A new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that there is no reason to fear, as many do, that ending racial preferences will deter highly qualified minorities from applying to elite schools.
Comparing data from all SAT-takers in California and Texas in the 1994 to 2001 admission cohorts with administrative data from the eight University of California campuses covering 1995 to 2001, [the researches] determine that the probability that a student asks the College Board to send his SAT score to a particular campus is a good proxy for the probability that a student will apply to the same institution….
… [T]he end of affirmative action produced few changes in before-and-after score-sending behavior. There was a small, short-lived dip of less than 5 percent in the relative probability of sending scores to selective schools in both states from 1997-9, but the probabilities recovered after 1999. There was no change in behavior for highly qualified students, with the exception of high-GPA Hispanic students in California. They were significantly more likely to send their scores to the most selective University of California schools after affirmative action was abolished.
Ending racial preferences thus did not discourage talented minorities from applying to the flagship institutions in Texas and California. What it did do, predictatbly, was reduce the percentage of minority applicants who were admitted.
After preferences were banned in California in 1998, admission rates among black freshmen applicants to Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego fell from 45-55 percent in 1995-7 to 20-25 percent in 1998-2001….
Banning affirmative action admissions had similar effects at Texas schools. At Texas A&M the decline began in 1996. Black admission rates fell by an estimated 30 percent and Hispanic admission rates fell by an estimated 15 percent.
Ending preferences, in short, tends to prevent the admission of students whose admission depends on receiving the preference.
This has all of the surprise value of the studies demonstrating that you get more of what you subsidize, or the recent study finding a massive preponderance of Democrats on college faculties.
Why do I get the feeling that the hypothesis disproven by this study is, stated baldly, something along the lines of Uncountable numbers of minority students would not apply to top schools because they believe racism will prevent them from being accepted, apart from “affirmative action”? And what the heck kind of mindset starts with that kind of hypothesis? Who actually believes that the halls of academia in 21st century America are peopled by racists looking for any and every excuse to deny admission to a member of some racial minority?
Beyond the best and the brightest
The National Bureau of Economic Research has conducted a study to answer the question: if racial preferences were abolished, would highly-qualified minority students be less willing to apply to top-rung…
ELC, I don’t think that would exactly be the hypothesis, as this study, if I understand it correctly, is tracking the behavior of top-tier minority students who can, through academic qualifications, get into almost any school they want. It seems to be addressing the question of whether or not a highly-qualified minority student will look elsewhere if he believes a school will not have many other students of his own race.
What I doubt the study answers (as I don’t see how it could, since it’s a hypothetical) is whether or not these are the “same” students applying before and after affirmative action. With academic standards up and students perceiving that they won’t be surrounded by as many unqualified classmates, perhaps some minority students who would have previously chosen even more prestigious schools decided to give post-affirmative-action UC and UT a closer look. And perhaps other minority students for whom a large minority student population is more important than other factors decided against UC and UT.
Well said, Nels. People aren’t taking into account the comfort factor. Only a crusader mentality would enjoy going to places where they don’t feel welcome.
–Cobra
“After preferences were banned in California in 1998, admission rates among black freshmen applicants to Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego fell from 45-55 percent in 1995-7 to 20-25 percent in 1998-2001…”
Well, according to UCLA statistics the overall admission rate for the fall 1997 was 36 percent and for the fall 2002, it dropped 12 points to 24 percent.
So I’d say the admission rate for black freshmen isn’t too far from the general trend.
Fact is, in the last 10 years, the characteristics of the students admitted to most colleges have become more competitive. According to UCLA Undergraduate Admissions, in the fall of 1997, the average admitted student had a weighted GPA of 4.13, and for the fall 2002, it was 4.23. The average combined score on the SAT I totaled 1320, the number of honors classes taken was 18 and the number of college level courses taken ranked 47 percent with only a minimum requirement of 30 percent. In 1992, the average SAT I total was 1298, while the numbers of honors and AP classes equaled only 16.
Kenneth – Thanks for the additional data. You’re right: all selective schools got harder to get into over this period.
Nels – I thought it interesting, and a little odd, that the researchers thought that the explanation for any decline in numbers of bright minorities applying to post-AA selective schools would be not wanting to attend a school with fewer minorities that would have been there pre-AA. I would have thought that another, and possibly more significant, explanation would be the quite reasonable decision to apply to schools that continued to give preferences over ones that had ceased doing so. This latter point is consistent with Cobra’s point, speaking of which…
Cobra – So you only feel welcome at places that give you preferences?
The “comfort level” at a school is not something that government should address. There are many reasons for picking a college. I went to my college because of distance — far enough to be private, close enough to come home on a weekend. The government isn’t responsible for moving Harvard closer to me.
If a student decides to attend a college because he sees more of “his own” there, that is his choice.
John writes:
>>>Cobra – So you only feel welcome at places that give you preferences?
Not neccessarily. Unless you’re a commuter student, campus life is a factor taken into account for many. Who are my peers going to be? What kind of environment is the campus located in? Does the school have a history regarding race or gender that would cause alarm? What kind of social life will I have there? Will I have trouble with roomates? Even finding an ethnic barber-shop or hair salon can be problem if you go a campus that’s isolated in a predominantly white community. I remember at school there were the hermit-like students who did the classroom-library-bed-classroom circuit, never to be seen until graduation, but to me…that’s not the point of going away to college. One can have that experience through online courses.
I understand Dom’s point that it’s not the “government’s responsibility” to a degree. I’m just putting myself back into the shoes of a 17 year old black high school senior; hoping to get a quality education AND have a rewarding collegiate experience. If some school has a reputation for being hostile to minority access, why on earth would I choose to go there?
–Cobra
“If some school has a reputation for being hostile to minority access, why on earth would I choose to go there?” (Cobra)
What do you mean, exactly, by “hostile to minority access?” Does that mean “does not use preferences?” If it means that the school actually is racist against miniorities, of course, you have a point, but if it doesn’t…
And Cobra, why is it a big deal to be able to find an ethnic barber-shop? Do you think a white-owned barber-shop would refuse to cut a black person’s hair?
I never understood why it is okay–maybe even desirable–for miniorities to flock together, living in the same areas, constantly surrounded by others of their own race, while white people can do no such thing. (Not that I want to, of course.)
Gyp writes:
>>>What do you mean, exactly, by “hostile to minority access?” Does that mean “does not use preferences?” If it means that the school actually is racist against miniorities, of course, you have a point, but if it doesn’t…”
It’s wise in these types of discussions to be able to put yourself in the opposing position’s shoes. It also helps to acknowledge that the reputations of many institutions precede them. If you are a devout, fundamentalist Christian who doesn’t drink, smoke, engage in pre-marital sex, or listen to secular music, you’re certainly well within your rights to apply to the University of Miami (FL), which earns the distinction of being one the biggest “party” schools in America every year, although Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University will have far more students that have a similiar lifestyle. Feelings of alienation and isolation, especially among freshmen, can be lessened if that person has at least a few people in the same boat as themselves they can network and relate to. That is NOT to say that the diversity experience isn’t as important.
>>>And Cobra, why is it a big deal to be able to find an ethnic barber-shop? Do you think a white-owned barber-shop would refuse to cut a black person’s hair?”
It’s not about “refusing” to cut black hair. It’s a competance level, and a familiarity with the desired styles.
>>>I never understood why it is okay–maybe even desirable–for miniorities to flock together, living in the same areas, constantly surrounded by others of their own race, while white people can do no such thing. (Not that I want to, of course.)”
Segregation was the law of the land for nearly two centuries in many parts of America. In 2004, segregation still is rampant. There is an interesting article in the Gotham Gazette about it here:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/landuse/20040519/12/984
Finally, there are basic logistical reasons for why a black female student would want to attend a school that has at least SOME elligible black males in residence…and vice versa. If you wish to debate the popularity or prevalence of interracial dating, it would be off topic for the thread, but I’d be happy to chat with you via email if you wish.
–Cobra
John writes:
>>>Ending preferences, in short, tends to prevent the admission of students whose admission depends on receiving the preference.”
Very true, except you’re talking about RACIAL Preferences exclusively in this context. There is still no guarantee non-racial preference schools are going to have the best and brightest based upon the OTHER subjective criteria for admission…legacies, economic hardship, geographic preferences, family name, parental donations, foreign diversity, etc. IMHO, removing ONLY racial preferences in admissions is a just a “feel-good” measure for the majority, because as statistics in the Gratz case showed,many lesser qualified white students seem to get accepted through the same system.
–Cobra
Cobra, I agree with you about comfort levels and the need for black hair stylists. I think that’s actually quite realistic. I think your comparison of Miami v. Liberty for conservative kids is very apt. I don’t get the dichotomy between racial preferences and hostile environments. Is there really no such thing as neutrality? How nice it would be if a student could pick a school because it had the academic and social program he wanted, and not worry that if he wasn’t actively recruited based on his group membership, that must mean the school is hostile to him.
Cobra,
It’s not about “refusing” to cut black hair. It’s a competance level, and a familiarity with the desired styles.
That’s exactly right, and a perfectly valid point. I wouldn’t minimize this sort of question, and it’s one that tends to get overlooked when people sneer at “critical mass” arguments, thinking that they just mean that minority students need a security blanket of “people like them” around at all times. It is a great deal more complicated than that. The classic example is that of religiously observant Jews and Muslims, who need ready access to kosher or halal food. Are they going to attend a college located somewhere where they can’t be sure of getting it? A little further down the priority scale, immigrants and children of immigrants often want literature in their first languages, or news of their ancestral countries; those can be difficult things to obtain outside cities with large populations of immigrants from the places in question. Cobra’s point about haircuts is of the same order. If there’s no sizable Black population in a place, there may be no one around with a clue about Black hair. I don’t think many people choose a college based on their prospects for getting a decent haircut near campus, but throw in a bunch of other small annoyances and it would add up fast.
All that said, I don’t think racial preferences are ever going to fix this sort of problem. The minority population of a smallish college, however aggressive its affirmative action policy, is not going to support minority-oriented businesses in quantity if the surrounds are pure WASP. Of course, since almost all of the elite colleges and universities are located in fairly large, ethnically-diverse urban areas, it’s not really a problem for the students at the top, but go a couple tiers down and you run into potential trouble. (Of course, if you’re looking at schools a couple tiers below the top, you’re also probably looking for something close to home, which obviates some of the difficulties.)
Alright, I understand what you mean by the ethnic barbershop thing, but you still haven’t answered some of my questions, Cobra.
What do you mean by “hostile to miniority access?” In answering this question you started talking about a Christian attending a party school. He’d be a little out of place, sure, but how is the school “hostile” to his “access?” Or did you just word that sentence weirdly? Did you simply mean that it’d be a hostile enviroment for him? If so, how does being a minority on a campus make the campus a hostile enviroment for someone?
“Finally, there are basic logistical reasons for why a black female student would want to attend a school that has at least SOME elligible black males in residence…and vice versa.” (Cobra)
Of course. That might influence what school she decides to go to. How does this apply to preferences, however? If a black woman gets into a school that, for some reason, no black men attend, should her need for dates justify letting in less qualified black men who apply? Or am I missing a point here?
“Very true, except you’re talking about RACIAL Preferences exclusively in this context. There is still no guarantee non-racial preference schools are going to have the best and brightest based upon the OTHER subjective criteria for admission…legacies, economic hardship, geographic preferences, family name, parental donations, foreign diversity, etc. IMHO, removing ONLY racial preferences in admissions is a just a “feel-good” measure for the majority, because as statistics in the Gratz case showed,many lesser qualified white students seem to get accepted through the same system.” (Cobra)
Nevertheless, abolishing racial preferences is one step toward making the system perfect. Are you saying we shouldn’t abolish one type of preference just because there are other types in existence?
Am I making any sense or have I misinterpreted something?
Gyp,
The title of John’s thread is:
“Ending Racial Preference Does Not Discourage Applications From Talented Minorities”
The entire basis of the discussion has NOTHING to do with whims, desires, political ambitions, or schemes of the WHITE MAJORITY. It’s based on the level of “MINORITY APPLICANT DISCOURAGEMENT.”
I listed some reasons why a 17 year old minority college student, such as I was, would be discouraged from applying to a given school. If the end result of destroying racial preferences means the decline in minority enrollment in a particular institution, then a negative message is sent to many minorities in this STILL VASTLY SEGREGATED nation. Now, you can debate whether that is an intentional message or not, but it is a clear message nevertheless.
>>>Nevertheless, abolishing racial preferences is one step toward making the system perfect. Are you saying we shouldn’t abolish one type of preference just because there are other types in existence?
Am I making any sense or have I misinterpreted something?”
Contrary to what you may believe, Gyp, there IS NO PERFECT SYSTEM in ANYTHING.
The very fact that there IS NO VAST AND VEHEMENT movement to destroy any other preferences BESIDES racial ones tells me that the motivation behind it is dubious. That’s not to condemn ALL PEOPLE who are against racial preferences, but you have to look at the PRIORITIES of the movement. If your goal is that ONLY the best and brightest students should be accepted into colleges, ending racial preferences is NOT an effective strategy.
And even if it IS, it has NOTHING to do with the context of the thread, which is “discouraging minority applicants.” If I visit a college as a prospective black applicant, would seeing “anti-affirmative action bake sales”, “anti-diversity” collumns in the student newspapers,a Chetly Zarko lecture series, and scarce few other black faces among the student body encourage me to matriculate, or discourage me? Put yourself in the black student’s shoes, Gyp.
–Cobra
Cobra, racial preferences and affirmative action bake sales have nothing to do with each other except that the first inspires the second. In fact, if racial preferences were dropped then your hypothetical black high school senior would be a lot less likely to view anything that would make him wonder if he was welcome.
I doubt seriously that there are anti-diversity columns in school newspapers. There may be columns questioning racial preferences, but I don’t believe that you can point to columns that state that the writers want to attend college attended only by people like them. Not everyone conflates diversity with affirmative action.
If you want to keep the preferences and not have prospective students viewing the bake sales and the possibly questionable newspaper columns, you are going to have to tromp all over the First Amendment rights of the students generating those bake sales and columns. People are going to disagree about issues. They are going to express their views, unless prevented. I can’t believe that the typical black seventeen-year-old in this country is such a hothouse flower that he hasn’t figured that out by now, or can’t deal with it, or lets it keep him from pursuing a course he has decided upon.
Laura,
Again, you make many sound points, and you are correct–not everybody conflates diversity with Affirmative Action. But again, I don’t think it’s being a “hot house flower” for a perspective minority to pick up on hints that he or she might not be welcome on campus during a visit.
For example, I was fortunate enough to get two visits to the same University during high school…one through an honors program, and the other through a minority outreach. The two tours were strikingly different.
One was through the eyes of College administration P.R. and Admissions Department, with the glossy sheen, hyperbole, fine dining and every courtesy extended. The other was through the lens of minority peers, lower budget and more steeped in reality, with all blemishes apparent, minus the grace. Had I not had the second tour, I might have chosen that particular school.
I am no advocate of censorship. Even the Klan has the right to express their opinion. I am also under no obligation to attend a Klan rally to hear those opinions expressed. So like water, many people tend to flow to the path of least resistance.
Why would a black high school senior, especially one from a segregated educational background, VOLUNTEER to attend a school he or she feels umcomfortable in, when there may be other more racially friendly options?
–Cobra
“…The other was through the lens of minority peers, lower budget and more steeped in reality, with all blemishes apparent, minus the grace. Had I not had the second tour, I might have chosen that particular school.”
Is it possible that this kind of thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy? It’s like starting a new job and having other employees explain how exploited you’re going to be. Why are they still there? Some people are never ever satisfied and elevate griping to an art form. Maybe the first impression you got really would have been more relevant to the experience you would have had at that school. The honors people clearly wanted you. Would we be better off without other people helpfully explaining to us how miserable we are?
Laura,
We’ll never know what the decision would’ve been, but again, put yourself in the position of a 17 year old high school senior, about to make a huge decision. Many people in this society make all sorts of decisions based upon rumour, theory, conjecture,
superstition, old wives’ tales, stereotypes and circumstantial evidence. “Discouragement” is not an exact science. If you’re telling that black or Latino kid that he or she should ignore whatever peers, or sometimes, their own eyes and ears are telling them, I don’t know what to say.
–Cobra
Cobra, I can easily put myself in the place of that 17-yr-old senior trying to make a decision about college, because that describes my daughter exactly.
If a feminist outreach group at a college tried to get her to visit under their auspices, I would strongly urge her to stay the hell away from them. Visit the college as if you were going to be Joe Blow or Jane Doe College Student and draw your own conclusions.
To get back to the point (I think) would the existence, or nonexistence, of racial preferences at that campus have made the difference for you? Again, they clearly wanted you there.
Laura writes:
>>>If a feminist outreach group at a college tried to get her to visit under their auspices, I would strongly urge her to stay the hell away from them. Visit the college as if you were going to be Joe Blow or Jane Doe College Student and draw your own conclusions.”
We’re not that far apart on this. That’s basically what I had to do…draw my own conclusions, separating fact from fiction. In my case, I had eyes and ears. I saw first hand what dorm life seemed like on both tours, and the classroom settings. But even you as a parent would want to know things about that campus out of concern for your child’s safety. For example…
The school I finally chose had a separate dorm option for Freshmen,and an all female dormitory, but you had the option sophmore year to live in a co-ed floor dorm. There’s always a security concern. How well lit are the walkways at night? Where is campus security where you need them?
If your daughter is an athlete, and wants to participate, how does the school handle Title IX in regards for female athletic budgets? Do they have modern facillities and quality coaching staffs for women?
And of course you want to know what kind of STUDENTS attend that college, so you know who your daughter will be going to class with.
To answer your question about preferences and the decision to attend a particular school, I would have to say that I’d prefer to attend a school that had the preferences. To me, it demonstrates a commitment to inclusiveness. But that’s MY OPINION. As the following passages show, I’m not alone.
>>>Last year
Sorry if I missed something earlier… I may be barking up the wrong tree. If I am, I apologize.
Responding to Cobra:
Putting myself in a 17-year-old black senior’s shoes, I think that I’d rather go to a school that doesn’t employ preferences–so no one will think I needed the preferences to get in. I can see, however, how some black kids might think a school with preferences would be a better choice for them. It doesn’t make that right, however. And it doesn’t make preferences any more fair.
I don’t understand how reactions to the unfairness of preferences (the bake sales, etc.) that make minorities uncomfortable JUSTIFY preferences! (Actually, I don’t see how ANYTHING justifies preferences… But that’s not the issue here, so I’ll let it go.)
I do want to respond to this, however: “…I would have to say that I’d prefer to attend a school that had the preferences. To me, it demonstrates a commitment to inclusiveness.” (Cobra)
Well, to me no preferences demonstrates a commitment to fairness.
Which is more important? Inclusiveness or fairness?
Oh, and one more thing.
“Contrary to what you may believe, Gyp, there IS NO PERFECT SYSTEM in ANYTHING.” (Cobra)
I know there is no perfect system in anything. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for perfection, however–even though we know we won’t achieve it. The closer you get to perfection, the better.
Cobra,
I would agree that students will generally seek a college environment where they feel comfortable. However I didagree on a couple of your issues.
First, affirmative action bake sales, anti-preferences articles, and the like, are not meant to make minority students feel uncomfortable- they are meant to oppose policies that people consider unfair (I’m sure there are a few genuine racists that gravitate toward these activities, but they are the exception rather than the rule). A black 17 year old might be made uncomfortable by this, but that would be a misinterpretation on his part (perhaps due to being told repeatedly by people like that individual from Berkeley that he should expect to be discriminated against?).
Second, if these are the sorts of things that will make a black student uncomfortable, then ending race preferences would be the fastest way to eliminate them- schools without affirmative action policies rarely have strong anti-affirmative action movements.
Third, your points about barber shops and dates are well taken- there is definitely a comfort level that comes from having a few people like yourself around. However, these concerns should not supercede the academic standards of an institution- I’d gladly deal with a few bad haircuts for the chance to get a top tier education.
Additionally, the validity of this argument rests on the mistaken assumption that ending race preferences is going to eliminate minority students from universities, which the study that launched this thread seems to indicate is not the case. Also, it strikes me as odd that there seems to be this mindset that no affirmative action means institutional racism- our colleges are many things, but I don’t think anyone is going to argue that places like Berkeley and UCLA are bastions of racism, affirmative action or not. Even if they aren’t actively preferring minorities, I don’t think there is any pervasive problem of unfairly denying minorities admission to colleges. The data indicates that, even after ending affirmative action, admission rates for black freshmen are very close to those of the overall student population- right where they should be. That’s fair, isn’t it?
Fourth, you neglect the effect that race preferences have on qualified non minority students. Indeed, I think a white student is a little more justified in thinking himself unwelcome at a school with affirmative action than a black student is in considering himself unwelcome at a school with a colorblind admissions policy. I know many white students, otherwise qualified, who hesitated or refrained from applying to the University of Michigan because they thought that, as white, heterosexual males, they would be unwelcome at a school that prefers to admit people who aren’t like them. We should encourage minority students, but not at the expense of discouraging qualified non minority applicants (they deserve quality education too).
The discomfort you speak of is, as much as anything, a PRODUCT of racial preferences. It demonstrates the divisiveness of affirmative action that I have long opposed- white students think that they are unwanted and are being treated unfairly, and black students are conditioned to think that everyone is out to discriminate against them. This inevitably breeds a degree of suspicion and distrust. It’s not surprising that students of any color would feel uncomfortable in such an environment. This negates the real benefit of diversity- open and honest discourse between different people- and renders affirmative action counter productive.
I think colleges would be better served by focusing their efforts on actively encouraging qualified minority students to apply and enroll, and in helping students become qualified through outreach programs. This would require more effort and time- it’s not the feel-good quick fix of affirmative action (Well, honey, we’re going the wrong way, but at least we’re moving!)- but in the end it would produce better results. It would help address the core issue of underrepresentation, namely the inadequate schooling of the poor and underpriveleged, without compromising the academic standards, fairness, and openness of our universities.
Garrick,
It’s good to see you back posting. I hope you’re having a great semester. Let me first address some points you made that I AGREE with.
>>>Additionally, the validity of this argument rests on the mistaken assumption that ending race preferences is going to eliminate minority students from universities, which the study that launched this thread seems to indicate is not the case.”
I agree with you here that simply ending race preferences won’t eliminate ALL minority students from most universities. There are studies that I posted showing a decline of minority enrollment though. But that isn’t the main point of this thread. This thread is all about the MINDSET OF A MINORITY APPLICANT, hence the title–“Comments: Ending Racial Preference Does Not Discourage Applications From Talented Minorities”
>>>We should encourage minority students, but not at the expense of discouraging qualified non minority applicants (they deserve quality education too).”
You’ll never hear me talk or write about discouraging any white people from pursuing their dreams and ambitions…especially through education. But again, this thread is not about white student discouragement.
>>>I think colleges would be better served by focusing their efforts on actively encouraging qualified minority students to apply and enroll, and in helping students become qualified through outreach programs. This would require more effort and time- it’s not the feel-good quick fix of affirmative action.”
I agree that colleges should be actively encouraging qualified minority students to apply. What would entice them to do so? What can a college offer on a campus that would be attractive to a minority student, maybe a kid from 8 Mile or Benton Harbor? Your school, the U of Michigan has absolutely NO problem recruiting the best minority ATHLETES to apply.(Braylon, Braylon, Braylon!) How would they go about convincing that minority “MATH-LETE”?
The truth about your school is that 25,000 people apply each year for 5,000 spots. If EVERY ONE of the 25,000 applicants was a Christian heterosexual white male Republican with a 4.0, there’d be 20,000 rejected Christian heterosexual white male Republicans with 4.0s. Now if that’s not “discouraging”, I don’t know what is.
>>>Indeed, I think a white student is a little more justified in thinking himself unwelcome at a school with affirmative action than a black student is in considering himself unwelcome at a school with a colorblind admissions policy.”
A statement like that would lead someone not from this country to believe this America had a white minority population, and not vice-versa.
And let’s get our definition of “qualified” in order to. Affirmative Action wouldn’t have gotten me into Yale on George W. Bush’s grades. (Bush was not accepted to the U. of Texas, by the way.) Some preferences are more “preferable” than others it seems, but the end result was that a seat in Yale that could’ve gone to a more qualified student(more than likely a deserving white kid) was taken up by Bush because of legacy. Yet somehow, that’s not looked upon as “discouraging.” Don’t also forget that 93% of all scholarships in America go whites.
Speaking of which, a little off thread but worthy of mention…here’s an article that gives light to the REVERSE situation…the comfort level of an increasing number of WHITE students at historically black colleges and universities. It’s extremely interesting.
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=77878&ran=111719
You also write:
>>>First, affirmative action bake sales, anti-preferences articles, and the like, are not meant to make minority students feel uncomfortable- they are meant to oppose policies that people consider unfair (I’m sure there are a few genuine racists that gravitate toward these activities, but they are the exception rather than the rule). ”
Exactly how does a 17 year old black kid, (or somebody of any age and color) tell which people at these activities are genuine racists, and which are not? It would seem to me that if there were NO significant amount of minorities at a given campus, there would be no need for an anti-affirmative action protest or bake sale either. What would be the point? Secondly, these activities primarily occur at the most visible spot on campus for OTHER STUDENTS. That’s simply INCITEMENT, and that kind of rabble-rousing tends to make minorities UNCOMFORTABLE, because THEY didn’t set the policy. If you’re protesting the Administration’s policies, the best place to protest them is the Administration building, or office of the Provost/Dean of Students, etc.
Gyp writes:
>>>I don’t understand how reactions to the unfairness of preferences (the bake sales, etc.) that make minorities uncomfortable JUSTIFY preferences! (Actually, I don’t see how ANYTHING justifies preferences… But that’s not the issue here, so I’ll let it go.)”
Because America is all about preferences. It always has been. The only “problems” seem to arise when the white ruling class is directly and adversely affected by preferences. If you believe nothing justifies preferences, then you also can’t justify American history, and if you can’t do that, you’re riding in my part of the bus, now.
>>>Which is more important? Inclusiveness or fairness? ”
That depends on who you’re asking. If you ask the underrepresented, they’ll say inclusiveness. If you ask the overrepresented, they’ll say fairness. It’s all about perspective.
>>>Putting myself in a 17-year-old black senior’s shoes, I think that I’d rather go to a school that doesn’t employ preferences–so no one will think I needed the preferences to get in.”
Are you suggesting that people should make decisions based upon what other people will think of them? That’s not a healthy strategy.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Gorman ‘s report is something I had known before. Human nature being what is it, banning race preferencex will not cause a decline in black or Hispanic applications at a UC school. Why ? the answer is simple . You are tyring to imply that blacks are different from whites in their behavior. Not that much really. People will look out for themselves in the in the long run and will choose the option that will be most advantageous to them. YOu can call it selfishness or whatever you want.To the average black or Hispanic gettiing admitted to Berkeley is more prestigiuous than being admiited to USC or Pepperdine. There is nothing wrong in attending Berkeley, after all there are more Asians who attend Berkeley with SAT scores above 1400 than the number of whites who attend Harvard with the same same kind of SAT scores. In the fall 2004 freshman class of Berkeley, there were close to 1000 Asian freshman with a SAT Math score above 700 as compared to just 720 whites attending Harvard with SAT Math scores above 700. Stanford is behind Harvard is this aspect. Cobra claims that there are people who will attend schools because of the cultural atmosphere , meaning the racial makeup of a school. Blacks, whites, Asians, Mexicans are no different from each other in this aspect. Let us take the case of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo , a public university here in Calfornia. According to the LA Times ( among others ) said that the majority of ASians, blacks, and Latinos offered admissions to that school declined the offer. In contrast, the majortiy of whites offered admissions accepted the offer. Why is that case?. Being a majority white school, the non – whites at least a certain number of them probably felt some discomfort at the propect of attending the school. Let us take the case of the UC system, only 2 campuses of its 8 undergraduate campuses are majority white schools, and they are UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz. Based on average SAT scores , UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Riverside are the least competetive of the UC schools. One can therefore say that a large number of whites who enrolled at Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara accepted the schools’ offer of admission because they could not get in the more competetive Berkeley, LA, Davis, San Diego and Irvine campuses or because those were the only 2 campuses in the UC system where whites are a majority. It is also true that the Majority of Asians accepted at UC Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara declined to accept the offer Sure blacks might want to attend historically black colleges like Spelman or Morehouse because of its cultural atmosphere. It does not change the fact however that the average SAT scores of blacks attending Morehouse and Spelman are lower than that of blacks attending nearby Georgia Tech or the University of Georgia. In view of that fact, there will always be blacks who prefer attending Georgia Tech or the University of Georgia.
Leo writes:
>>>It is also true that the Majority of Asians accepted at UC Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara declined to accept the offer Sure blacks might want to attend historically black colleges like Spelman or Morehouse because of its cultural atmosphere. It does not change the fact however that the average SAT scores of blacks attending Morehouse and Spelman are lower than that of blacks attending nearby Georgia Tech or the University of Georgia. In view of that fact, there will always be blacks who prefer attending Georgia Tech or the University of Georgia.”
So you agree with my argument that comfort level is a component for many prospective minority students when choosing a college. The question in the original thread was about lack of preferences discouraging minority applicants.
>>>Gorman ‘s report is something I had known before. Human nature being what is it, banning race preferencex will not cause a decline in black or Hispanic applications at a UC school. Why ? the answer is simple . You are tyring to imply that blacks are different from whites in their behavior. Not that much really. People will look out for themselves in the in the long run and will choose the option that will be most advantageous to them.”
Hello? Leo…you just explained in ONE PARAGRAPH the entire reason why you’ll NEVER get me, or any other non-apologist minority to be against Affirmative Action. It’s ALSO the same reason that many white people, especially males, are dead set AGAINST Affirmative Action. It’s not the “most advantageous program” for them.
Number #2, there are race preference programs that offer tuition assisstance. A quick view here at California’s push to INCREASE tuition costs for out of state students HAMMERS HOME your point about people choosing the “most advantageous program” for themselves.
http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/cprrpt/issrec/etv/etv18.htm
–Cobra
There is no question that many, perhaps most, people are motivated solely by considerations of self-interest, of what’s good for them or their group. There is considerable question, however, as to whether we should regard such behavior as good, fair, principled. Most traditional ethical systems don’t. (“Do unto others…” etc.)
And for good reason. After all, to say that there’s nothing wrong with every person/group discriminating against others based on their race is to say (duh!) that there’s nothing wrong with discriminating on the basis of race.
It is true that a comfort level does affect the decisions of studentss as to what school they attend be they black , white or Asian. There are many reasons as to why students attend particular schools. Your implication that there was a decrease in black or Latino applicants to the UC or any particular public university because of the ban on race preferences is simply nonsense. Blacks, Asians, Latinos, a large number of whom had already decided before the ban on race preferences came into existence not to attend Cal Luis San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara and and Santa Cruz campuses, because they are not specially comfortable with those schools. So what has the banning of race preferences got to to do with the refusal of the majority of Asians, blacks, and Latinos offered admissions to Cal San luis Obispo to attend?. The pattern has already been in existence for many years even before Prop 209 came into effect in 1998. I would like to point out also that a higher percentage of blacks and Hispanics who accepted the offer of admission from UC Santa Barbara and UC SAnta Cruz compared to Asians. Why is that the case? It is because Asians have the highest average SAT scores applying to the Uc system and hence have better chances of attending more competetive UC campuses like San Diego, LA, Berkeley, Davis and Irvine campuses compared to blacks , Latinos and whites. In that light, you can see that there was a greater number of blacks who where willing to drop whatever apprehensions they have about the level of discomfort at the prospect of attending UC Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz. If they were offered admittance to Irvine, LA, San Diego, Davis or Berkeley,
don’t you think they would rather attend those schools rather than Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz. As things go Cobra, it boils down to a matter of self – interest for most students. Another point that you made in an earlier post, you claimed that there were 1400 applicants who got higher SAT scores than the plaintiff Grutter in the University of MIchigan undergraduate admissions case. The thing is Cobra, is that even those scores did not help them reach the Academic Index cutoff point score for admitting applicants to the freshman class of U of Michigan. They, as much as Grutter have the right to sue the U of MIchigan, but apparently they did not for obvious reasons. Don’t be silly Cobra about this buiseness of ” tuition costs”. Human nature being what it is, lower expenses for tuition is a prime factor for choosing a school. IF those tuiton aid programs exist for out of state blacks who apply to California public universities bars whites and Asians, then pray that it does not get under the radar of groups like The Center for Equal Opportunity, CIR etc. becasue they are going to be struck down swiftly. It would be construed as a form of discrimination against whites and ASians.
An Anonymous poster writes:
>>>IF those tuiton aid programs exist for out of state blacks who apply to California public universities bars whites and Asians, then pray that it does not get under the radar of groups like The Center for Equal Opportunity, CIR etc. becasue they are going to be struck down swiftly. It would be construed as a form of discrimination against whites and ASians.”
Maybe you’re mistaking me for somebody who would be intimidated by reactionary, white power think-tank organizations. It couldn’t be from any of my posts on here. There is no surprise that revisionist legal groups would be out hunting down any minority scholarship or grant they can get their hands on.
But I will say one thing…your HEROES in the CIR and Center For Equal Opportunity, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (can they pick any more Orwellian/oxymoronic names for their groups? Geez) must be popping champagne right about now with these recent newsflashes:
>>>ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Despite winning a marathon Supreme Court struggle last year to continue using race as a factor in admitting students, the University of Michigan is reporting the smallest class of African American freshmen in 15 years.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2830-2004Nov21.html
I’ll bet the Gratz and Zarko are going to Disneyland over that one! I guess there are STILL too many chips in the cookie there because as John announced, they’re STILL SUING…now on behalf of 30,000 whites, in some whimsical, “no white child left behind” litigation.
Here’s some more fun from that article, Anonymous:
>>>”You don’t see many people of color in the dorms. I feel a little isolated,” said humanities student Ashley Gilbert, one of 350 black freshmen enrolled this year at the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus, where there are 5,730 students in the entering class. The number of black students is down from 410 last year and nearly 500 in 2001.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2830-2004Nov21.html
Uh oh…the Washington Post found a black student on campus…and there are 349 others? Oh my God…get Ward Connerly on the phone! That means there are 350 spots that “should’ve” gone to deserving white students at U of M. There’s still work to be done, I guess. And who is this “Ashley Gilbert” person, anyway? Has she been vetted by the MCRI? You know what Charles Murray says about people who look like Gilbert (and me for that matter), so it’s incredible to believe she’s actually QUALIFIED to be there. And of course you must question her feelings of isolation, right? Yeah, that’s irrelevant to the point of a thread called “Ending Racial Preference Does Not Discourage Applications From Talented Minorities”
>>>In addition to Michigan, other colleges that have reported significant drops in the number of black freshmen include many campuses in the University of California system, Penn State University, the University of Minnesota and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as the private University of Pennsylvania. Enrollment of African American freshmen was down this year by 26 percent at the University of Georgia, 29 percent at Ohio State University and 32 percent on the Urbana-Champaign campus of the University of Illinois.
Enrollment of Hispanics has remained generally stable at major state universities over the past few years, except in California, where it has fallen at flagship institutions such as the University of California at Berkeley and the University of California at Los Angeles.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2830-2004Nov21.html
So apparently Anonymous, I’m not making all this up. The Backlash movement is rolling along! You can almost sleep soundly tonight.
John writes:
>>>There is no question that many, perhaps most, people are motivated solely by considerations of self-interest, of what’s good for them or their group. There is considerable question, however, as to whether we should regard such behavior as good, fair, principled. Most traditional ethical systems don’t. (“Do unto others…” etc.)”
We wouldn’t even have a DEBATE, John, if America consistantly followed traditional ethical systems from the get go. We both know it DID NOT and STILL DOES NOT. Since it STILL DOES NOT, and I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY with your belief about the self-centered base instinct of mankind, I prefer the racial preferences in place today to STAY because I, as a black man stand a better chance to more easily fulfill my Declaration of Independence spawned dreams of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For me NOT to do so, is to place an extraordinary burden upon my pursuit that white Americans do not have. You yourself ADMIT that MOST PEOPLE are motivated by self-interests, and since WHITE MALES have disproportionately controlled the vast majority of wealth and power in this nation since its enception, why would I be led to believe some barnstorming revival of ETHICS will protect me in applications or promotions? Why should I blindly trust that? Why should I ignore what history tells me about the white majority’s treatment of African Americans and other minorities? Why should I ignore the reems of data about ongoing racial discrimination by whites?
You can make a cogent, and non-bigotted argument about why Affirmative Action is an unfair advantage for minorities, and you’ve done so better than most, John. I respect that. But if you want to dig deeper into the mindset of a non-apologist minority member, you should walk in their moccassins. It’s extremely difficult to defend and support moral absolutism in a nation built and run by moral relativism.
–Cobra
I suppose I should give the U of M perspective, since Cobra seems to be putting a lot of stake in the article regarding U of M admissions.
First, U of M still has an “affirmative action” admissions policy, as a result of Sandra Day O’Connors swing vote in the two Supreme Court cases. The only thing they were forced to change is the “point system” that awarded 20 points to black applicants (out of 100 needed for admission)regardless of any other factors. So, any discrepencies in black admission are problems with an affirmative action system, not problems in a system without it.
In fact, a black student applying to the U in 2003 had almost exactly the same chance of getting accepted as one applying in 2004- drop in enrollment corresponded to a drop in applications. Cobra will blame this on blacks being scared away by the anti-affirmative action press, but this doesn’t make much sense, as the U is traditionally very liberal, with a rather subdued anti-affirmative action movement and the main on-campus paper writing an editorial about how wonderful affirmative action is (usually under an article about how terrible Israelis are, but that’s a separate issue) on a weekly basis.
The drop probably has more to do with the general snafu surrounding admissions to Michigan in general this year. They were messy enough that basing any assumptions on their results is problematic at best. In order to revamp the aff. action policy to be in line with the supreme court, there was a tremendous mess in getting applications out, and this coupled with the very essay heavy app scared away all but the most motivated applicants. So we had an overall drop in applications, but actually a substantially higher enrollment rate, since only highly motivated students had applied (this created a mess in housing, since not enough people turned down admission).
In any case, realistically, the number of accepted black students dropped by 60- while we should watch out for continued decline, this is really a statistical hiccup in a school with 25,000 students. Interestingly enough, the number of Asian students rose by more than this number, so, far from being replaced by yuppie racist power hungry white boys from MCRI, as Cobra seems to believe, the slack in black admissions has been picked up by Asians. I don’t think any of us can realistically argue that Asians have gotten an unfair advantage in American history.
Throughout this post and indeed this entire site, Cobra, you have neatly sidestepped the issue of the discriminatory basis of aff. action by claiming that it is justified because of the historical discrimination against blacks and the continued “white power base”. Besides the fact that this argument was ruled unconstitutional by the Bakke case, the argument falls apart on several other points (I’ll have to play devil’s advocate at a couple points here, so bear with me).
1) It’s hypocritical- you argue that blacks are justified in seeking personal advantage, yet you think whites should take exactly the opposite approach and discriminate against themselves in order to help black students who, as you claim, are only looking out for themselves.
2) The argument that all whites are advantaged is racist and simply not justified. Yes, whites have traditionally held power and money in America- but this has always been a MINORITY of whites. The majority of whites never owned slaves, because they were too poor to do so. While there has always been a small minority holding the majority of money, and this minority has been usually white, the majority of whites are middle class to poor, just like everyone else. You can’t argue that discriminating against all white students is okay just because some are overpriveleged.
3) If the issue of underrepresentation on college campuses is due to racism and selfish whites hogging power, then why are Asians OVERrepresented in nearly every college in America? At U of M, there are more Asians than blacks (almost three times as many), despite the fact that that there are three times as many blacks as Asians in the U.S. Clearly, racism isn’t the overriding factor here.
I think the example of Asian students demonstrates that racism and the “white power base” is not the major problem in college admissions. Asians have gotten it just as bad as any other group in American history, yet Asian students tend to be more successful than white students in college. Clearly, and this will come out wrong no matter how I say it, though I don’t mean it that way at all, there is a problem within the black population itself. Whatever the reason for it (you’ll say it’s because of white oppression but again, Asians serve as a counterexample) black students are, on average, either less successful in high school or less motivated to attend college.
Personally, I think this is primarily an issue with economics, bad inner city schools, and blacks being told they are going to be discriminated against and can’t be as successful because of “the man” by the very people that ought to motivating them to succeed.
As a result, affirmative action fails to address the actual problem, instead forcing schools to lower admissions standards as a stop-gap measure to deal with the symptoms. As I mentioned before, a more useful and more fair approach would be an aff. action policy based on economics, along with active recruitment and academic assistance, for underrepresented minorities.
I would think, Cobra, that you would be a proponent of a system that adresses the real issues rather than a system that perpetuates racial divisiveness. Instead of assuming all problems are because of racism and those dastardly rich white folk, let’s focuses on real, quantitative issues that can be addressed without resorting to the discriminatory hypocrisy that is affirmative action.
Additionally, while I appreciate that you aren’t calling John or myself racist, this rings somewhat hollow when you slap that label on any group that organizes to protest affirmative action and label any black who opposes affirmative action an “apologist”.
P.S. I have no idea who Ashley Gilbert is, but her dorm is the exception rather than the rule- my hall has about 30 people representing almost that many ethnicities, including Japanese, Korean, Indian, Pakistani, African, Eastern European, and one guy that’s lived in Egypt, India, and Australia. Every class I have has black students, so Ashley must not be looking very hard (actually, not looking at all).
‘The government isn’t responsible for moving Harvard closer to me.’
I’m sure you’d be pissed off if the government took money from your state coffers and opened a college in antartica.
Garrick,
Hope you had a great weekend! Of course you know I disagree with your post. But isn’t it great that in America 2004, we can disagree civily?
Here we go. You write:
>>>First, U of M still has an “affirmative action” admissions policy, as a result of Sandra Day O’Connors swing vote in the two Supreme Court cases. The only thing they were forced to change is the “point system” that awarded 20 points to black applicants (out of 100 needed for admission)regardless of any other factors. So, any discrepencies in black admission are problems with an affirmative action system, not problems in a system without it.”
You also alluded to this point system in a post about Jennifer Gratz and her “White Justice and Vindication” lawsuit against the U of M just filed. Since you claimed not to know the ins and outs of it, let’s review that quickly here, so that we’re all working under the same facts about the 150 point Michigan Admission program damned by many posters here to be “racist and unfair.”
>>>What do children of longtime donors, scholarship athletes, white students at predominantly black high schools, northern Michigan residents, men who want to be nurses and children of alumni have in common?
Just like blacks, Hispanics and American Indians, they get an edge on the competition when they apply for admission to the University of Michigan…
…White students who attend high schools that have predominantly minority students get 20 points.
About 50 students in the freshman class of 5,187 were given an extra 20 points under a provision called “provost’s discretion.” The points are reserved for children of longtime donors, active alumni or those with a recommendation from someone like a governor or university president, said U-M admissions director Ted Spencer.
About 100 scholarship athletes were each given 20 points last year.
Students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or who have overcome extraordinary obstacles can get 20 points.
Students from at least 114 highly regarded Michigan high schools get up to an extra eight points because of the strong curriculum and high numbers of students who attend college.
If a prospective student’s mother or father attended U-M, that’s good for 4 points, the equivalent of turning a 3.5 GPA into a 3.7.
Grades are far more important than test scores. A 4.0 grade point average gets 80 points; a perfect score on the ACT or SAT gets 12 points.
Michigan residents get a 10-point boost. And applicants from 41 underrepresented counties in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula get an extra 6 points.”
http://www.freep.com/news/education/admit13_20030213.htm
The following link gives a PDF file of the ENTIRE points program breakdown from academics to miscellaneous considerations.
http://www.freep.com/pdf/2003/02/13/umpoints.pdf
Now, as you can PLAINLY SEE, without any hyperbole, exaggeration, and ad hominem attacks on my part, there was AMPLE opportunity for white applicants to the University of Michigan to receive bonus points equal to, or EXCEDING any received by an underrepreseted minority applicant. As much as Jennifer Gratz complained about being unfairly treated because she was white, her own GEOGRAPHY played a far bigger role. The simple FACTS are right in front of your eyes. IF Jennifer Gratz went to a school that just had a 51% minority student body, she would’ve received 20 BONUS POINTS, just as if she was an underrepresented minority student applicant. To put it even more BLUNTLY, Marshall Mathers aka the white rapper Eminem, who grew up in the downtrodden 8 Mile section of Detroit would’ve gotten a 20 point bonus if he applied to Michigan.
I posted this, and links to the actual points system, because I’m tired of seeing the misconceptions of what the system was. Obviously, the Supreme Court saw it a different way, but they’re not the first court to make a ruling disadvantageous to minorities, and won’t be the last. Which explains why your statement below means little to me:
>>>Throughout this post and indeed this entire site, Cobra, you have neatly sidestepped the issue of the discriminatory basis of aff. action by claiming that it is justified because of the historical discrimination against blacks and the continued “white power base”. Besides the fact that this argument was ruled unconstitutional by the Bakke case, the argument falls apart on several other points (I’ll have to play devil’s advocate at a couple points here, so bear with me).”
>>>1) It’s hypocritical- you argue that blacks are justified in seeking personal advantage, yet you think whites should take exactly the opposite approach and discriminate against themselves in order to help black students who, as you claim, are only looking out for themselves.”
I argue that America was and remains a racist nation, and Affirmative Action is a neccessary policy because of that belief. You can disagree with me if you wish, but the facts of American anti-minority discrimination are on my side. I’ve posted enough links in the past here for anybody interested in seeing an example to explore. Your statement also presupposes that whites actually DO CONTROL all gateway processes that blacks would come in contact with, which makes the need for government oversight even more neccessary.
>>>2) The argument that all whites are advantaged is racist and simply not justified. Yes, whites have traditionally held power and money in America- but this has always been a MINORITY of whites. The majority of whites never owned slaves, because they were too poor to do so.”
This statement is disjointed. You’re trying to make a corollary between income level and racial discrimination. Poor whites are just as capable of being racist as slave owners and captains of industry. Some of the most infamous white supremacist groups in America today are comprised of poor people. There have been white racists in every economic strata throughout American history. Education level doesn’t seem to deter white racism much either, as the Eugenics movement is actually STILL quite popular today. (See the Gene Expression Blog)
You write:
>>>You can’t argue that discriminating against all white students is okay just because some are overpriveleged.”
I’ve never made the argument that ALL white students should do anything. In fact, there is no demonstrable shortage of white students in college right now, is there? That is, from the non-MCRI perspective, of course. LOL
You write:
>>>) If the issue of underrepresentation on college campuses is due to racism and selfish whites hogging power, then why are Asians OVERrepresented in nearly every college in America? At U of M, there are more Asians than blacks (almost three times as many), despite the fact that that there are three times as many blacks as Asians in the U.S. Clearly, racism isn’t the overriding factor here”
Here we go with the “model minority” factor. Number one, which “Asians” are you talking about here? 8th generation Chinese Americans? Vietnamese-Americans? Fillipinos? Thai-Americans? Sri Lankan Americans? Pakistani-Americans? Japanese Americans? Indian Americans? Iraqi-Americans? The fact that they are all conveniently LUMPED TOGETHER as one group deflates your argument because they don’t ALL have the same immigrant experiences. Recent immigrants don’t have the weight of white American racism anchored around them that older immigrants do. I would like for you to break down statistically WHICH Asian group is the example you wish for African Americans to emulate. Beyond that, perhaps you should visit some Asian American business empowerment websites, to get a different picture of some of the glass ceiling experiences many Asian Americans have faced here.
>>>Personally, I think this is primarily an issue with economics, bad inner city schools, and blacks being told they are going to be discriminated against and can’t be as successful because of “the man” by the very people that ought to motivating them to succeed.”
I actually AGREE with some of this sttement. Right up untill you get to the last part. Please explain to me why a black person has to be “told” he is going to be discriminated against when he can get first hand experience by walking down the street? Again, I don’t blame you for coming to this conclusion, but in my life, and the lives of most African Americans I know, nothing shocks us about discrimination.
>>>Instead of assuming all problems are because of racism and those dastardly rich white folk, let’s focuses on real, quantitative issues that can be addressed without resorting to the discriminatory hypocrisy that is affirmative action.”
Where did I EVER post that all problems are because of racism or rich whites? You’re reaching here.
You write:
>>>Additionally, while I appreciate that you aren’t calling John or myself racist, this rings somewhat hollow when you slap that label on any group that organizes to protest affirmative action and label any black who opposes affirmative action an “apologist”.
Any group of people that organizes against any cause has an agenda. I’ve observed the allegiences and supporters of some of those groups. It’s not an indictment of ALL members of any said movement, but…like the old addage says, “you will know them by the company they keep.” As far as “black apologists” go, I’m suprised you have a problem with that term. It’s actually quite mild as compared to what they’re called by others.
And again, Garrick, this thread is about “Minority Student Discouragement.”
If there was a minority high school kid reading this thread right now, would he or she be “encouraged” by your posts, or “discouraged?” If they read mine, they would know that I’m the guy who WANTS THEM to get into quality schools like the U. of Michigan. I’m the guy who wants them to feel comfortable. I’m the guy who wants to INCREASE their odds of getting in, not DECREASE them.
You’re the guy who….I’ll leave you to fill in the blanks, but remember, you still haven’t answered my question about what YOUR idea of “minority recruitment” is.
P.S. Ashley Gilbert is a humanities major, so it’s quite possible, given the scarcity of blacks on campus there, she doesn’t run into very many black humanity majors. Just a thought.
–Cobra
“If you believe nothing justifies preferences, then you also can’t justify American history, and if you can’t do that, you’re riding in my part of the bus, now.” (Cobra)
I don’t understand what you mean here. I don’t try to “justify” American history. Americans did a lot of terrible things–none of it justifiable. Slavery, imperialism, the terrible treatment of Native Americans… We can’t turn back the clock now, though. We’d better just press on. Put the past in the past. History doesn’t justify preferences. Unless you yourself were a slave, Cobra, stop pretending it does. (I’m part Native American–does that mean I’m being oppressed?)
“>>>Which is more important? Inclusiveness or fairness? ”
That depends on who you’re asking. If you ask the underrepresented, they’ll say inclusiveness. If you ask the overrepresented, they’ll say fairness. It’s all about perspective.” (Cobra)
I’m actually asking that in the sense of what is morally more important, or truly more important. I don’t buy into the moral relativism stuff. I think that there is a moral absolute. Using that absolute, what is more important? Inclusiveness or fairness? I think you know what my answer is.
“>>>Putting myself in a 17-year-old black senior’s shoes, I think that I’d rather go to a school that doesn’t employ preferences–so no one will think I needed the preferences to get in.”
Are you suggesting that people should make decisions based upon what other people will think of them? That’s not a healthy strategy.” (Cobra)
No, I’m not suggesting that people should do anything. I’m just honestly admitting that that is what I would do.
“It’s extremely difficult to defend and support moral absolutism in a nation built and run by moral relativism.” (Cobra)
I’d hardly say that America was built on moral relativism. In fact, I think you’re dead wrong. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution if you disagree. You’d better hurry before they’re banned from the public square for their LACK of moral relativism.
“Please explain to me why a black person has to be “told” he is going to be discriminated against when he can get first hand experience by walking down the street?” (Cobra)
He didn’t say that they “had” to be told, he said that they “are.” There’s a difference.
Cobra,
A lot of thngs that you are saying is simply nonsense. First of all I am not intimidated by any wannabe rightist or leftist , be it Linda Chavez or Roger Clegg or Chris Edley or Lani Guinier. In fact a earlier this this year, I told Connie Rice, the first cousin of Condi that she does not know what she is talking about in a symposium here at UCLA. No indignity, rapes, insults, dicriminatory practices or lynchings perpetrated against black ever justifies the use of race of race preferences. Should you give a preference for the rich grandson of Simon Wiesenthal over the poor grandson of the camp commandant of Auschwitz? Most certainly not, a race preference is never justified at any point in time in human history.I had always said to people that race preferences are no different from alumni preferences, geographical prefereces, they are one and the same. They are evil, sick , dememnted and depraved. Giving an extra 20 points for residents of the Upper Peninsula in MIchigan is not a justification for the existence of race preferences just like every other preference in your list that has nothing to do with poverty. It does not matter as to whether the preference is for whites attending inner -city schools or for attending schools that have strong academic records, all kinds of preferences are wrong except for preferences towards poor people. Furthermore what is this Asian “model minority ” that you are talking about?
sure they are differenct ethncities and varying experiences about life in the US. Not all Chinese are rich and i am perfectly aware that many Asians still face the glass ceiling as far work promotions are concerned. That does not however justifiy the granting of race preferences to Chinese. Should you grant race prefences for Pilipinos at Boalt law? Should you grant race preferences to children o Pilipino doctors, dentists or nurses ? Geographical , alumni preferences and race preferences favor the tich over the poor, irregardless of whether you are white or black and I can give you aa very convincing explanation as to why that happens.Finally, there was a certain time when Asians where fewer than blacks at UM – Ann Arbor, did they demand race preferences to increase their numbers unlike what you and other black race preferentialists are demanding now ?. I really do not care as to whether you regard Asians as a “role modeL” YOu do not need a “role Model ” to do what is right. BTW, Cobra’s continued diatribe about white domination, consider the fact that whites are minorites un the urban public universities like the U of Houston, U of Illinois – Chicago, the CUNY schools etc.. The last place on earth where whites are going to decline in numbers or percentage are the private schools like Stanford, USC, Penn, harvard etc. for obvious reasons. Various kinds of prefences like alumni preferences protect the decline of whites in private schools. Repugnant this situation maybe, it does not justify the use of race preferences
Gyp writes:
>>>I’d hardly say that America was built on moral relativism. In fact, I think you’re dead wrong. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution if you disagree. You’d better hurry before they’re banned from the public square for their LACK of moral relativism.”
Gyp, you have a habit of throwing me hanging curve balls right over the plate. The Declaration of Independence, second paragraph reads like this:
“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”
Now, the principal author was of course SLAVE-OWNER Thomas Jefferson. For nearly a century, SLAVERY was LEGAL in a nation that declared it’s Independence on the basis of EQUALITY between men.
THAT’s “moral relativism.”
The Constitution ascribes slaves (people who looked like me) to be 3/5ths of a man. It also had to be AMENDED multiple times before ALL of its CITIZENS were treated equally under law.
THAT’S “moral relativism.”
An anonymous poster writes:
>>> Most certainly not, a race preference is never justified at any point in time in human history.”
What’s your definiton of race preference? Is it only a problem when public or government institutions practice them? What about private groups or companies? What about freedom of association? Are personal racial preferences a problem for you?
America was built on racial preferences. What do you feel is proper restitution for victims of racial preferences, if any?
>>>Finally, there was a certain time when Asians where fewer than blacks at UM – Ann Arbor, did they demand race preferences to increase their numbers unlike what you and other black race preferentialists are demanding now ?”
How many Asian students did you poll at the University of Michigan at the time?
>>>The last place on earth where whites are going to decline in numbers or percentage are the private schools like Stanford, USC, Penn, harvard etc. for obvious reasons. Various kinds of prefences like alumni preferences protect the decline of whites in private schools. Repugnant this situation maybe, it does not justify the use of race preferences”
Didn’t you just say that ‘NOTHING” justifies preferences, but whites are doing it anyway at private institutions? Now, I sure hope you’re posting these kind of statements on other parts of these blogs, because many of my opponents DEFEND other preferences.
–Cobra
Cobra, you’re not making any sense. Unless your definition of moral relitivism is different from mine…
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
Aha. They’re saying that the truths they talk about are self-evident–they’re saying that anyone should be able to see that they are, in fact, truths. They also talk about “unalienable” rights… given to man by a “Creator.” These things are moral absolutes–the fact that ALL men have these rights, NO MATTER WHAT, and they shouldn’t ever be denied those rights for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. Those, Cobra, are moral absolutes, if ever there were any.
“For nearly a century, SLAVERY was LEGAL in a nation that declared it’s Independence on the basis of EQUALITY between men.
THAT’s ‘moral relativism.’
The Constitution ascribes slaves (people who looked like me) to be 3/5ths of a man. It also had to be AMENDED multiple times before ALL of its CITIZENS were treated equally under law.
THAT’S ‘moral relativism.'” (Cobra)
No, Cobra, it isn’t “moral relativism,” it’s just “hypocrisy.” There is a big difference. “Moral relativism” is when you think that what’s right for one culture isn’t always right for another. “Hypocrisy” is when people don’t practice what they preach. If they’re saying that certain things are right, that certain rights are “unalienable,” they’re talking about for everyone, everywhere–they’re talking about moral absolutes. The fact that they don’t DO the right thing just makes them hypocrites.
>>>Cobra, you’re not making any sense. Unless your definition of moral relitivism is different from mine…”
That’s more than likely the issue. A moral absolute is an unwavering, non-compromisable concept.
“Thou Shalt not Kill”
But does that apply to soldiers in warfare? Does that apply to capital punishment? Right to Choose? Self-Defense issues?
There can’t be any ambiguity in a moral absolute.
The Founding Fathers, by the very creation of an AMENDABLE document understood that. That’s why they were believers in moral relativism. The opinion of the majority outweighed any hommage to “ultimate morality.”
–Cobra