does one's ethnicity/racial identity matter?

[katalytik]

And YES I believe in meritocracy. Isn't that what got the US far ahead? People get rewarded for their work. What a concept.

[Pamphilia]

Affirmative action is not in place only to afford underprivileged individuals a leg up. It is so important to have people with whom a student can identify, to have people who represent the populace, in positions of power and authority. When students of a certain background see professors and grad students with whom they can identify, they will be more motivated to succeed. It's about finding mentors and role models. I know that I am not articulating this very well, but people always seem to think that affirmative action is designed to reward individuals for suffering. That is NOT the point. Let's look at the story of a hypothetical black girl, we will call her X. If X wants to be an academic, but does not see anyone who represents her, she may think that academia is not culturally appropriate for her; she may think that because of who she is and where she grew up that she is not good enough for academia, because no one like her has succeeded in pursuing it; she may work really hard but never crack the ceiling because she doesn't have anyone to mentor her the way all of the white students around her do; or, she may say "screw it" and work her ass off to succeed, and do it. If X were able, from the start of her journey, to have a role model--a black female academic with whom she could identify (even if that role model were from a financially privileged family)--she would be less likely to regard her background as a barrier and would be more likely to succeed from the start.

Now, this is only one hypothetical story. And, those of you who have always had role models who look and sound like you, who have always had mentors and people to look up to--you may not understand how important it is to have role models with whom you can identify. If you don't realize HOW lucky you are to have had these role models and mentors with whom you can identify (for whatever reason) you entire life--THAT is called privilege. You have the privilege of having people who represent you in visible positions of authority. You have the privilege not to realize what a difference this makes.

I realize that I probably did not articulate this well at all, that people will probably pick holes in what I say, and that I may enrage others. But I feel like the posters on this thread have largely missed the point. This isn't about institutionalized racism or Jim Crow or being denied a bank loan because of your ethnicity (as was the case with someone I know). The drive for diversity is as aspirational as it is anything else. And many of the people here need to wake up and smell the privilege. If you've never had to think about this because it doesn't directly impact your life: you are lucky, and privileged.

Edited to add: I am not trying to stomp on anyone's opinion here or suggest that s/he shouldn't be allowed to have one, whatever it is. Just trying to add some perspective. I hope I haven't implied here that I think one is not "entitled to have an opinion" for any reason.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Pamphilia

[JerryLandis]

Yes, but I am still entitled to an opinion, and people should still listen to what I have to say despite the fact that I am white and middle class, and yes, privileged. Whatever the purpose of AA may be, it is still fundamentally unjust when regarding some individuals. Why does that not matter? I understand that it is important for people of more varied ethnic backgrounds to be in positions of authority, academic or otherwise. But that doesn't require having admissions policies based on race. The crux of the issue stems on economic background - who can afford to live in a wealthy area with good schools, who can afford fancy test prep, who can afford to pay for stupid standardized tests and application fees. Of course there are other factors involved, but I don't think it's ridiculous to say that the center of the matter is economic. If socioeconomic background were taken into account instead of race, black individuals would still benefit. Privilege is all relative. Do you honestly mean to say that a wealthy black student who has attended private schools and never had to hold a job is underprivileged compared to a white student who has grown up poor, has had to work throughout school, and has uneducated parents who can't serve as academic role models? How do you quantify that privilege, and say that student A deserves more leeway in admissions than student B? Is having no role models who are the same race as you the same thing as having no role models at all?

[Pamphilia]

Yes, but I am still entitled to an opinion, and people should still listen to what I have to say despite the fact that I am white and middle class, and yes, privileged. Whatever the purpose of AA may be, it is still fundamentally unjust when regarding some individuals. Why does that not matter? I understand that it is important for people of more varied ethnic backgrounds to be in positions of authority, academic or otherwise. But that doesn't require having admissions policies based on race. The crux of the issue stems on economic background - who can afford to live in a wealthy area with good schools, who can afford fancy test prep, who can afford to pay for stupid standardized tests and application fees. Of course there are other factors involved, but I don't think it's ridiculous to say that the center of the matter is economic. If socioeconomic background were taken into account instead of race, black individuals would still benefit. Privilege is all relative. Do you honestly mean to say that a wealthy black student who has attended private schools and never had to hold a job is underprivileged compared to a white student who has grown up poor, has had to work throughout school, and has uneducated parents who can't serve as academic role models? How do you quantify that privilege, and say that student A deserves more leeway in admissions than student B? Is having no role models who are the same race as you the same thing as having no role models at all?

So, I'm not sure if this was directed toward my comment or not. If it is: for jebus' sake. I don't think I ever suggested that you should not be allowed to have an opinion on this topic just because of your background. I get your point--I really do--because I used to share it. But, I got some perspective (thank you, Sustained Dialogue--best learning experience of my life).

As for this: "Do you honestly mean to say that a wealthy black student who has attended private schools and never had to hold a job is underprivileged compared to a white student who has grown up poor, has had to work throughout school, and has uneducated parents who can't serve as academic role models?"--I don't think I came anywhere near saying or even implying that. In that case, we are not talking about the same kind of "privilege" anyway.

To answer this question: "Is having no role models who are the same race as you the same thing as having no role models at all?"--Of course it is not the same. But it really does make a difference. On a related tangent, do you think that if the boys in school had seen more strong female mathematicians, they might not have assumed that you were favored?

To everybody here: I am only trying to add perspective here. Do with it what you will.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Pamphilia

[rising_star]

I understand that it is important for people of more varied ethnic backgrounds to be in positions of authority, academic or otherwise. But that doesn't require having admissions policies based on race.

Actually, studies have shown that that is exactly what's required. If you're looking for a nonacademic example, check out the National Football League's Rooney Rule, which requires that teams interview minority candidates for vacant coaching positions. Several coaches, who might not otherwise have even gotten an interview, have gotten interviews and jobs thanks to that rule.

[spozik]

I really appreciate Pamphilia's comments. I agree that it is extremely important to have role models with whom one can identify in positions where they would like to see themselves. One might even make the comparison to the prevailing interest among black youth in sports like basketball and football, venues in which there are a towering number of successful racially-similar role models.

However, as a white first-generation college student, I didn't find much to identify with among my professors. Most of my professors in college were the kids of professors or people who were otherwise very successful in their chosen profession. The first time I met someone with a PhD was the first time I went to visit the college that I ultimately attended. Although I'm white, for a long time I saw "academia" as a forbidden path to take, much like, I am sure, many black students do. I also had to feign ignorance in my peer group at times, until I got to college, where I had to re-train myself. I enjoyed doing this, because it let me be who I am. But even now I sometimes get caught up in what I am saying versus what I am thinking, e.g. I'll think "simultaneously," mentally correct myself to "at the same time," remember that I'm in an environment where that kind of intelligence is valued, and switch back to "simultaneously." Where I grew up, you were stupid if you didn't know how to fix a car or rig your fishing line. Most people couldn't have cared less about Shakespeare, much less Ancient Greek.

This was a product of where I came from moreso than race, and this is where I have to at least partially agree with JerryLandis' point that this kind of thing, if it is to remain, ultimately needs to be based on socio-economic status, not specifically on race. Is it really "diverse" to have an entering class that has 3 white kids, 3 black kids, and 3 asian kids, all from the same suburb, who all went to the same high school, took the same classes, and who all have successful businessmen and businesswomen for parents? I don't really think so. In fact, I think you could have more diversity in a class that has a few kids from Appalachia, some from inner-city New York, some from a small ranch town in Wyoming, and some who were in the collective group I described in the previous sentence--and ignoring race entirely.

The American experience is extremely diverse for all sorts of communities, families, and backgrounds. While I don't think that the concept of affirmative action is misguided at its core, it errs when its sole criterion is race. There are, to put it simply, too many wild cards for too many people. Several of my applications asked if I was a first-generation college student, and I was happy that they asked because I feel that, based on innumerable interactions with people who aren't (which is the vast majority of my peers, it seems), my experience has had certain challenges and barriers that would not have existed otherwise.

The main point of the process should be to help identify and nurture unrealized potential. If there's a kid who hasn't had the opportunity to take Calculus at his school, but found a book at a used bookstore and starting working through the problem sets, he won't have a grade or an AP credit to show for it. But I think his initiative counts for at least as much. Ideally, I would hope that this is the student that administrations and governments are striving to make sure isn't left out of the system just because he or she doesn't know how to game it. If I've grossly misunderstood why we employ this system, then I guess this is just my idealized notion of what we should be trying to accomplish with a system of affirmative action. Either way, the system needs some tweaking.

[Pamphilia]

However, as a white first-generation college student, I didn't find much to identify with among my professors...

...I guess this is just my idealized notion of what we should be trying to accomplish with a system of affirmative action. Either way, the system needs some tweaking.

I think this is really well said and I appreciate your insights!

Edited February 2, 2010 by Pamphilia

[glasses]

So if they are individuals and should not be assumed to share everything with their given demographic, why is that demographic a potentially decisive part of their application processes?

I see what you're going for here, but I don't think there IS a conflict between individuality/individual merit and the goals of affirmative action, because . . . well, because of everything Pamphilia already said! Emphasis mine below:

Affirmative action is not in place only to afford underprivileged individuals a leg up. It is so important to have people with whom a student can identify, to have people who represent the populace, in positions of power and authority. When students of a certain background see professors and grad students with whom they can identify, they will be more motivated to succeed. It's about finding mentors and role models. I know that I am not articulating this very well, but people always seem to think that affirmative action is designed to reward individuals for suffering. That is NOT the point.

[glasses]

Either way, the system needs some tweaking.

This I do entirely, wholeheartedly agree with. I think it was rising_star who said that affirmative action could use a strong push in the direction of examining socioeconomic status; someone else mentioned (sorry for the lack of attribution on this paraphrase -- I can't find the post at this time!) that little checkboxes on a form is hardly an adequate examination of race. On personal and non-personal levels, I agree with both statements.

[red_crayons]

Either way, the system needs some tweaking.

I like your post, and I agree.

That's why I'm glad SOME schools are including socioeconomic diversity along with ethnic/racial diversity as points to consider, as I pointed out in my earlier post.

Also, the school I work at treats other things, like disability (including physical, learning disabilities, chronic illness...), as elements of diversity, too. Maybe it's unusually progressive, but it might be worth looking closely at some of these policies before getting too worked up about them. After the Michigan debacle a few years ago, lots of people have caught on to the fact that NO ONE was happy with how AA was a decade ago.

There's an opportunity to highlight something interesting and unique about yourself in some of these more progressive policies, without necessarily having it be specifically about your RACE, and it's up to you to recast your own experiences in a way that makes you seem interesting and unique. Not all policies, YET, but it's heading that way.

Edited February 2, 2010 by red_crayons

[ColorlessGreen]

So because I am a middle class white person, I can't possibly understand race issues, I have a misguided belief in meritocracy, I am secretly some kind of flaming racist, and my opinion about AA should be discounted as foolish? [...] Is it okay for people's opinions to be disregarded based on their economic standing and race, as long as the person is white and middle class?

Yikes, I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to offend you - I may have come off as more inflammatory than I meant to. I definitely didn't mean to imply that middle-class white people shouldn't have opinions. Heck, I am a middle-class white person with strong opinions! And I absolutely agree with you that socioeconomic status should be taken into consideration in admissions, job recruitment, etc. I just think that there are other things as well that should have some influence on the process.

Pamphilia, red_crayons, spozik - thank you for your posts. You've all made some really good points about the nature of privilege and diversity. There's a lot to think about in this thread.

[modernity]

I was the one saying that we should push for low SES over AA, and this is something that's already been discussed in government/activist forums. This for me is personal, as I was a first gen. college graduate who only made it through by working a lot through college. Even this grad school app process was difficult, as I have no family or friends who ever made it past a bachelors and no mentors to guide me along my way since I took a break after UG. While I understand that I certainly have (and have had) some advantages by being white, I too feel like my SES had some major effects on my opportunities. So on a personal level, I certainly relate to that sentiment.

My points about AA and other race related issues still stand though. They're not as offensive/guilt-causing as many white people I have encountered seemed to think they were - IF they actually take the time to learn about them. Most of the dislike for AA and other legislation like it, is based on misconceptions and misunderstandings. I agree that sometimes white people get injured by the process, and some minorities get a boost up when they may not have needed it - but every law/rule/etc. has exceptions. I doubt any of them are perfect. My point was basically AA was not put into place to punish white people, and it's not as extreme as some would have you believe - it could however use modifications, and it probably will get them over the coming years as things change.

[a761127]

Just my two cents:

1. Culture, ethnicity, and race are not the same. I think a lot of people are mixing them up, leading to miscommunication.

2. There is no such thing as Asian culture. There are, for example, Chinese, Indian, & etc culture. However, Asian-American culture (rising from reaction to perceived imposition of Asians as one race from society/US) exists. If you go outside of the States, "Asian culture" is non-existent because there simply isn't a group that foms under that idea. One of few reasons why rather the idea of Asian-American culture might make sense.

3. Race is heavily determined by what people see. Common example: the current president is half AA but people tend to categorize him as AA. In the States, Asians are grouped as one race but if you go to other nations, 2 people considered Asians in the States are considered as individuals with different racial backgrounds (e.g. Koreans may think Indians are of different race. Chinese may think Japanese are of different race.). What people see and group accordingly is dependent on what they *perceive* to be salient physical features (e.g. skin color, nose shape/height, eyes, etc).

4. Race does not translate into culture. Say a male is born in Japan, never stepped outside of Japan until 28 y.o. and he speaks Japanese only. He is caucasian but that does not mean he is culturally American (or West European). Say an AA girl was adopted by Korean parents when she was born and grows up in Korea as Korean. These are actual cases.

5. Cultural and Ethnic backgrounds -- they are not the same either. In the above example, the caucasian boy who was born in Japan is of Italian descent. So, that would mean he has an Italian ethnic background but culturally Japanese although his race would be considered caucasian (from an American point of view).

Now, let's flip all this around in a different example and see if it sounds "unique". Say a girl born in Vietnam adopted by caucasian parents at birth, grew up in NY, speaks English only, and may or may not be aware of Vietnamese culture but do not identify with it as "own" culture. She has Vietnamese-American and Vietanamese friends. She would be Asian in terms of race, with Vietnamese ethnic background, and of American culture (more likely). Now when I present this example, people in the States usually don't see the significance of differences between race, culture, and ethnicity. But they tend to spend more time paying attention to the case of boy born in Japan because that is "unusual" to many people here.

Again, just my two cents.

[waiting2009]

The schools I applied for that took "diversity" into consideration (and it was only for FUNDING, not admissions) asked for the following information:

• Are you the first in your family to attend college?
• Are you black/hispanic/Native American/etc etc?
• Did you receive any of the following scholarships as an undergrad, or participate in Upward Bound?
• Are there other factors that should be considered? [blank space to write or option to attach a supplemental essay]

I think that would give applicants the chance to cover social, economic, AND racial/ethnicity considerations.

One school SPECIFICALLY mentioned socioeconomic diversity, too.

Of course, this must certainly vary by school, but the schools that looked for this info included an Ivy and a state university. At least SOME schools are asking for holistic input that will help them fairly navigate the poor white man/rich black woman scenario.

Leaving aside whether affirmative action is fair, my impression is that for many graduate programs it isn't an important consideration. In particular programs with few spots and plenty of qualified applicants. In one of my interviews a professor (the head of the admissions committee) was telling me about their funding options and casually mentioned that I wouldn't be eligible for a government grant. He thought I was an international student. Apparently they didn't even check about citizenship or race. Another professor at a top school -- very selective program, few spots -- told me that they don't care much about affirmative action.

I think it could have some impact in programs that select a large class and are interested in cultural diversity -- law schools, MBA programs, med schools. And remember that affirmative action says that if there are two candidates equally qualified you can give preference to the minority applicant. It doesn't say that you should choose the less qualified minority.

One more thing: As somebody else mentioned, it's probably more helpful in funding decisions than admission.

Edited February 5, 2010 by waiting2009

[spectralScatter]

Does ones racial background matter?

Yes, because a committee wants a minority canidate that is smart, poise, and capable in their ambitions. Moreover, there are more funding resources such as fellowships and federal grants that cam support these students, so that a department doesn't have too .

Is there anything wrong with this? No, and here are 3 descriptions of the challenges that minority students face in applying and being accepted.

1) The GRE is biased against anyone who is not from an English background. Example: There are tons of Anglo-Saxon words that test verbal ability, and only few to no words derived from Latin. A disadvantage to those who speak romance languages at home, but admissions are caring less about the GRE

2) Many minorities grow up without the proper educational resources, and are further instilled with the idea that they can't handle careers in the STEM fields .

3) A greater proportion of minorities (to majorities) are disadvantaged, because they are first college generation and have to work to support their education.

I'm a minority, and I am interviewing. My background and experience in my field are the reasons why I am being accepted. For example, a minority canidate with a weaker profile who interviewed at Z university at the same time as me was denied.

So racial background matters, but it won't affect the acceptance rates for you white folks. Please stop bickering, and don't blame minorities for any issues you may have. Cool thanks.

[ExeterRiceNowwhat]

If you are a white male US citizen from middle - upper class you are basically screwed unless your parents make a big donation to the school of your choice. You might want to put down you are a half black/half native American trans-gender homosexual female. You probably don't even have to take the GRE with some lineage like that. (Sarcasm. . . not really)

[Early]

You're all secretly racist.

[myrrh]

The schools I applied for that took "diversity" into consideration (and it was only for FUNDING, not admissions) asked for the following information:

• Are you the first in your family to attend college?
• Are you black/hispanic/Native American/etc etc?
• Did you receive any of the following scholarships as an undergrad, or participate in Upward Bound?
• Are there other factors that should be considered? [blank space to write or option to attach a supplemental essay]

I think that would give applicants the chance to cover social, economic, AND racial/ethnicity considerations.

One school SPECIFICALLY mentioned socioeconomic diversity, too.

Of course, this must certainly vary by school, but the schools that looked for this info included an Ivy and a state university. At least SOME schools are asking for holistic input that will help them fairly navigate the poor white man/rich black woman scenario.

It's also what I found out during my application process, and I think the reason is quite clear. In those schools which gave me a total page to fill out about these racial/ social/ economic/ family educational backgrounds, there are usually some fellowships for those students from underrepresented social groups.

[chimerical]

I think some people aren't getting the concept of intersectionality. Privilege is not something that you either have or you don't. You can be privileged on one axis and disadvantaged on another. So, to use the common example of a poor white student and a rich black student, the black student is privileged related to the white student on the class axis, but the white student is still privileged relative to the black student on the race axis. The same goes for things like gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Rather than try to determine who's worse off "overall" it's better to acknowledge that different types of privilege affect people's lives in distinct ways. So, for schools that practice affirmative action, socioeconomic status is better implemented as a complement rather than replacement for race.

[waytooold]

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.ute..._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.

I appreciate the link and the largely civil discussion. Just a comment that since Bakke, the administration of affirmative action in University admissions is not a matter of all or nothing-- it recognizes a variety of factors and weights. The goal of diversifying the academy, which at this time in society cannot rely ENTIRELY on merit is worthy. The individual consequence that you or I might be displaced by an equally qualified person who is give a bit of advantage due to identity is, as an earlier poster said, probably the same feeling others have heard when we have gotten the edge due to privilege or majority status. Creating an equal society can't always make the majority happy.

[gollux]

The argument about affirmative action is always filled with ridiculous straw men. I really get a kick out of the one about the poor white person! and the rich black person! and the rich black person is super lazy and just coasting long getting awesome opportunities because he/she is black! and that white person has been eating shoes every single day and working so hard! And they will accept the lazy rich black student! And throw the hard-working white student into the dungeon! They are LITERALLY TAKING FOOD FROM THE WHITE KID'S MOUTH.

Yeah, that's not how it works.