<p>from poetsheart: "A white person is believed to be inherently valuable, and is seen as an individual in his own right. A black person is seen as a "social liability" who must prove that he is of value, and must do extraordinary things to merit the status of "individual".</p>
<p>If this were true, then the qualifications of URMs would actually have to be higher than other groups. I believe the original intent of AA was to give opportunities that otherwise may not have existed due to preexistent prejudice and quotas. In that regard, it is succeeding. After that, it is up to any individual, of any background, to earn respect in this world.</p>
<p>Collegialmom, I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. The reason why I said a white person is believed to be inherently valuable, and is seen as an indiviual, is because in situations in which white students are admitted to elite institutions with appreciably lower stats than some others in their peer group, they are afforded the assumption that they "have other strengths" or "his stats don't tell the whole story", or "He's not the best test taker, but is otherwise extremely capable", or "He's within the median, so there's no need to be concerned". In the aggregate of any admissions pool, there is usually a fairly wide statistical spread of grades and scores. Some will be 100 pts. or more below the median, some will be 100 pts. or more above it. If all the applicants are white, there will be little controversy over the disparities because, people assume that justifiably mitigating circumstances are probably at work in the case of the students whose stats place them in the bottom 25%. In this forum, there have been countless instances of people expressing outrage over the fact that "some black kid" that they know got into XYZ elite school with an SAT score 150 pts lower than a white kid they know. It never occurs to them that more white kids then black got into the same school with the same 150 pt disparity, that indeed, some of the admitted black students got in with scores in the median to high end. The lower stats are only a red flag of "injustice" if the kid attached to them is a URM. In his case, he is reduced to a statistic. He is not afforded the possibility that he is brilliant, but a weak test taker, he can't possibly have a legitimate learning disability (outside of the one many assume comes inherent in blackness) that might explain his stats. He is just an "under-qualified URM" statistic, not an individual. </p>
<p>The reason why I said that blacks must do extraordinary things in order to be seen as an individual apart from the monolith of "race" is because only the best of the best are seen are extraordinary "individuals" in their own right. People such as Oprah Winfry and Bill Cosby, for instance.</p>
<p>poetsheart: Thank you for the clarification about admissions, and I do see your point now.</p>
<p>I think that for all races, in our daily lives we see people who are extraordinary that we respect without race even being a consideration. On a more macro level, such as "famous people" there are some like Paul Newman or Bill Cosby or Bill Gates, etc who use their wealth and stature to help others with foundation money, and other contributions.</p>
<p>Then there are many movie stars, rock stars and athletes from all backgrounds who make the news for less worthy actions, such as drugs, violence, scandals, etc., and get less respect.</p>
<p>All of these people make choices, and I think that whatever level we look at, there is the opportunity to make a difference for others in a positive way. I don't think that this is dependent upon race or ethnic background. </p>
<p>I think we are all grateful to and respect individuals we come in contact with who are helpful and generous of spirit, regardless of race or ethmic background. One doesn't have to be a superstar for that.</p>
<p>There are prejudices that exist, sure, but that works in all directions.</p>