Discriminations

Birgeneau makes the familiar argument that factors other than academic achievement, test scores, etc. should be considered in admissions, as the potential of some students cannot be measured through traditional means. This sounds right, but surely the bright minds of Berkeley could dissect and detail these other factors, that they might be applied irrespective of race to best identify those who will succeed.

Robert J. Birgenau, Chancellor of UC Berkeley, wrote

Minority inclusion is a public good, not a private benefit. Indeed, the president of the University of Mexico once said to me that the single most important skill that a 21st century student must master is "intercultural competence" � the ability, best learned via experience with and appreciation of other cultures, to navigate successfully in today's globalized society.

if he really believed this, then he would be calling for the closing of every historically black, Hispanic, or American Indian college tomorrow. Yet, it seems that "progressive" educators belive that blacks can get develop an "intercultural competence" without ever being around whites while in college.

That's because whites (and white influence)are "bad" and blacks (and black influence) are "good."

surely the bright minds of Berkeley could dissect and detail these other factors, that they might be applied irrespective of race to best identify those who will succeed.

Nels - I think you're absolutely right. I suspect the reason the BMOB (Bright Minds of Berkeley) don't do this is the same reason they don't want true economic- or disadvantage-based affirmative preferences: there are so many more poor and disadvantaged whites that doing so wouldn't increase the minority numbers enough. Similarly, there are no doubt many deserving white/Asian students with low test scores who would do well at Berkeley that a race-neutral effort to ferret out all the deserving low test scorers wouldn't help with the minority numbers.

"don't want true economic- or disadvantage-based affirmative preferences: there are so many more poor and disadvantaged whites that doing so wouldn't increase the minority numbers enough."

So the BMOB's aren't really leftists who believe in redistributive policies? ok.

I'm sure the anti-black racists running Alabama U or Mississippi U in the 1960's had similar feelings. Changing "Robert J. Birgenau, Chancellor of UC Berkeley" to "George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, Prop 209 to "President Kennedy's executive order ", and "students of color" and "minority" to "white", and you get:

Message from George Wallace, Governor of Alabama:

"Instead of ensuring nondiscrimination, President Kennedy's executive order has created an environment that many white students view as discriminatory. That's because white representation has dropped appallingly, and where there should be camaraderie across cultural lines, I have seen too much alienation, mistrust and division."

And of course, Wallace was a Democrat, just like most of the judges and politicians pushing for reverse discrimination, AKA "affirmative action". Seems like the Democrats spent over 200 years advocating racist anti-black policies, then for one or two years in the early 1960s advocated race-neutral policies, and since then have advocated anti-white racist policies.

Although some Republicans, like George Bush, also favor racist policies, racist pandering seems to be a congenital defect of the Democrats, throughout their long ignominious history.

Actus says:

So the BMOB's aren't really leftists who believe in redistributive policies? ok.

Reply: Nobody said they didn't believe in economic redistribution. That's why having a low family income is a small "plus" i.e., preferential, factor in UC Berkeley admissions already. However, I think it's pretty clear that UC Berkeley (and most colleges) are more anti-white/pro-nonwhite than they are pro-poor/anti-rich when it comes to their history of admissions.

Certainly, over the past 30-40 years, at almost any college in the USA, the average rich black kid has had a huge admissions advantage over the average poor white kid.

So the UC Berkeley chancellor thinks that "the single most important skill that a 21st century student must master is "intercultural competence"?

I guess it's a good thing that such arcane, trivial, superflous skills like math and language skills are less important, since in international tests, we rank near the bottom in all these things.

It's not a surprise that this guy is taking his advice from an education bureacrat in Mexico, one of the only countries that scored below the USA on these tests. That's like someone asking France about military tactics, or asking the LA Clippers GM about how to win the NBA championship.

Minority inclusion is a public good, not a private benefit. Indeed, the president of the University of Mexico once said to me that the single most important skill that a 21st century student must master is "intercultural competence" � the ability, best learned via experience with and appreciation of other cultures, to navigate successfully in today's globalized society.

The dual problems here are that the single most important skill that a 21st century student must master is NOT "intercultural competence" -- whatever the hell that means -- and that race preferences have nothing to do with "intercultural competence." Race preferences have to do with increasing favored-minority enrollment numbers.

I don't think anybody really believes this crap; it just sounds better than "I feel racial guilt." By portraying it as a benefit to whites instead of favored minorities, they hope to get whites to buy into race preferences. But of course everyone realizes that black students are not being admitted to teach whites how to operate a business in Rwanda. And if they were, it would fail utterly, because blacks aren't from Rwanda. They're from New York and Atlanta and D.C. and...

I think part of the "diversity" fetish is a desire to avoid the real academic deficiencies of all our students (like I said, the USA ranks near the bottom in the international tests). Instead of RAISING standards for K-12 education, it's easier for education bureacrats to LOWER standards for college admissions.

"However, I think it's pretty clear that UC Berkeley (and most colleges) are more anti-white/pro-nonwhite than they are pro-poor/anti-rich when it comes to their history of admissions."

Its true that america has real poor class consciousness. I would think that it wouldn't be that way at UC though.

Minority inclusion is a public good, not a private benefit. Indeed, the president of the University of Mexico once said to me that the single most important skill that a 21st century student must master is "intercultural competence" � the ability, best learned via experience with and appreciation of other cultures, to navigate successfully in today's globalized society.

If that were the case, we'd want preferences for students genuinely from other cultures — students from foreign nations. Odd that no one seems to be advocating this, if "intercultural competence" is really the goal. Just think how much more "interculturally competent" Cal students would be if, say, a quarter of the undergraduates were citizens of other countries? Instead of, you know, being mostly Californians, whose cultural diversity, large though it may be, is surely inadequate to the global challenges facing us, &c.;, &c.;

Michelle, as a California taxpayer I'd prefer to keep most of the spots reserved for state residents. Perhaps students could be required to spend one semester teaching in a developing country or the impoverished rural South.

Nels,

[A]s a California taxpayer I'd prefer to keep most of the spots reserved for state residents. Perhaps students could be required to spend one semester teaching in a developing country or the impoverished rural South.

Well, my point was actually that the people talking about this "intercultural competence" aren't remotely serious about it. Nor are you, if your idea is that "developing countries" and "the impoverished rural South" are equally "intercultural" experiences. I mean, what is the point here? To get deep knowledge of another important world culture, or to have the wholesome experience of being around marginalized poor people? Evidently you mean the latter, but on its face the statement I quoted means the former.

Will writes:

>>>Certainly, over the past 30-40 years, at almost any college in the USA, the average rich black kid has had a huge admissions advantage over the average poor white kid."

What does this statement mean? A rich white kid over the past 30-40 years, especially one with connections, has had (and still has) an advantage over EVERYBODY. I mean, just using the phrase "the average rich black kid" is eyebrow-raising at first glance, but also promising in a way, since 30-40 years ago, it was rare to hear anything close to that kind of statement being uttered without comedic intent.

--Cobra

random thoughts:

"that many students of color view as discriminatory"

Many students of color view EVERYTHING as discriminatory.

"Its true that america has real poor class consciousness. I would think that it wouldn't be that way at UC though."

When I attended UC Santa Cruz, most upper middle class students demanded that CA workers pay their way. In their eyes, they were poor and the average taxpayer was rich. They were conscious of class, they just didn't know who was in which one.

"the impoverished rural South..."

is not so impoverished anymore. This from someone who lives in "the impoverished rural Midwest". Keep your hippies in CA where we can see them.

I mean, just using the phrase "the average rich black kid" is eyebrow-raising at first glance, but also promising in a way, since 30-40 years ago, it was rare to hear anything close to that kind of statement being uttered without comedic intent."
Earth to Cobrta: See how you are beginning to get it. There are a LOT of rich black kids today. God knows how they figure out how to act - but isn't that the very problem that so many have labored so hard to create?

"Many students of color view EVERYTHING as discriminatory."

Dem's some uppity folk nuh?

Michelle and John (from OK), my comment wasn't well thought through. I certainly didn't intend to speak poorly of the South or Midwest (for what it's worth, much of my family is from North Carolina and Oklahoma, and I've spent quite a bit of time in both states) but I think there's no other way to read what I wrote. Sorry.

Cobra writes;

"What does this statement mean? A rich white kid over the past 30-40 years, especially one with connections, has had (and still has) an advantage over EVERYBODY"

but this is absolutely FALSE, at least concerning college admission, which was the topic. Even assuming the preference for rich kids was greater than the preference for black kids for the past 30-40 years, (which it has not been, other than for legacy admits - in fact poverty is a plus factor in admissions)rich black kids would have an advantage over rich white kids, on the basis of racial preference alone. This is extremely obvious, why don't some people understand it?

No offense taken, Nels. I didn't see any influx of West Coast grad students this week anyway.

"I think part of the "diversity" fetish is a desire to avoid the real academic deficiencies of all our students (like I said, the USA ranks near the bottom in the international tests). Instead of RAISING standards for K-12 education, it's easier for education bureacrats to LOWER standards for college admissions.
Posted by Will"

I think this is very close, but slightly off target. In my opinion there are several big reasons why blacks in particular don't achieve academically at the same rates as other races. Some are cultural & political. If you're a 15 year-old and every adult you know tells you you can't achieve because the system us against you, how much effort are you really going to put in?

But the biggest cause of black underachievement is disproportionate attendance in lousy schools. This creates a major conflict. The political party most blacks belong to is also the political party of teachers, who fight any attempt to change a system developed for their benefit rather than the students benefit. In my opinion the race-preference system is a de-facto compromise between blacks and teachers. So it is a desire to avoid the deficiencies which disproportionately effect minority students which drives "diversity".

Notherbob writes:

>>>Earth to Cobrta: See how you are beginning to get it. There are a LOT of rich black kids today."

Cobra to Ground Control: No...you're beginning to GET it. What programs were in place during the past 30-40 years that contributed to the CREATION of "rich black kids today?" And then ask yourself, which programs are you and your fellow AAA types trying to destroy? And what subliminal message does the confluence of those two sentences send?

Will writes:

>>> Even assuming the preference for rich kids was greater than the preference for black kids for the past 30-40 years, (which it has not been, other than for legacy admits - in fact poverty is a plus factor in admissions)rich black kids would have an advantage over rich white kids, on the basis of racial preference alone."

What do you base this theory on? You're not seriously sitting here telling the readers of this blog that the offspring of the captains of industry, commerce, and government are
"worse off" than "rich black kids?"
Which college admission criteria are you using to make such a statement? You're telling me that a "rich black kid" (you didn't even bother mentioning grades or test scores) has an advantage over a Kennedy, Bush, Kerry-Heinz, Walton family member? What is the source for this belief?

--Cobra

Cobra,

As for the last statement, I think it's unfair to compare the average white kid (even the "average" rich white kid) to a Kerry or Bush or Kennedy. While these sort of old-money legacy admissions are certainly a real part of the college (especially ivy-league) world, they are also a small minority of college admissions and statistically not as significant as what happens to we mere mortals who apply to a U of M or UCLA.

No, the offspring of the captains of industry are not worse off than a rich black kid. But you ignore the real meat of Will's argument by setting up a nice JFK straw man. The point is that in current Affirmative Action systems, every black student receives a bonus whereas every white student is placed at a disadvantage.

Now, you are right that "The school's new building is named after daddy because he paid for it" usually outweighs this disadvantage. However, the more important fact is that a truly disadvantaged white student (i.e. dirt poor and went to a bad school) is placed at a further disadvantage by Affirmative Action, while a wealthy or even middle class black student, one who went to the exact same high school that I did, receives an automatic advantage even though he faced none of the disadvantages of inadequate schooling or poverty.

I think John got it pretty close to right when he said that the BMOB don't support this sort of economic based AA because the number of poor white students might mean that it wouldn't make the incoming class colorful enough. Regardless of the fact that AA based on economics is much more likely to create really positive social change, diversity is the buzzword of the day and, sadly, the BMOB have made looking good politically and worshipping the false god of box 'o Crayolas identity politics diversity a higher priority than really helping anyone.

I think John got it pretty close to right when he said that the BMOB don't support this sort of economic based AA because the number of poor white students might mean that it wouldn't make the incoming class colorful enough.

Garrick, I'd like to claim credit for great insight here, but this point isn't obscure or hard to ferret out. Preferentialists admit that this is the case, and that's why they oppose class-based affirmative action. Bob Laird, in his book and talk I posted about several posts above this one, is quite explicit about the inability of class-based affirmative action to produce "diversity," though the reason he gave in his talk is "that there are too many poor Asians" who would benefit from it, keeping blacks at their current percentage.

Garrick writes:

>>>No, the offspring of the captains of industry are not worse off than a rich black kid."

Trouble is, Garrick, Will ADAMANTLY argues that this is FALSE in his beliefs. I don't need a straw man to refute that argument.

>>>Regardless of the fact that AA based on economics is much more likely to create really positive social change, diversity is the buzzword of the day and, sadly, the BMOB have made looking good politically and worshipping the false god of box 'o Crayolas identity politics diversity a higher priority than really helping anyone."

I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I've often asked here. What is the compelling argument for having benefits based upon class INSTEAD of race or gender? What is the moral justification? Why is class-based Affirmative Action (if there is such a concept) more acceptable to anti-preference types? I'm sure there are strict Constitutionalist types who will offer up dogma, but what's the meat of the story, Garrick? Why can't a fiscal conservative plutocrat, or a social darwinist accuse a proponent of such a plan as "class warfare?"

--Cobra

Cobra,

What is the compelling argument for having benefits based upon class INSTEAD of race or gender? What is the moral justification? Why is class-based Affirmative Action (if there is such a concept) more acceptable to anti-preference types?

Is it not obvious? Poverty is an objective disadvantage. You get lousier schools. You can't buy all the books you want. You don't get expensive SAT coaching, or private tutors. (I happen to think that a cheap SAT prep book is just as good as a course, but no one asked me.)

Racism and sexism are harder to quantify. You, Cobra, are apparently fine with Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans getting preferences and Asians (Filipinos apart) and Arabs not getting them. I don't think you would deny that all these groups suffer from racial prejudice, but you don't make the obvious leap to granting them all preferences. Rather, you take all the groups lagging behind, ascribe all the lagging-behind to "racism," and compensate it. Meanwhile, if an ethnic group is subject to racism and still somehow doesn't "lag," then obviously it doesn't need help, so you wouldn't give it any.

I think class-based AA is a good idea because there are clearly a lot of people whose opportunities have been cruelly curtailed by circumstances. Money means a lot, alas. I think race-based AA is a bad idea because people like Cobra aren't interested in giving preferences to people who suffer from racism, only to people who suffer from racism and are behind. If racial AA were genuinely compensatory, I might actually take a second look at it.

Michelle writes:

>>>Is it not obvious? Poverty is an objective disadvantage."

As is race and gender, IMHO.

>>>I think class-based AA is a good idea because there are clearly a lot of people whose opportunities have been cruelly curtailed by circumstances."

I could easily insert "race-based" or "gender-based" and the sentence would still be factually correct.

>>>If racial AA were genuinely compensatory, I might actually take a second look at it."

We have some common ground to sew our seeds of understanding.

--Cobra

Cobra,

[me:] Is it not obvious? Poverty is an objective disadvantage.

[you:] As is race and gender, IMHO.

You would then give preferences to all non-whites and to all women? But this isn't what you advocate, is it? You don't want preferences for Asian-Americans or for Arab-Americans or for, say, Black women over and above preferences for Black men. Tell me why all people who suffer racism and sexism shouldn't get preferences. Tell me why a first-generation Mexican immigrant ought to get a boost, but a first-generation Chinese immigrant ought not. At least explain why racial preferences should not be applied to all who suffer racial prejudice.