<p>I'm third generation Japanese-American, my husband was first generation Argentine-American. His last is name Spanish in origin but is not often associated as Latino. My older D has a Spanish first name and looks like the hybred she is, people think she's 'something' but can't quite put their finger on what. My younger D has a Japanese first name and looks more Asian than I do. According to QG's assertion, my first D offers more URM diversity because her looks and name are Latino while my younger D is just another Asian. There's a disconnect here somewhere.</p>
<p>I agree, entomom. But it's a disconnect in the system and in America. But it is what it is.</p>
<p>No, the disconnect is what idmom and xiggi have both been trying to tell you, that you are basing your idea of diversity on outer appearances and racial stereotypes. You stated that clearly in your post #49 about dark haired Latinos contributing more to diversity than fair skinned ones. The system didn't say that, and America didn't say that, you did. The only way I can interpret your post is, it is what it is.</p>
<p>(we went to college together) is NA. 100% Navajo -- born and raised on the res, as was her husband and their children -- except for the year they spent in New York while she was in graduate school (she is a nurse practitioner in her community). The hook thing wasn't an issue back in the day, but it is now and they all find it really offensive when people claim the minute drops of blood because actually living on the res is HARD and climbing out to get competitive stats is like crawling up a mountain with someone's foot on your head.</p>
<p>I don't disagree with you there zoosermom. </p>
<p>I'd like to see more attention and money to educational issues as well as college recruiting on reservation ...and more mentoring by those who are successful off reservation. Families should not be penalized with poor educational choices for making a choice to live immersed in their culture on reservation. And for some, living off is such a culture shock that it harder to live off than on.</p>
<p>It's a tough choice for kids like my D. She is not one of those with minute drops, but she would never check the NA box because she does feel like she will be criticized for taking advantage of those who have it much worse than her. But she is proud of who she is and of her ancestry...she doesn't want to be accused of denying that ancestry either. So I guess...keep quiet about it sometimes, talk about it other times.</p>
<p>I'm not your d., but if I was, I would take advantage of every last "drop" I had. It's not like they set it up for anyone's benefit but that of wealthy white folks, but if I were to get a side benefit of admission as a result, so much the better. </p>
<p>It isn't like it hasn't been paid for, many times over, in previous generations.</p>
<p>From the Harvard Crimson:</p>
<p>Native Americans Question Admissions
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505609%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505609</a></p>
<p>Issues of Identity
Harvard should require proof from Native American applicants
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506501%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506501</a></p>
<p>I might be wrong, but didn't most Native American Indian tribes become extinct a long time ago with no written records?</p>
<p>I am a Penobscott Indian and we can trace our ancestry back for 500 years through our baptism records. I am positive that many other tribes can do this also. We are not extinct. We ae a minority.</p>
<p>Kono- There are over 550 federally recognized tribes in the US and several hundred state or unrecognized tribes. So no, tribes are not extinct. And the US government has kept records of many tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs so there are definately written records.</p>
<p>do we really still have a "Bureau of Indian Affairs?!" I'd think it would have a more PC name now...</p>
<p>Yes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is under the Dept. of the Interior, which is also where fish and game, etc is located.</p>
<p>It used to be under the "War Department", so I guess this move is a step up the ladder...</p>
<p>I guess what we don't like is when someone "pretends" to be something to have an admission edge. What Affirmative action should be about is helping the disadvantaged student. But how do we pick those students? We know that an "advantaged" student has an edge on the SAT. So what is the logical conclusion?</p>
<p>Many lawmakers in Florida and Texas saw the answer to be socioeconomic, and not race based. By assuring the top of the class acceptance to State U's they hoped to counterbalance advantages and disadvantages in a general way. UT has a higher minority population now than when it had AA policies due to this assurance of acceptance. I don't think this situation can be micromanaged for each individual student. It is impossible to even define who can and cannot call themselves a minority. </p>
<p>Pertaining to the above poster and extinct indian tribes. Please Google for what this definition is. You will find that the definition of "extinct tribe" has a meaning that is likely different from your own.</p>
<p>At the elite schools, the biggest group of kids who get in that would not get in based purely on merit are white males. Without class makeup engineering, these schools would be what? 40% Asian and 65% female?</p>
<p>kono and david - If you have been to or lived in the southwest, you will certainly find that native americans are anything but extinct. Many still live on reservations in real poverty. But there are NA descendants all over the country. I met many in northern Georgia, for example. Yes they drove a car and watched TV. But they also spoke Cherokee, had the traditions and often the values of their ancestors still firmly stamped on the family. </p>
<p>In the mid-1800's, the US government forced many tribes to take a census so that the US could properly identify who they were herding from the Southeast to the West, in what is called the Trail of Tears. In genealogical terms, if your ancestor doesn't appear on that roll, you're not a member of the NA tribes subject to the census.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that too many people have "anecdotal" ancestry. Some great great aunt assumes some relative was NA, that story gets passed down, and pretty soon it becomes family lore that "oh, yes, we're part Indian". In genealogy we have this problem all the time, and it's driving genealogists crazy, because when you research the family, you find that the so-called NA ancestor merely lived near the Choctaw, or "dressed funny" (according to the views of some starched-up 1870's relative). I suspect many of the NA claimers are from this group.</p>
<p>But as for the Harvard article: How can the Harvard person say they don't use NA status for anything but finding out about a person, while at the same time claiming they are actively trying to recruit NA's ? I didn't think logic was at such a premium that this individual couldn't find some.</p>
<p>So are elite schools giving admission to those who just say that they are native american without the schools even checking in some way? Don't the schools want to reserve spaces for those who are truly disadvantaged. Instead of giving help to disadvantaged students, are these schools giving help to advantaged students that lie?</p>
<p>I was pondering this very same thing after my visit to Dartmouth. I met so many people who checked the Native American box who obviously did not connect with the culture/lived in large cities and brought no diversity to campus. But i also met many "real" native americans who came from reservations/villages. I can tell you that adcoms are not stupid and they are going to know who is going to bring in diversity. I myself am an Alaskan Native (Athabascan) living in Wasilla Alaska, I applied to Dartmouth because they brought a recruiter to Alaska telling us about the amazing oppurtunities.</p>
<p>Being a Native American i find it selfish that people would claim to be a Native American when they dont connect at all with the culture. I am just curious if the college actually put these "imposters" on their diversity rankings. If they do the actual number of Native Americans in colleges is inflated.</p>
<p>I know that these elite schools know who is Native American and who isnt. The thing that worries me is if they are choosing these imposters with better stats and oppurtunities over the ones who have grown up in the reservations or villages who will bring true diversity to college. I worry that they are looking at it as "should i accept this kid from LA with perfect GPA/SATs or should we give this kid from a rural village in Kotzebue with worse GPA/SATs a chance since they will both give us +1 native american".</p>
<p>Also people where curious about joining a tribe, what i can tell you is that it is a pretty big commitment. Tribes are not looking for people who are just there to get the benefits, you need to give back to. They have tribal meetings that you need to attend and other activities. A tribe is viewed as a extended family and people are always there to help you with the same expected from you. Atleast where i am from it is not as simple as finding proof you have Native American blood and filling out a application, every application goes through a tribal meeting where the tribal government will give the final say. Hope that helped clear some things up.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini's posts on this subject. Growing up and attending school in the deep south in an extremely ethnically diverse but segregated environment, my take may be different than some of yours. At a social gathering during professional school in the early 70's one of the few out-of-state students, from NYC, expressed his surprise and distress that there were no "people of color" in our class. Unbeknownst to him, listening to his tirade was a young woman who, if her parents had taken her to the big downtown department store to get a special first day of first grade dress, would have had to use the "colored" toilet. Do her children "deserve" to check a box that may give them preference at certain colleges. I think so. Do her grandchildren? Again, I think so. Gaming the system? I don't really care. How many generations? I believe just as many generations as there are legacy generations at the various elite schools which say they now consider ethnic diversity a plus. jmho</p>
<p>So, since there will always be legacy students, we should plan on paying for past injustices...forever?</p>