p>
<p>I very much believe so too. Sorry if my previous post implied otherwise----I was trying to pose the question to Senior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So much for criticizing me for being easily offended! Good thing you ended up at Stanford, or else you would’ve been very, very unhappy attending any one of the countless universities in this country that has such outrageously disproportionate representation of races among their student body. (“School that’s 40% black? Jeez, who would wanna go there?!” :rolleyes:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…“Un-diversifying”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>freezingbeast already had, in ways much more concise and elegant than anything that I can ever manage. By the way, when did I say you were “racist” ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the reality is that things often do turn into racist remarks when you begin to discriminate based on race, as testified by so many posts in this very thread. And often this happens without the conscious intention of the person making the statement, which is what I was referring to before as “creepy”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You advocate for affirmative action but seem to have failed to grasp one reasonable asset of this policy which admission officers and AA supporters use in defense of the practice. Why is it so important to have a representation of all ethnicities at a given academic institution? Because it gives its own students the chance to interact with peers of all backgrounds, cultures, and experiences so as to expand their comfort level communicating and accepting those who have different upbringing, to challenge their perceptions about other groups, and to better prepare them for entry into society. (And yes, I can cite quite a few examples where this argument was used.) </p>
<p>Following this idea, then it becomes imperative that adcom admits low-income students who lack “class” (and I still don’t know what kind of “class” this is----can you better define it?) precisely for the purpose of exposing you to a quality that you’re not comfortable with. How else are you going to become more open-minded in your perception of socioeconomically disadvantaged class, whom you’re definitely going to have to work with in real life no matter what you do after graduation, when all you want to do is enclosed yourself in your ideal sphere of 1% Native American, 16% Asian, 8% black, 18% Hispanic, 32% White, all upper-class?</p>
<p>Okay, okay, you’ve already professed so many times that you don’t believe in this stuff in the first place. For you, URMs are given an admission boast solely because of physical factor of the color of their skin, to ensure that the ethnic make-up of the campus remains acceptable (I can cite your posts if you want)----in your words, if I remember correctly, for “aesthetic” purposes. Of course, no admissions officer admits that AA is for the “aesthetic” reason you’ve mentioned over and over again, so either this doesn’t happen, or you’re saying that Asians with similar stats to their URM peers are denied admission because admission officers are uncomfortable with the concept of their university harboring too large of an Asian population, that should the Asian be black or Hispanic with the same qualifications, he or she would immediately have much better chances. Yes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing in your posts even remotely suggests that you know more. On the contrary, you seem as clueless about what really goes on behind the closed doors of the admissions office as I am and have to resort to assumptions to make up for your lack of information. But I do both admire your audacity to embrace such bleak view of college admissions and lament your inability to believe in the better, that perhaps admission officers do actually try to judge each applicant holistically as an individual by looking at his circumstances.</p>
?</p>