does one's ethnicity/racial identity matter?

[jacib]

To the OP, to your the first part: yes, race ethnicity is taken into account, especially at public universities. From what I've heard, this mainly means test scores are potentially given less weight and the GPA given more weight for students who are underrepresented minorities, provided the rest of the application is strong. One hyperbolic professor informed me, "I could get arrested for telling you this". It's pretty well known that this happens; someone posted some advice from the Pitt English department which gave an example of a Hispanic student who got into many more programs than white students with comparable grades and scores.

To the second part: No, I don't think your race will make in your particular case, either way, unless you demonstrated in your SoP that it gives you a unique perspective or a unique ability to blend into some community (if you were studying, say, race relations in South Africa or Zimbabwe' your whiteness/Asianness could give a different perspective). Nor, do I think that applying as an Asian to a (presumably Science) department with a "majority" of other Asians will necessarily hurt you. In the above example, it's not even really even race that makes a difference, but your SoP.

This is partially speculation, but schools want to train minority faculty at least in part because schools want to hire minority faculty because students want to hear from minority faculty. Full disclosure: I'm white. Like wicked white. To be honesty, at first, I thought the drive for minority faculty was rather silly; after all, knowledge is knowledge, truth is truth, who cares what color hand writes it down? My girlfriend at the time was Vietnamese-American and she was leading our school's Asian American Student Association in a protest of the university's hiring practices. Here, it wasn't just that the University didn't hire enough Asians, but that most of the Asians they hired were in the Sciences. And a lot of them were Asians, rather than Asian-Americans. There were at the time something like three to five Asian-American professors in the Humanities/Social Sciences, despite the fact that some much higher percentage of Asian-American students were majoring in the Humanities/Social Sciences. Firstly, she demonstrated that Asian American students wanted more classes about Asia and Asians... particularly about Asians in the diaspora. Though any professor could teach those classes of course, an ethnically Asian professor would be more likely to. My school already has a South Asian Languages and Civilizations department as well as an East Asian Languages and Civilizations department, both of which I think are majority white at a faculty and student level. She was not arguing the composition of those departments, or there needed to be more classes taught on Southeast Asian where her family was from (I don't think there were any). In fact, she wanted more faculty specifically outside those departments, I think. Which leads to her second more important point: it is not just the teaching or the topics that were important, but the advising. She was a Sociology major and had a lot of trouble explaining to her parents. She was really looking to be mentored in a way that, as the son of two university graduates who had lived in the United States all their lives, I was not. While there were two Asian Sociology professors, they were both born abroad, and didn't have the same kind of encounter with the Asian American experience. She was having a really hard time with her school and her family, and there was no one she could reach out to. The University was most unhelpful to her in this regard, though she tried to get help from both white professors in her department, the Asian (not Asian-American professors) in her department and Asian/Asian-American professors in other departments, but eventually found an Asian-American professor in English or something like that with whom she could talk, and who ended up giving her really beneficial advice. Next most useful in terms of giving advice were the white professors in her department (I think she found the Asian professors particularly unhelpful, if I remember correctly).

Anyway, I'd guess the main two reason for a school to give special consideration to minority candidates are 1) an alternative perspective (I doubt a white candidate in African studies would automatically have an alternative perspective.. though a white Zimbabwean or a South Asian candidate wanting to investigate South Asian communities in South African and Kenya, for example, might earn special considerations) 2) an ability to fill a teaching need after graduation (again, I'm not sure white a student in any discipline would earn special consideration in this regard). Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, Affirmative Action in graduate schools is never a numbers game, where they have x number of ys, and then look to find z number of ws to counterbalance those opinions. I don't think there is an "affirmative action card" (though I don't automatically object to the term, because it is clearly analogous with the "race card". It is a loaded term, however, and I can see someone objecting to it). Anyway, point (1) above is more related to your SoP than directly to a "This dude is Q-colored, we need one of those". Point (2) is more related to a demonstrated need for professors with certain experiences.

Sidenote: I liked the two articles Rising Star linked too.

[coffeeandtoast]

Anyway, I'd guess the main two reason for a school to give special consideration to minority candidates are 1) an alternative perspective (I doubt a white candidate in African studies would automatically have an alternative perspective.. though a white Zimbabwean or a South Asian candidate wanting to investigate South Asian communities in South African and Kenya, for example, might earn special considerations) 2) an ability to fill a teaching need after graduation (again, I'm not sure white a student in any discipline would earn special consideration in this regard). Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, Affirmative Action in graduate schools is never a numbers game, where they have x number of ys, and then look to find z number of ws to counterbalance those opinions. I don't think there is an "affirmative action card" (though I don't automatically object to the term, because it is clearly analogous with the "race card". It is a loaded term, however, and I can see someone objecting to it). Anyway, point (1) above is more related to your SoP than directly to a "This dude is Q-colored, we need one of those". Point (2) is more related to a demonstrated need for professors with certain experiences.

Sidenote: I liked the two articles Rising Star linked too.

I also see "minorities" more as beneficial in terms of "alternative perspectives" rather than making some kind of quota. Many times I have come across departments or institutions that specialize in Latino studies and they are all white. As a Hispanic, I find that kind of silly. I'm not saying that whites can't specialize in other cultures (same with Hispanics or other races), but rather that we should work together. For a department or a certain institution to be credible in a certain area such as specific races/ethnicities/cultures, you have to have people that intimately understand those ethnicities and bring valuable perspectives that "outsiders" would not have been able to bring otherwise.

In the business world, the value of minorities, especially when dealing with international clients, is well understood. In my job, for instance, I'm always put in front of our Latin American clients, not because of how I look like (most people think I'm white), but rather because I'm a native Spanish speaker and that is valuable for our clients: they feel more comfortable; they believe you more. Same with our Asian and Middle Eastern clients... we have different people that can add value to them as well.

[katalytik]

Some people here are saying that it does not matter at the grad level in terms of admissions, but I think affirmative action is still in place. Why would grad school admissions be any different than undergrad or applying for a fellowship or even a job? It's the law in the US, and it does matter. But this does bring a lot of heated debate. I am also not providing an opinion of whether I agree or disagree, but it does matter.......

[Pamphilia]

The bearer of bad news here. I remember my prof did tell me that she used to sit in the adcom in one of the UCs years ago. She said yes, ethnicity/ethnicity-related research definitely played a part in the decision-making process.

I don't think this is bad news at all. In an ideal world, we would all be judged blindly on merit. This is most certainly a less-than-ideal world, however, which is why I was born with privilege that I did not earn, and was more easily granted access to the merits I carry today, simply because I am white.

[coffeeandtoast]

Some people here are saying that it does not matter at the grad level in terms of admissions, but I think affirmative action is still in place. Why would grad school admissions be any different than undergrad or applying for a fellowship or even a job? It's the law in the US, and it does matter. But this does bring a lot of heated debate. I am also not providing an opinion of whether I agree or disagree, but it does matter.......

I agree with this. Although, as a minority, if you don't have the stats that can justify your admission, in the adcom's view, then it would be hard to get in solely based on your ethnicity. I say this because I searched extensively for grad school stats (like GPA, GRE, etc.) and I also saw that many different minorities applied to sociology programs and not all got in. In fact, they either didn't get in at all or only very few (<1%) were accepted.

Grad school is a huge investment for these schools. As much as they would want to make some kind of quota, why would they want to invest their money and time in a poor candidate, if they are not sure this person would even be successful in graduate studies?

[whereiscarmen]

A lot of minorities are admitted into undergrad with these "low stats" and have done well in their undergraduate career. Why is graduate study any different? If they have the right research experiences, a good GPA, good recs, and a good SOP, I don't think poor GRE scores = unsuccessful graduate student. Remember the GREs/SATs, etc are culturally biased and aren't good measures of success to begin with.

[coffeeandtoast]

A lot of minorities are admitted into undergrad with these "low stats" and have done well in their undergraduate career. Why is graduate study any different? If they have the right research experiences, a good GPA, good recs, and a good SOP, I don't think poor GRE scores = unsuccessful graduate student. Remember the GREs/SATs, etc are culturally biased and aren't good measures of success to begin with.

I hope you're right, since this is exactly my case

[katalytik]

I am myself a minority, but not a "minority" in quota-driven schools. I am Asian, but this does not help me in anyway.........in many places there are "too many of us". My view is to let students enter purely based on merit, not based on some skin color or ethnicity (unless a private scholarship or fellowship expects this). I live the life of a minority, but I do not want any special treatment. I just don't want to be kicked out because there are quotas against having too many Asians. Compare me fairly with everyone else and if I pass the bar, then let me in!

Regarding GREs, I as a minority, do not agree that they are so ethnically biased that a person's score will be affected significantly. I was not born in the US, but came here to study and grew up here. Having taken these sorts of tests from a young age, and being different culturally and racially.........I am not sure they are that ethnically biased that scores are going to be off in any significant manner. Sure, there may be things that would be affected by how one grows up, but hard work can overcome a lot. Granted you can simply dump my point saying that it is an anecdote and not any real evidence.

How much can ethnicity play a role when there are countless examples of students who work their butt off raise their scores 100-200 points or even more than that? Furthermore, how do you argue when foreign candidates do extremely well simply by taking GRE prep courses and memorize words? I myself memorized words - words that I may not have ever seen or ever use.

[Piwi]

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this topic in general. I know that as a young female (undergrad) student studying math, I was often frustrated that all of the professors in our math dept were little old white men. I am very fond of all of them, but it would have been nice to talk to a female mathematician for guidance on potential graduate school issues specific to women.

I am now applying to statistics programs, and all of my LORs, as well as my advisor for my masters program, have commented that being an American-born white female will help my chances. (Apparently statistics depts are often heavily Asian and white-male.) I do not know yet if this will prove true, but it is what I was told. And as others have said, if I do get in, I believe that it will be because I have the academic ability (and that my race/gender will (if anything) be icing on the cake).

[coffeeandtoast]

How much can ethnicity play a role when there are countless examples of students who work their butt off raise their scores 100-200 points or even more than that? Furthermore, how do you argue when foreign candidates do extremely well simply by taking GRE prep courses and memorize words? I myself memorized words - words that I may not have ever seen or ever use.

Yes, I don't know if I would say that the GRE is ethnically biased. English is not my first language, but it isn't either for some international folks, so I have no excuse. I just simply don't like standardized tests (I get very nervous and so on). My full-time job didn't allow me to study as much either. Although my GRE scores are good enough that they're not going to hurt me. They're not going to boost me either. The fact alone that I'm an engineer applying to sociology and theology programs is going to be my biggest weakness

[modernity]

Wow I really really hope not! I would hope that something as important and prestigious as graduate school would throw out the "affirmative action" card and just accept people based on their qualifications. That would really enrage people I think if they found out that was happening.

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what affirmative action constitutes. Affirmative action is not about hiring those that are unqualified for the position based on a token race/sex, but rather making sure the percentage of people in the position reflects the percentage of people in the world that are qualified (and may have otherwise been looked over because of race/ethnicity/sex).

[zilch]

when colleges say "minority" they actually mean "under represented minority". The asian population in the United States is most definitely not a representative sample of asians in general. We (I am an asian american) tend to highly educated or the children of the highly educated which means college or grad school has been a part of our family's culture and expectations since the beginning. When you take into account the relative scarcity of schools in Asia compared to the population (especially in China) which serves to drive a lot of students to apply overseas, it's not surprising that in a large number of disciplines we are over-represented.

The asian college/grad school population also leans toward the sciences, I suspect this is due to a few different reasons. One, as immigrants or children of immigrants, the memory of struggling in a new country is still fresh and the sciences (engineering, medicine, etc.) are seen as fields with good job markets and high job security. Two, asian cultures don't have the same concept Liberal Arts and Humanities as the United States so it doesn't make sense to a lot of us (whereas in science, gravity is gravity no matter what culture you're from).

During my undergrad, being an asian in engineering was definitely not to my advantage. We were over-represented in the field, the department explicitly stated that we did not qualify for minority scholarships, there was a certain expectation of high grades/book smarts and low networking/leadership/social skills. Being an asian-american also added the annoyance that many people assumed I was an international student. I've had many forms and such misfiled by administrators because they saw my name and stuck me in the international pile (it wouldn't be so bad it they didn't keep asking me for proof of english proficiency).

For grad school, I don't think it really matters. But my perspective is from engineering and that's a field where individual professors hold a lot of sway over the admissions process. If a certain professor wants to admit someone and has the funding to do it, you can't stop them short of a veto from a department head/dean. That being said, gender definitely does matter in engineering, even for grad school admissions. My specific flavor of engineering is 10% female and there's a lot of push from all over the place to increase this. I went on a visit last year and of the group of 12 that was invited, none of us had been admitted yet except for the 2 girls who had gotten acceptances weeks before the invitation (I would've just thought that they were the top candidates except there was a guy in the group who was damn near a prodigy and hadn't gotten his acceptance yet).

in short, ethnicity doesn't seem to matter in fields where personal perspective doesn't matter (after all, there's only 1 correct solution for the hydrogen atom, if your life experiences tell you otherwise then you're either crazy or a future nobel laureate, in which case they'll still think you're crazy until you publish it).

Edited February 1, 2010 by zilch

[jordy]

To those of you interested in the affirmative action/qualified applicants debate, I highly recommend the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

[melusine]

I just spent 15mins writing a detailed and coherent response.

Then the forum crashed. humph!

[Lauren the Librarian]

I've got mixed emotions on Affirmative Action. On the one hand I think it's insulting that my race could matter more than my intellect and hard work. On the other hand, there's a disparity in race in academia and successful examples of AA do exist, eg the policies enacted in South Africa after the end of apartheid.

Affirmative action and "diversity" is being discussed by academics. I offer one data point drawn from a top-tier public institution, the University of Texas at Austin:

A cross-disciplinary consortium was held recently. One discussion point, among others, was "Why affirmative action and traditional “recruitment” efforts by graduate schools can only be part of a solution, and won’t by themselves be effective." -- https://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/highed_diversify.html

Participating schools in this consortium included: Stanford, Ohio State, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Brown, North Carolina State University, the American Psychological Association, University of Indiana, University of Nevada, University of Maryland, the American Chemical Society, University of Iowa, Pittsburgh, University of Illinois, The Scripps Research Institute, University North Carolina, Rochester Institute of Technology, St. Olaf, and the Mayo Clinic.

[coyabean]

I just spent 15mins writing a detailed and coherent response.

Then the forum crashed. humph!

It's a sign, I tell ya.

[mario]

I just spent 15mins writing a detailed and coherent response.

Then the forum crashed. humph!

Next time, use firefox, you can go back, even if the site crashes and save your post

[JerryLandis]

Thanks for the response p10x, but I don't really think I do need to step on eggshells when giving out my opinion on this. I am an anonymous person on an internet forum, and this is a thread about affirmative action/minority representation. If you're easily offended by people calmly stating an extremely popular and logical opinion, then you shouldn't have opened up this thread in the first place. I never said that affirmative action shouldn't be used for grad school admittance because grad school is too important or that undergraduate studies are irrelevant and childish enough to make it unimportant that affirmative action is used, or for people accepted mostly on a racial basis to be able to succeed. I never said those things, you simply attached those ideas to my statement that grad school, in my opinion, is a bit late for that kind of social engineering. For those who agree with affirmative action, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that it should be implemented in earlier years of people's education, for example for admittance/scholarships to prep schools or for college admissions. Someone who has made it through high school and college has been awarded higher opportunities than most people on this planet ever get. Sure, maybe the people who would benefit from affirmative action at the grad school level have had to work several jobs through college in order to graduate, but considering most of my non-minority friends have had to do this, I don't see why that should be a factor. If people's academic performance is not viewed with consideration of how many hours they routinely had to spend at a job while in college, then why should someone's race or socioeconomic background play any part?

As far as someone's racial identity having a positive impact on the research they're doing, I guess you do have a point, but in my specific field that is pretty much irrelevant. People's attitude to race was completely different in the middle ages, so I don't see why the race of a specific applicant should matter.

Anyways, I do consider the ramifications of what I say, and if you don't agree with it then that's really just your problem. This is my opinion. I don't really agree with affirmative action. I'm not doing anything to stop it, and I recognize that it significantly improves the quality of many people's lives. However, I think it is fundamentally unfair and that it reinforces racism, giving younger generations a new reason to be racist. Despite this not being its intention, in creates the misconception that black people (other minorities too, but generally they're left out of the discussion) are somehow intellectually inferior and need to be given some kind of head start or handicap in order to succeed. Just because that isn't the truth doesn't mean there aren't millions of otherwise racially indifferent white people out there who are starting to think this way. I've experienced something similar to this because I'm a non-ugly young female who gets high grades. In high school, the boys in one of my classes tried hard on their essays and tests but I always got higher grades than they did. They would pester me for my grades, and when I told them they'd say "Ugh, I'm so jealous of you, since being a girl you just get handed these higher grades, while we guys hand in work that's just as good and get B's instead of A's." They were convinced that the old male teacher had a soft spot for his female students. Even when I won the departmental award, my male classmates claimed that I didn't deserve it. The whole ordeal made me feel very sorry for qualified college students from minority backgrounds whose qualifications and accomplishments aren't taken seriously because of affirmative action.

[melusine]

It's a sign, I tell ya.

My thoughts exactly! lol

[modernity]

If people's academic performance is not viewed with consideration of how many hours they routinely had to spend at a job while in college, then why should someone's race or socioeconomic background play any part?.....

However, I think it is fundamentally unfair and that it reinforces racism, giving younger generations a new reason to be racist. Despite this not being its intention, in creates the misconception that black people (other minorities too, but generally they're left out of the discussion) are somehow intellectually inferior and need to be given some kind of head start or handicap in order to succeed. Just because that isn't the truth doesn't mean there aren't millions of otherwise racially indifferent white people out there who are starting to think this way.

I don't think the fact that "racially indifferent white people" fail to understand the very simple concepts that support affirmative action should have any effect on whether or not it is implemented. Many of these "RIWPs" have never researched affirmative action - they simply know what their parents/other influential life figures told them, which is usually something along the lines of "we were mean to black people a long time ago, and for some reason they think we still have to pay for it, so you may lose a chance at a job because you are white." Very few white people, understand that while they themselves may never participate in racism - they still benefit from the legacy that is white privilege(see White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh). Misconceptions about it and race in general are what often cause the tense feelings on both sides of the racial fence. That said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I think you need to come up with better support than what sounds to me like arguing that if people don't understand it, they'll become resentful, and therefore its bad. I might be oversimplifying what you're saying a bit, but that was the major impression I took away from reading your post.

If you're really questioning why someone's SES/race/minority status should have influence in matters like these, there was a big thread in the GRE section about just that subject. I believe it was called "I think the GRE's are a deterrent" or something of that nature.

[coyabean]

Anyways, I do consider the ramifications of what I say, and if you don't agree with it then that's really just your problem. This is my opinion. I don't really agree with affirmative action. I'm not doing anything to stop it, and I recognize that it significantly improves the quality of many people's lives. However, I think it is fundamentally unfair and that it reinforces racism, giving younger generations a new reason to be racist. Despite this not being its intention, in creates the misconception that black people (other minorities too, but generally they're left out of the discussion) are somehow intellectually inferior and need to be given some kind of head start or handicap in order to succeed. Just because that isn't the truth doesn't mean there aren't millions of otherwise racially indifferent white people out there who are starting to think this way. I've experienced something similar to this because I'm a non-ugly young female who gets high grades. In high school, the boys in one of my classes tried hard on their essays and tests but I always got higher grades than they did. They would pester me for my grades, and when I told them they'd say "Ugh, I'm so jealous of you, since being a girl you just get handed these higher grades, while we guys hand in work that's just as good and get B's instead of A's." They were convinced that the old male teacher had a soft spot for his female students. Even when I won the departmental award, my male classmates claimed that I didn't deserve it. The whole ordeal made me feel very sorry for qualified college students from minority backgrounds whose qualifications and accomplishments aren't taken seriously because of affirmative action.

I swear this will be my only foray into this.

I do not have any visceral reaction to your beliefs. Let's start there.

But I do feel it necessary to clarify a few things. Affirmative Action is not about reducing racism. The fact that racism persists cannot be attributed to AA. There is, for example, no way of knowing or even measuring the causation of racists beliefs. So, to suggest that one is more inclined to be racist due to AA is faulty. How can you determine that they would be less racist without it? History certainly does not bear that. Also, racism is not considered an A to B proposition. There is no once incident that activates the racism. More likely is that there will be racists even if there is no AA -- again, see: history and human nature. So why scrap a program with proven benefits when racism will exist either way?

To extend your example: do you really think that by you earning a lesser a grade that the boys in your class would instantly become less sexist? The trick is to thrive despite the -ism, not to cater to it.

[Jillybean]

do you think/ do you by any chance know if one's racial identity matters in the admission process?

We are living in the US where people expect/hope/or at least feel obliged to keep any sort of diversity in many occasions. and I heard/thought that the same thing would work in the admission process for graduate programs. Like, the department of which racial majority is asians would probably want to have more people from different cultural/racial background just to promote racial/cultural diversity of the department. Similarly, the department mostly having african americans would be interested in recruiting non-afro americans... ? this is my thought... what do you think? or have you heard of anything thats related to this issue???

anyways, good luck with everyone whos still waiting for happy results!(including moi...)

So I must admit I skipped over the whole entire 3 pages of postings here, because, quite frankly, I'm not interested in getting into any debates about race/affirmative action. But in the interest of answering the op's question, I can say that I spoke with a professor, at one of the top programs in my field, from a very well respected university, prior to applying, who point blank asked me if I was a minority (technically, when it comes to checking the boxes on an application, I am not) and in the interest of helping me, said that being a minority helps improve diversity in the school and would help me get admitted.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Jillybean

[rising_star]

Some people here are saying that it does not matter at the grad level in terms of admissions, but I think affirmative action is still in place. Why would grad school admissions be any different than undergrad or applying for a fellowship or even a job? It's the law in the US, and it does matter. But this does bring a lot of heated debate. I am also not providing an opinion of whether I agree or disagree, but it does matter.......

Affirmative action is NOT the law. The law prohibits discrimination by race and sex (and by age, I think?). Affirmative action came into being as a way of giving minorities opportunities they might not otherwise get, or at least that's always been my understanding of it.

For those who agree with affirmative action, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that it should be implemented in earlier years of people's education, for example for admittance/scholarships to prep schools or for college admissions. Someone who has made it through high school and college has been awarded higher opportunities than most people on this planet ever get. Sure, maybe the people who would benefit from affirmative action at the grad school level have had to work several jobs through college in order to graduate, but considering most of my non-minority friends have had to do this, I don't see why that should be a factor. If people's academic performance is not viewed with consideration of how many hours they routinely had to spend at a job while in college, then why should someone's race or socioeconomic background play any part?

I don't think it's fair to equate having to work multiple jobs with being a minority. It ignores the systematic things in place that make it harder for minorities to get accepted to and attend elite universities, which in turn affects graduate admissions (as numerous threads on here have been concerned with). I'm not sure I understand why you think it's okay for affirmative action at the high school and college level but not at the graduate level. Are you saying that the playing field gets automatically leveled once someone acquires a bachelor's degree?

However, I think it is fundamentally unfair and that it reinforces racism, giving younger generations a new reason to be racist. Despite this not being its intention, in creates the misconception that black people (other minorities too, but generally they're left out of the discussion) are somehow intellectually inferior and need to be given some kind of head start or handicap in order to succeed. Just because that isn't the truth doesn't mean there aren't millions of otherwise racially indifferent white people out there who are starting to think this way.

I don't think affirmative action creates this misconception, I think it is a reaction to the already existing misconception. That may seem like a subtle wording difference but it has huge ramifications in the "real world". I think what many minorities would want is to not need affirmative action because it would mean that their qualifications are taken seriously. But, studies (particularly in I/O psych) have repeatedly shown us that if you give an employer the same qualifications in two candidates, the white candidate will get the job over the black candidate. In that case, affirmative action might actually help someone qualified get a job they would not otherwise get. The New York Times actually had some articles on this on MLK Day. Shades of Prejudice, which is really about skin color, and another on how college degrees don't close the racial gap. You may be interested in the,

On the other hand, here are some of the costs of this discrimination: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school; it encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it mismatches students and institutions, guaranteeing failure for many of the former; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership.

Pencils down. The correct answer is, no, it is not worth it.

First off, you're calling affirmative action "discrimination", right? So, trying to make sure that people aren't systematically disadvantaged because of the color of their skin is problematic in your eyes. I'm going to assume that you find it equally problematic when people are not given chances that they presumably have earned/deserve/that their work merits because of the color of their skin, even though you don't say this. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you give some evidence to support the things you've listed as costs of discrimination? For example, you cite grading and graduation. As a TA, I don't care what color someone's skin is. I grade their work based on the assignment's criteria and what they submit. So, in that case, I'm not sure how that relates to "discrimination". How do you figure that the academic mission of the university and the academic quality of the student body are lowered due to affirmative action? How do you know it mismatches students and institutions (and how on earth could this be separated from countless confounding factors like 16 year olds not knowing what they want to do with their lives?)?

Also, as far as I know, the only time that blood gets factored into group membership is when it comes to Native Americans determining who is a proper member of the tribe. The rest relies on self-reported data.

[JerryLandis]

I'm not saying that some white people's opinions about non-white people should be why affirmative action should or should not be implemented, just that it's a real issue to think about. How is our society ever going to get past racism if certain types of racism (is "reverse racism" a term?") are deemed socially acceptable? I disagree that racism is a permanent part of human nature. As far as Western society is concerned, it's largely a product of the Enlightenment and the scientific community's attempts to justify slavery.

Personally, I am against affirmative action because it is fundamentally racist. Yes, I understand why it is deemed necessary. I am fully aware that the African American majority was never given adequate compensation for what was done in the past. However, anyone who is African American (or just African) can benefit from affirmative action presumably for this reason even if they came to the US long after slavery was abolished, or if their family is wealthy. Maybe that's not the norm, but it's still entirely possible and not really fair. I am white, but my family came to America during the 20th century and had nothing to do with the oppression of American minorities. Why don't I get to benefit from affirmative action, since my ancestors were Eastern European serfs who received just about the same compensation after serfdom was abolished as American slaves did? If affirmative action type policies were based on socio-economic background instead of just race, those people who are underprivileged because of their race would still benefit, alongside poor and underprivileged whites.

Generally speaking, affirmative action doesn't really bother me, because I know that people whose acceptances are aided by it are usually qualified enough to be accepted anyways. But I still disagree with the concept and wish that another way could be implemented to level the playing field for everyone. Just because I haven't read studies and journals about the topic does not mean that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. No matter how much data is collected about it, the fact remains that admissions decisions (in undergrad anyway) are influenced by people's race - not by their personal family history, not by how much money they have or don't have, not by how privileged they may or may not be, but by the checked box on their application denoting their skin color. I don't think it's unreasonable, ignorant, or bigoted for me to be annoyed about admissions decisions being influenced by race.

[JerryLandis]

"But, studies (particularly in I/O psych) have repeatedly shown us that if you give an employer the same qualifications in two candidates, the white candidate will get the job over the black candidate. In that case, affirmative action might actually help someone qualified get a job they would not otherwise get."

That's interesting. But what if the person reviewing the applications has no idea what race both applicants are? If you're just reading a paper application with no interview, wouldn't not asking about race at all make it easier to ensure a fair decision?

I don't really see why coming from a poor family shouldn't merit special recognition, but being part of a racial group that is generally disadvantaged should. If it's not about socioeconomic status, then why aren't the privileged, wealthy African American students who went to my prep school suffering from the difficulties attached to their race that are supposedly irrelevant to socioeconomic standing?