Want diversity w/o Affirmative Action? Don't rely on the SAT

Parents Forum
261

<p>Once again, fabrizio, your comparison is inappropriate. Completely different populations applying to U.C. and to the Ivies. Two different categories of institutions, as well: public vs. private. It is also fundamentally intellectually dishonest (which D keeps telling you) to throw around loosely a <em>legal</em> term which is "discrimination." To meet that standard, it must be systematic; it must be limited to a group or certain groups; it must be comprehensive; there must be a pattern. The fact that thousands of Asians are admitted to private Elites every year, many with accomplishments equal to & superior to Jian Li (for example) reinforces how non-discriminatory the Elites are in the legal definition. There are also Asians less accomplished than students like Jian Li, who are admitted. Some of those are East Asian, some southeast Asian. Some of those southeast Asians have only the same stats as some blacks & Hispanics have, who are admitted.</p>

<p>Even college admissions websites often say this: There is no minimum qualification for acceptance to our school. There is also no guarantee of acceptance to our school, based on past statistics at our college. We do not rank or prioritize certain aspects of the application, beyond saying that the single most important feature is the quality of the high school transcript in grades and in content. No candidate is admitted on one element alone. Admissions to our college is highly competitve. (Those are all paraphrases, but I have found them expressed in one way or another on the combined websites of Elite colleges.)</p>

<p>These are also ways of saying, 'Do not count on admission to our college, whatever your record, because there are many students with records similar to yours.' But CC students do not want to accept those messages. They'd rather find scapegoats like AA, rather than recognizing that they've been beaten by factors having nothing to do with AA. </p>

<p>It amazes me that some of you continue to thrash about against institutions which may not have accepted you even without AA. It also amazes me that you continue to fight a losing battle, and that you talk to people on CC who are not power-brokers in changing such policies. I never hear you talk about a letter-writing campaign to the Ivies, to complain about their AA policies.</p>

<p>On another thread awhile ago, I proposed that those with strong feelings about how application elements should be rank-ordered, should start their own colleges. Impractical, said fabrizio. Really? Well, the all-black panel on CSpan2 came close to proposing just that, and there's a lot less combined wealth in the black population than in the Asian-American population. They were proposing K-12 institutions, and by implication the possibility of higher institutions with a black focus, for different reasons than admissions. They were proposing them for cultural reasons. Again, I don't agree with all of the proposals. But the point was, to be in control of those institutions: that was the goal. </p>

<p>You are not, and will not be, in control of admissions policies at Elites. It's doubtful that you will be so in time for your own children's college education. But the free enterprise opportunities in this country allow anyone to begin a private institution with his or her own priorities in mind. If those end up being 90% Asian in enrollment, you will not be accused of discrimination (surprise!) as long as, just as with the Elites, all groups are allowed to apply and compete. </p>

<p>My children do not want to go to schools which are 47% local Asian or 90% Asian, or even 90% white -- if there's an option for more variety. They really don't. They value diversity, just because they live among diversity & like it. I don't have to make speeches about it or advocate for it. It's what they know. They don't feel by attending elite institutions which are also diverse, that they are somehow sacrificing excellence. </p>

<p>Similarly, lots of black students don't wish to attend mostly black colleges. Whatever their individual backgrounds are, many of them similarly want more ethnically diverse environments & believe such environments more closely resemble the real world in which they will be working and living. But I'm glad that there are the options of more black-centered institutions for those who choose that. </p>

<p>So start your own college already.</p>

<p>[correction: there's a lot less wealth in the U.S. black population among those who would be highly interested in using large sums of it to fund higher institutions -- right now -- than is true for the Asian-American population, right now.]</p>

262

<p>
[quote]

Denying the use of MLK's words for the support of an anti-AA position is like denying the use of Jefferson's words for the support of an anti-freedom position.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Along this reasoning, I, an American born to two Chinese nationals, am not allowed to quote the ideal of the colorblind Constitution from Justice John Marshall Harlan to argue for equal treatment for Chinese Americans because Harlan believed that Chinese could never be full American citizens.</p>

<p>
[quote]

To reach this dream, MLK supported an effort of the government to correct the wrongs done to blacks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yup, he surely did. But, you’re being purposefully vague. I also support efforts from our government to correct the wrongs done to blacks. To you, these efforts involve preferential treatment and a conscious scrutinizing of melanin levels. To me, these efforts involve equal treatment without regard to race, which is no easy feat.</p>

263

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>By using the Chinese as an example, Justice Harlan was indeed pointing out the ridiculousness of Plessy. I agree with you on that one.</p>

<p>You’re ignoring, however, that he also described the Chinese race as being “so different from [the white race]” that they were not allowed to become citizens.</p>

<p>His primary position was a colorblind Constitution. I agree with his primary position even though he viewed my race as being irreparably different from his.</p>

<p>Oh, and are you going to acknowledge that I have consistently stated that I disagree with Dr. King on how best to reach the dream, or are you going to keep being disingenuous?</p>

264

<p>Stickershock,</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know people who are so self-conscious about their own deep seated racial biases that they are afraid to use skin color as a neutral physical characteristic when describing someone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don’t mind using white, black, or even yellow to describe people when necessary, like in the example you mentioned. (I avoid African-American because to me, it’s just pure political correctness.)</p>

<p>When necessary is really the key phrase here. Many times, it’s not necessary to ask for race, for example, when taking applying to a university or a job. However, there are appropriate times, like finding suspects.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.discriminations.us/2007/07/colorblindness_comes_to_michig.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.discriminations.us/2007/07/colorblindness_comes_to_michig.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The Michigan Daily described two suspects as “[having] average build, about six feet tall and wearing black hooded sweatshirts with the hoods up.”</p>

<p>The Michigan Review described these same suspects using the Department of Public Safety’s language, as follows:</p>

<h1>1: Black male, 6'2", medium build and clean-shaven, wearing a black-hooded sweatshirt with hood up and dark pants.</h1>

<h1>2: Black male, 6'0", medium build, wearing a black-hooded sweatshirt with hood up.</h1>

<p>The Review joked that at the Daily, “skin color is central to college admissions, but not relevant to armed robberies.”</p>

<p>Lest some liberal castigate me for “blaming the victim,” I affirm the importance of using race when necessary by using my own race as an example. Had these suspects been Asian males, I would be supportive of describing them as Asian males in order to reduce suspects and aid law enforcement.</p>

<p>My opinion on the use of race thus is the reverse of the Daily’s. I believe skin color is not relevant to college admissions but central to armed robberies and other crimes.</p>

265

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>
[quote]

It also amazes me that you continue to fight a losing battle… I never hear you talk about a letter-writing campaign to the Ivies, to complain about their AA policies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Both you and Drosselmeier are eager to depict me as a person who is all talk and no action.</p>

<p>That’s your right. And, it’s my right to respond to your false allegations.</p>

<p>First, I find it absolutely comical that you say I am “fight[ing] a losing battle.” In fact, comical is not strong enough of a word to describe my feeling on your choice of words. I would like to remind you of a two things, as follows:</p>

<ol>
<li> Last November, Proposal 2 passed 58/42.</li>
<li> According to the Pew survey, Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes, “there continues to be widespread opposition to granting minorities ‘preferential treatment…’” and “…most Americans reject racial preferences.” So much for this mysterious nonexistent “losing battle” you think is the reality. (Do pigs fly in this reality?)</li>
</ol>

<p>(Before making these revelations, the survey touts that most Americans are now for affirmative action. They’re just against racial preferences. Go figure. Guess you never thought that you would be in the minority? Welcome!)</p>

<p>When I learned of Jian Li’s civil rights complaint, I, along with many other concerned students, wrote e-mails to Ms. Cass Cliatt since she claimed that if there were sufficient public interest, then Princeton would reveal the statistics breaking down admission based on race. She actually accused us of all being “in” on a letter-campaign and responded with an eloquent and protracted “no.”</p>

<p>Allow me to repeat myself. I wrote an e-mail to Ms. Cliatt about my concern regarding Jian Li’s complaint. She distanced herself from her prior statement.</p>

<p>I actually accepted your advice about diversifying (love that word) my college list. And, I was rewarded with a 100% acceptance rate and a scholarship interview to a great LAC. Please do not group with me this “CC students” group. Though I was beaten for other scholarships, I hold no grudges against any race. I acknowledge that other candidates were stronger. Now, I’m just interested in strengthening myself. No bitterness, just eagerness to improve.</p>

<p>I do not view affirmative action as a scapegoat. As mentioned above, I was accepted to all the colleges I applied to. It’s offensive for you to suggest that I dislike affirmative action for such a petty thing as a rejection, even more so given that I had no rejections.</p>

266

<p>No. You made it clear in other posts that you were not applying to some of the schools which you criticize for their admissions policies. However, you have indeed been waging a CC campaign about this which is out of proportion both to the efficacy of such a campaign AND the importance of AA in admissions decisions, which mathematically speaking is insignificant relative to the admissions pool, all races combined. You've mentioned that you continue to post about the issue, out of "principle." But what I'm telling you is that this principle is insignificant as it impacts the multi-faceted aspects of admissions at Elites, & that therefore the level/frequency of debate about it on CC is hugely disproportionate to its practical weight.</p>

267

<p>People can have opinions on politial and social issues without them being a result of direct personal experience; however the reality of personal experience over time can certainly shape one's opinion.</p>

268

<p>^^I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the level of supposed outrage & passion & number of words which are all disproportionate to the real, actual effect of AA on students who are <em>truly</em> <em>exceptional</em>. Those students are not affected by AA. And the highly accomplished are far more impacted by other highly accomplished students than by AA students.</p>

<p>For example, when Rachel Toor detailed the process at Duke, the highly accomplished white students were affected not by AA policies but mostly by this: the over-the-top-fabulous students that the BWRK's could not touch. The former were stand-outs in ways that were not limited to scores & GPA's. They had unusual, highly advanced e.c.'s, research, publications, and triumphs over extreme challenges. There was another segment that for RT were reluctant admits that she obviously resented: the hooked <em>majority race</em> candidates who were big donors, whose parent was in some influential position, the recruited athletes esp. those for a sport that Duke was interested in promoting, etc. She hardly whined on & on about AA. That's not where the action was several years ago when she wrote her book; it's not where the action is today. The competition is not between majority & minority races. It's about accomplishment, in ways the Universities are defining, not in ways that cc students & parents (some) are defining.</p>

269

<p>
[quote]
Along this reasoning, I, an American born to two Chinese nationals, am not allowed to quote the ideal of the colorblind Constitution from Justice John Marshall Harlan to argue for equal treatment for Chinese Americans because Harlan believed that Chinese could never be full American citizens.

[/quote]
False. You are not allowed to claim Harlan believed that the Chinese could never be full citizens by use of his assault on Plessy.</p>

<p>Harlan was clearly stating the status quo, the prevailing American view of the Chinese at the time, and not particularly his own view, this, to show the foolishness of the law then before the Court. You may use his comment re: a color-blind constitution if you wish, but if you are going to attach Harlan to those comments, you ought to have enough knowledge of history and integrity to understand the issues involved where he was concerned. You ought not misrepresent the man as you have.</p>

<p>
[quote]
By using the Chinese as an example, Justice Harlan was indeed pointing out the ridiculousness of Plessy. I agree with you on that one. You’re ignoring, however, that he also described the Chinese race as being “so different from [the white race]” that they were not allowed to become citizens.

[/quote]
False. I ignore not a blooming thing here. Please listen to me, son, and do not allow the apparent sting of Harlan's words to distract you from his brilliant assault. Imagine the self-destruction that would have ensued had he said </p>

<p>There is a race much like our own and that we should also permit to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to this race are now excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race.</p>

<p>Had he done this, his entire assault of Plessy would have vanished into thin air. What Harlan did was show the inconsistency between the treatment of the Chinese in popular culture and in law. And he used this inconsistency to underscore how Plessy would only create more inconsistency when it comes to blacks. It was a matter of fact that American movers and shakers saw the Chinese as so different they could not be citizens, and yet they were not forcing Chinese by law into segregation. Harlan merely stated this fact to exploit it.</p>

<ol>
<li>Our country obviously agrees that Chinese are so different that our law does not allow them to be citizens.</li>
<li>Yet we do not force the Chinese into legal segregation.</li>
<li>Blacks have fought and died, unlike the Chinese, to help keep our country.</li>
<li>Blacks are also citizens.</li>
<li>So, how can we, through Plessy, force upon blacks something we do not force upon the Chinese?</li>
</ol>

<p>Harlan was simply playing with the racist assumptions of the time to assault Plessy. He may have detested the Chinese. He may have had no hostility at all toward them, but simply assumed that Chinese would eventually become citizens (which did happen). But his aim with Plessy was not to assault Chinese, but to exploit the admitted status quo to destroy Plessy. You abuse the man when you destroy the history that governs the meaning of his words.</p>

270

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>You say “preference” is both inaccurate and insincere. Yet, former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor used the phrases “racial preferences” and “preferential treatment” in her concurring opinion in Grutter. What’s more, the Pew survey itself used those phrases. I’m quoted from the survey and used their language. (For reference, the survey is titled Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987 – 2007.)</p>

<p>You also say that the 27% figure is non-contextualized. Yet, the survey clearly places it in context. 27% is the number of whites who believe that “We should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving preferential treatment.” As a whole, 62% of all Americans surveyed disagreed with that statement.</p>

<p>You have made a slight but important mistake in summing some of my previous posts. I applied to no schools in the Northeast or on the West coast (i.e. the very ones you claim that Asian students have difficulty looking beyond.) Two of the schools I applied to claim not to use race in their evaluations. One of the schools is a known advocate of diversity and does use race in its review. The fourth is a liberal arts college where Asian enrollment is less than the “proportional representation figure”; they also consider race. I do thank you for your advice because it did help me. I simply request that you not group with me this “CC students” group.</p>

271

<p>Drosselmeier, I'm going to let you deal with that ^^. (If you care to -- the 27% and the concept of "preference".) Fabrizio PM'ed me about this, & I told him to bring it to the thread. All I know is that I've seen surveys & polls wherein Americans in the majority do support the concept of enrollment decisions & academic recruitment with a goal of ethnic diversity. But I also told him I wouldn't care if I <em>were</em> among "only" 27%, even though I don't buy the same uncontextualized use of data.</p>

272

<p>It's instructive to see what happened under a color-blind admissions scheme at the flagship UC:</p>

<p>
[quote]
It was a self-described crisis. In the fall of 2006, only 103 black students said they planned to enroll as freshmen at the University of California-Los Angeles. That's the lowest black enrollment in 30 years—just 2 percent of the flagship public university's incoming class of about 4,800 first-year students. "We were devastated, and that was an understatement," says Janina Montero, vice chancellor for student affairs at UCLA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So they shifted treatment that I suppose could be labeled preferential from the admission-decision front to getting more applicants into the pool and to getting accepted African-American students to enroll. </p>

<p>
[quote]
UCLA created an African American Student Enrollment Task Force that conducted phone-a-thons to reach prospective students in California. The school's Black Alumni Association gathered donations to fly in and host 50 black students, who had been admitted to UCLA but had not yet enrolled, for a whirlwind weekend of campus activities. Private organizations raised more than $1.75 million, enough to give every black student who enrolled for this fall at least a $1,000 grant.</p>

<p>Finally, the school implemented a new admissions process, called holistic review, in which each application is read in its entirety by one person, rather than having sections reviewed by different people. This change complemented the university's six-year-old comprehensive review policy that considers test scores and grade-point averages in light of students' life experiences and special circumstances.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The choice seems pretty stark: if a college were truly color-blind in every way, it would exclude African-Americans and Latinos in large numbers, and perpetuate the types of inequality that make recruiting, admitting, and enrolling highly qualified URMs such a challenge to begin with. If you want to have a racially diverse campus in a society where access to quality education is unequal along racial fault lines, you have to have admissions policies that take race into consideration, spend a lot of money on recruiting minorities, and/or adopt policies that are color blind, but which give a boost to certain groups anyway (de-emphasizing SATs or the Texas 10% rule). </p>

<p>I'm all for colleges using all of these strategies, but it's easy to see the appeal of the last route in the current climate.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070527/4ucla.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070527/4ucla.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

273

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>First, are you going to acknowledge that I’ve consistently stated my disagreement with Dr. King on several issues, or are you going to continue to depict me as a guy who has never admitted this?</p>

<p>Now, in his dissent, I believe that Justice Harlan mentioned the status of the Chinese to demonstrate the gaping weakness in the majority opinion. I agree with you.</p>

<p>In addition, his sentence * There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States* was indeed the majority viewpoint across the United States in the late nineteenth century.</p>

<p>In order to quote his ideal of the colorblind Constitution, do I also need to agree with him that the Chinese are “so different” from whites? I don’t think so, but you’ve been suggesting that I do.</p>

<p>Justice Harlan’s words don’t sting. He wrote from a different time, and our mores have changed since then. Even though there are still some (e.g. at least one user who has posted on this thread) who have highly Eurocentric and Orientalist views toward China, our country is now open to Chinese, and they are able to become citizens if they fulfill the requirements.</p>

274

<p>
[quote]
All I know is that I've seen surveys & polls wherein Americans in the majority do support the concept of enrollment decisions & academic recruitment with a goal of ethnic diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That’s too vague.</p>

<p>In the survey I cited from, which I doubt you’ll check out because of its implications, it states that “Currently, 70% say they favor affirmative action programs, up from 58% in 1995.”</p>

<p>An overwhelming majority of Americans favor “affirmative action programs.” When probed on just how these programs work, though, Pew found that most Americans are opposed to racial preferences. For the record, Pew themselves used the phrase “racial preference.” Though you may think that they originally used something like “race-conscious admissions” or “inclusion,” they did not.</p>

<p>As a sidenote, it’s interesting to see how the individual political philosophies of the Justices in Grutter manifested themselves in word choice.</p>

<p>Justice O’Connor, a moderate jurist, used “racial preferences” and “preferential treatment.” She did not view either term as “insincere” or “inaccurate.” Indeed, she quoted the opinion of Justice Powell in Bakke: “We acknowledge that ‘there are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself.’”</p>

<p>Chief Justice Rehnquist, a conservative jurist, wrote “Our previous cases have required some limit on the duration of programs such as this because discrimination on the basis of race is invidious” in his dissent.</p>

<p>Justice Ginsburg, a liberal jurist, used “race-conscious programs” in her concurring opinion.</p>

<p>Justice Scalia, a conservative jurist, used “racial discrimination” in his opinion.</p>

<p>Justice Thomas, a conservative jurist, also used “racial discrimination” in his opinion.</p>

<p>Justice Kennedy, a moderate jurist, used “race-based preference” in his dissent.</p>

<p>Thus, of all the Justices’ opinions, only Ginsburg and Breyer agreed that “race-conscious programs” were more accurate than “racial preferences.”</p>

<p>I defer to the Justices of our Supreme Court when deciding whether “racial preference” is appropriate. They have clearly stated that it is.</p>

275

<p>MarathonMan88,</p>

<p>You used UCLA as an example.</p>

<p>Both UCLA and Berkeley saw decreased “under-represented” minority enrollment in the wake of Proposition 209. Riverside, however, experienced a 240% increase in black admissions. The overall number of “under-represented” minorities in the entire system is now higher than it was before. Blacks and Latinos are not being excluded in large numbers from the UC system.</p>

<p>Indeed, the only way to guarantee a “racially diverse” campus is to use racial preferences. All other forms, such as socioeconomic affirmative action, can’t guarantee this “racial diversity.”</p>

276

<p>So all these justices ^^ were specifically talking about policies at private U.S. elite colleges and how those colleges supposedly practiced "preferences" and how bad that is? (The Bakke decision was u.c., not a private. And he was not "more qualified," either -- it was later discovered.) Again, if something truly discriminatory in the legal sense, not in the undisciplined emotional & inaccurate sense, were going on at the nation's highest educational institutions, you don't think the full force of the law would come down on HYP?</p>

<p>Bottom line: it's deemed "discriminatory" when 100% of one ethnic group who applies does not succeed in getting in, or when 100% of students which OTHER STUDENTS BELIEVE deserve admission, do not get in. Again, when you get your Ph.D. in Education or some other field, and open your own University, or alternatively become a major decision-maker at a U., then you can start making <em>informed</em> decisions about who, given that you've seen ALL THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATIONS in any admissions rounds, not just the Asian ones, not just the "high-scoring" ones, is and is not qualified to enroll in your University. Just remember two things: </p>

<p>(1) at a private institution, you will be answerable to a Board, who will expect certain things out of you, one of which will be receptivity to the idea that we are a diverse nation that does not give an arbitrary weight to a test score, any more than we give an arbitrary weight to a race or ethnicity. Neither is arbitrary; both are relative.
(2) Even students who "qualify" by the standards you are free to set, may choose to reject your acceptance if the environment is too homogeneous for their liking -- in any way that 'homogeneous' applies. For example, lots of math/science majors choose not to matriculate to CalTech or MIT, though accepted there. (Some choose not even to apply to such institutions, wanting greater ACADEMIC diversity.)</p>

<p>Anyway, good luck with trying to reconstruct the American college system in your own image, fabrizio. That's a tall task.</p>

277

<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier, I'm going to let you deal with that ^^. (If you care to -- the 27% and the concept of "preference".)

[/quote]
Well, I am not sure of any of this because when terms like "preference" are thrown around without a lot of consideration for history, even blacks turn against programs for "Preferential Treatment". In other cases, the tables are turned:</p>

<p>Divides on some once-contentious issues also **appear to be closing. In 1995, 58% said they favored affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better jobs. That percentage has risen steadily since, and stands at **70% in the current poll. Gains in support for affirmative action have occurred to almost the same extent among Republicans (+8), Democrats (+10), and Independents (+14).
<a href="http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So, I strongly suspect your view is correct.</p>

278

<p>Affirmative Action is often meant to refer to programs to enlarge the pool of applicants to include URM's. Few people object to these. “Racial preferences” is not a term of art and means what it says. Attempting to infer widespread support for racial preferences from support for "Affirmative Action" is totally disingenuous.</p>

279

<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier, I know people who are so self-conscious about their own deep seated racial biases that they are afraid to use skin color as a neutral physical characteristic when describing someone. It's ridiculous. If five short, blonde, white women wearing blue dresses were chatting with one short black woman named Sue who was also wearing a blue dress, the obvious characteristic that would distinguish Sue is her skin color. How silly to point out her footwear or sunglasses as a means of identifying her.

[/quote]
Well, it is ridiculous, but to be fair, many who try to sidestep race do so because they are wrestling with the issue for the first time and do not yet know how to deal with it. I have found it helpful to help such people relax by a variety of means, not the least of which is just admitting the obvious relative differences in skin color between certain individuals. I have said "No. Its the black girl", and when these people show the slightest discomfort, I might say, "Well, were she a freckled skinned redhead, I would have said 'She's the one with the freckled skin.'. In this case, she has dark skin compared with all the others, so I went for that.". The person usually lightens up and there is no problem. We can go on and on about all this nonsense of not mentioning race, except when necessary, but sometimes it is not necessary, but still helpful. In the cases mentioned here, mentioning race is helpful. So, just do it. Other times mentioning race may not be necessary, but its can be fun. I have a kid whose skin turns positively golden when it gets sun. When it happens his hair turns from its typical light-brown to nearly blond so that his skin and hair are the same color. His hair is straight, but we keep it fairly short. On the beach, whites, blacks, even a few Asians, are always fawning over this kid because he looks pretty different. I have had white women come over and play with the kid for hours, and I've joked about how they've gone on and on about my kid's skin color while overlooking my glorious Boring Brown skin. When this happened, one very white woman falsely lamentated about how her friend gets a golden tan, but how she has my problem, except with Boring Whiteness that does not tan easily. The conversation perhaps moved from there to discussions on skin-cancer, to medical discoveries, to all sorts of other things until no one even thought about overlooking anything. No need for all this total nonsense here.</p>

280

<p>A serious question that is related to OP's post is: what will happen after either court decisions or legislation ban racial preferences nationally? I suggest a couple of things. First, there will be enormous and justifiable pressure to eliminate legacy preferences. Second, there will be a tendency, particularly for state institutions, to adopt programs like the 10% rule. This is true, in part, because the 10% rule has other constituencies besides tradtitional URM's, specifically the representatives of rural areas that find their students under-represented at state flagship U's.</p>