does one's ethnicity/racial identity matter?

[coyabean]

Yep. No good can come of this.

[katalytik]

As mentioned earlier, I am also a minority. But why am I not given the same chances as other minorities (e.g. African American, Hispanic, Native Americans)? I am subject to the same expectations at best with others who are NOT considered minorities. Culturally, (not based on race) Asians are expected to be good at education. So because Asians expected to work hard, we should not be given minority status? That is hard to make sense of.

Finally, when is the time that we say there is no more need for equal opportunity? Who decides that? I think the emphasis to equalize inequalities should (as mentioned earlier by somone) be at a younger age. There are also many people who may be Caucasian and have worked their butt off to get to graduate school. So we do not value that? There are Caucasians who have the same socioeconomic problems as do the affirmative action minorities, but we seem to over look that. Ultimately the policy has major holes and needs to be corrected.

I do not see how someone's skin color or background should trump someone who has worked hard to achieve what they have.

[modernity]

As mentioned earlier, I am also a minority. But why am I not given the same chances as other minorities (e.g. African American, Hispanic, Native Americans)? I am subject to the same expectations at best with others who are NOT considered minorities. Culturally, (not based on race) Asians are expected to be good at education. So because Asians expected to work hard, we should not be given minority status? That is hard to make sense of.

Finally, when is the time that we say there is no more need for equal opportunity? Who decides that? I think the emphasis to equalize inequalities should (as mentioned earlier by somone) be at a younger age. There are also many people who may be Caucasian and have worked their butt off to get to graduate school. So we do not value that? There are Caucasians who have the same socioeconomic problems as do the affirmative action minorities, but we seem to over look that. Ultimately the policy has major holes and needs to be corrected.

I do not see how someone's skin color or background should trump someone who has worked hard to achieve what they have.

Asian-Americans don't get the same benefit from affirmative action, because while they are generally viewed in the US as a different "race" or at the least a different ethnicity from whites, they are deemed to be a "successful" minority - in that they generally are within a few percentage points of whites in obtaining education positions, jobs, and wealth. Affirmative action was aimed at those with a vast disparity in percentages/statistics, and so Asian-Americans were left out in the cold. Even the stereotype that prevails in popular culture about Asian-Americans is that they are incredibly smart/successful and whites should fear/be more like them. I think you're right that there are major holes in that sort of thinking...but this is I believe the argument behind that standpoint.

[noojens]

"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?

Interesting topic -- here's a PDF of one of the studies under discussion, by economists from MIT (now Harvard) and Chicago: http://www.jourdan.ens.fr/~carbonnier/econo/BertrandMullainathan2003.pdf

And the abstract:

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ad discriminate as much as other

employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, just thought I'd add a little substance to the discussion.

Oh, if anyone wants some data regarding the original question about the relationship between race and admissions, there are three threads at physicsgre.com (here, here, and here) and two in this forum ( and ) that have a few hundred applicants' stats (including ethnicity) and admission results for physics and engineering programs. Not a big enough data set to do a rigorous analysis, but still interesting.

BTW, people from other disciplines should start profiles/results threads -- they're useful for future applicants, and it gives you something to do while you're waiting to hear from schools.

[piccgeek]

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

Then the forum crashed. humph!

Me too! I mean, I wrote one several hours ago, and then left since the forum was down, and now I'm back and realizing that everyone has pretty said everything I said so...yeah. To summarize...I basically reiterated and agreed with Pamphilia, and then added some stuff about Affirmative Action that I'm only kind of sure are true, so, in retrospect, it's maybe for the best that the forum kept me from posting. Still, sad face.

[modernity]

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.

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?

I don't think it's unreasonable, ignorant, or bigoted for me to be annoyed about admissions decisions being influenced by race.

First, I want to address that this is not a personal attack on you. As I recall from everything I have associated with your user name you're a very polite and intelligent person, and none of what I am saying is meant to make you feel any of the above adjectives. I'm just trying to get some of the facts out there, and voice my own opinion at the same time. Please don't take it as an insult.

Affirmative Action is not reverse racism - reverse racism would be if people ONLY hired non-whites, or hired non-whites instead of whites. This is not the case. As I was saying much earlier in this thread - AA is about hiring people who are already qualified who are minorities. To be very simplistic... Lets say the local community in Lawyer City is 100% lawyers - 70% of which are white, and 30% of which are non-white minorities - all equally qualified with degrees from Harvard (or some law school that's great). Larry's Law Firm has 100% white employees. Larry's Law Firm does not even remotely reflect the local community. So the next time LLF has a new job opening, AA is there to say hey larry, perhaps you should consider one of the 30% of the equally qualified minorities for that position. Again this is a very simplistic exaggeration of AA..but for the point I suppose it works.

Racism has been around for MUCH longer in western society than that - among other places, it was around in ancient Greece in a different form. Human beings by nature (or programming depending on who you're talking to) like to categorize things, and associate themselves with "like" people. The categories change depending on time and place, but they're there regularly. It is for the forseeable future, a permanent fixture of society.

As I said earlier, the fact that you and your family had nothing to do with the actual oppression, has nothing to do with whether or not you benefit from passing as "white". There are millions of different ways that a white person in US society, even today, benefits from being white. If you read the article I mentioned earlier it gives an amazingly long list. From stereotypes, to insurance policies, to the attraction to "likeness in category", etc. racism/white privilege are ingrained in US society at the moment. A lot of people (not saying you) seem to think that having equal rights and a "black" (although depending on who you talk to, he's not) president erases the effects of hundreds of years of racist policies and it simply doesn't. Where you live, how much your house is worth, whether or not your parents had education/good education, how much money they made, your family's accrued wealth, is still very relevant to "race" in the US. The civil rights movement was not that long ago - there are plenty of us here that probably have parents and grandparents that lived in a VERY different world. It takes a lot of time and effort to separate ourselves, and recover from those sorts of divides. It is not the sort of thing that just goes away because we want it to, or because you or I did not participate in the oppression of minorities (I am also white and only 2nd generation American).

Wow...this post took far too long to write, and is really off topic..but oh well!

Edited February 2, 2010 by modernity

[DJLamar]

I would like to point out that affirmative action policies have traditionally discriminated against Asians, more so than against whites. Please, someone try to justify that.

[JerryLandis]

I never said that people who benefit from affirmative action are not qualified. But still, why is it okay for two people with reasonably similar resumes/applications to be sorted into the acceptance or rejection pile based one their races? Their applications must have SOME differences that actually have something to do with personal merit. If two white or two black people (i.e. two people of the same race as one another) were being considered for the same position and had relatively equal qualifications, I'm sure the admissions committee would find a way to go through the applications and find some reason to accept one and deny the other. It doesn't seem fair that in a case where the two people happen to be of different races, that becomes the deciding factor. Now, it doesn't really bother me THAT much because at the end of the day, a qualified person is being hired/accepted. But still, I disagree in principle with the process.

I know that where people live, how much their houses are worth, whether or not their parents had any or good education, how much money they made, and their family's accrued wealth is still very relevant to race in this country. But there are still plenty of white people who grow up homeless or in crappy homes, are raised by uneducated parents with low incomes, and come from generally poor families. Meanwhile, there are black people who grow up in mansions, are raised by high earning, well educated parents, and come from wealthy families. In an admissions system that uses affirmative action, such an underprivileged white student will be rejected in favor of such a privileged black student with similar credentials. I know that it's a hypothetical situation, but supporting the principles of affirmative action requires believing that this is fair and just. I just can't accept that it is.

The form of racism as we know it today is entirely modern and would not be understandable to people living before the modern era. Hating or oppressing people from other geographical locations or religious backgrounds is not racism, it's xenophobia. Racism requires that the sentiment is caused by genetic, physical differences between the groups of people. Perhaps racism has existed in other eras or societies (I can't say I know much about Eastern perspectives since I study European history), but that does not mean that it has existed continuously throughout human history, or that it is an inherent quality of human society. I'm not saying that our current society in the US is post-racial, but I do think it's possible for a multi-racial society to exist without racism or racist undercurrents.

[piccgeek]

This is very true. According to Kurt Vonnegut's son, who was on the adcom at Harvard Med, if admissions were based on grades/scores alone, the entire entering class would be Asian women.

I'm not Asian, but I'm not gonna lie, my first response to this post was "that is AWESOME." Props to the brilliant Asian ladies!

[coyabean]

As I said earlier, the fact that you and your family had nothing to do with the actual oppression, has nothing to do with whether or not you benefit from passing as "white". There are millions of different ways that a white person in US society, even today, benefits from being white. If you read the article I mentioned earlier it gives an amazingly long list. From stereotypes, to insurance policies, to the attraction to "likeness in category", etc. racism/white privilege are ingrained in US society at the moment. A lot of people (not saying you) seem to think that having equal rights and a "black" (although depending on who you talk to, he's not) president erases the effects of hundreds of years of racist policies and it simply doesn't. Where you live, how much your house is worth, whether or not your parents had education/good education, how much money they made, your family's accrued wealth, is still very relevant to "race" in the US. The civil rights movement was not that long ago - there are plenty of us here that probably have parents and grandparents that lived in a VERY different world. It takes a lot of time and effort to separate ourselves, and recover from those sorts of divides. It is not the sort of thing that just goes away because we want it to, or because you or I did not participate in the oppression of minorities (I am also white and only 2nd generation American).

Wow...this post took far too long to write, and is really off topic..but oh well!

I applaud your stamina and patience.

I just want to say that people always talk about AA as a response to (long ago) slavery like there aren't still people alive who were the victims of state sanctioned apartheid from just 40 years ago. And I'm being conservative with that time frame. Jim Crow anyone?

[piccgeek]

I applaud your stamina and patience.

me too. I'm white and I understand being frustrated with AA, but the fact of the matter is that every day I DO take advantage of privileges I didn't earn and that most of the time I'm not even aware that I have. As Pamphilia said earlier, in a perfect world AA would be silly, but of course the world's not perfect. It's not just that our grandparents grew up with Jim Crow (I know my grandparents flipped out when my cousin went to the prom with an African American..."we're not racist, we just don't see why she can't go with a nice white boy" etc. etc. etc.), but racism is STILL happening, and not just the violent, hating kind of racism. I went to UG in the middle of Indiana, one of the whitest and most conservative states around, and I remember in a class on literature and diversity more than half the students admitted there were ONLY white kids at their high schools. I know this is grad school, and theoretically we're all open-minded colorblind scholars...but that's just a "theoretically." How many acts of racism are unconscious, not driven by any particular hatred but just a habit? How many of the adcom people are my grandparents' age? I'm just saying...I don't feel like Affirmative Action is "robbing" me or making my applications be "passed over" for "less-qualified" students just because I'm white. I do think perhaps I'm just as qualified as someone who did get in because of AA, and really, isn't that the same as my being as qualified as someone who did get in because of having an uncle who knows the department chair, or some one who was in the same fraternity as their desired future adviser, or any of the other myriad of ridiculous reasons that go into choosing a cohort? Usually with AA, the point is that all other things being pretty much equal (and look around at all the amazing talented people on this forum! Don't we always say that just because you get rejected doesn't mean you weren't qualified, or even that you were less qualified, than the lucky accepted 4%?), the adcom (or employer) is willing to use their interest in furthering diversity as a way to choose between one qualified applicant and another. At some point there are 25 perfect candidates and 10 spots to fill, and they've gotta pick somehow.

[JerryLandis]

Well, the only reason I mentioned slavery in the first place was that I was replying to what someone else had said. I should probably just say that I don't really care that affirmative action exists even though I'm against it in principle. It's rare that something I consider unfair or immoral actually improves the quality of people's lives and educations. So if I were to campaign against something, it would definitely not be this. Even though I think it's unfair, at least it happens behind the scenes so university applicants don't have to be told "Sorry, we couldn't admit you because you're white/Asian and we had to meet racial quotas." And at least those non-minority applicants who are turned away because of affirmative action are probably the ones who are less qualified than the other admits, so they were on the edge anyhow.

So, the question remains, just what role does race/ethnic background play in graduate admissions?

[rising_star]

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.

What is this African American majority you speak (write) of? I don't know that it's about past compensation as much as it is about being given equal opportunities today.

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?

The thing is, people usually do have an idea about the applicants race. They've met you at a conference, they or assume know it from an affiliation you list on your CV, they guess based on your name (and that's the dimension some of the I/O psych studies look at). And, to be fair, most departments don't ask about race; it's the graduate school that asks. So, it could very well be that at the department level, admissions are race-blind (to the extent that such a thing is possible and ignoring that you can infer someone's race from their undergraduate institution, particularly if they attend an HBCU).

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?

Just because you don't see them suffering doesn't mean that they aren't. Who are you to say that they don't experience racism in the course of their everyday lives, that they haven't been passed over for a job/internship because the interviewer disliked the color of their skin when they walked in the door, or that they aren't looked at funny in the mall for holding hands with someone of another race? I'm asking this in all seriousness. Just as I can't say that you haven't experienced disadvantages because of your upbringing, you can't say what others have and have not experienced in their personal lives.

I applaud your stamina and patience.

I just want to say that people always talk about AA as a response to (long ago) slavery like there aren't still people alive who were the victims of state sanctioned apartheid from just 40 years ago. And I'm being conservative with that time frame. Jim Crow anyone?

Seriously. And it's not as if the Jim Crow era politics aren't still around.

[JerryLandis]

Again, the only reason I brought up slavery was that someone else did and I was responding to that. I recognize that racism is a problem today, but I don't think that fighting it with more, inverted institutionalized racism, even just a teensy bit, is really the way to go.

I know they haven't suffered substantially from it because they are my friends and we've talked about it. Sure, they've experienced racism, but that's not the same thing as being disadvantaged. Maybe there have been a few subliminal things they didn't mention, or maybe didn't notice. However, I don't think such subtle disadvantages would be as damaging as coming from a poor background and living in a crappy school district, so I don't think it's right to admit a minority student (who happens to be from a privileged background) over a non-minority student (who happens to be from a disadvantaged background) on the basis of racial difference. Frankly I think a better solution would just be to stop using local property taxes to fund schools, and to fund them all equally based on how many students they have. Not a complete solution, but better I think.

[glasses]

I know they haven't suffered substantially from it because they are my friends and we've talked about it.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved with this, but I did want to respond to this small part of your last post --

(1) People lie -- to others and themselves. I have been asked such questions by friends (even some very close ones), and I have lied in my responses; similarly, especially as a child, I lied to myself about these very things. And, a corollary: even when people are not lying, they are not always willing to be entirely "self-excavating" in a conversation. (A simple example: if someone asks, "How are you?" and I'm having a spectacularly terrible day, I tend not to say, "Really quite awful" -- I, like most, answer, "I'm fine, thanks.")

I don't mean to imply anything about your friends here (that they're lying or hiding something or whatever; for all I know, you may have gauged their experiences accurately and they may have portrayed them accurately). I only want to point out that one person can never entirely know what another person has gone through, which accounts for an inherent flaw in any statement like the above. The reasons why I cannot say that I know what your friends mean (which would be glaringly false) are the same reasons why you cannot say that you know what your friends mean.

(2) That being said, assume that we do know certain people in our lives entirely and completely. Under those conditions, the logic of the quoted sentence would still be a little iffy because those people whom we know couldn't possibly be representative of an entire demographic -- or even of a small slice of a demographic. They're representative of themselves. Above, I made the point that I'd lied when faced with such questions, but I had to allow that some may not have done the same thing; similarly, while some may not have been affected by race-based disadvantages ("privileged" or otherwise), others may have been.

In my experience, it is impossible to know how any given -ism is affecting any given person at any given time -- personal lives are personal. (I've been trying to write a paragraph here about how my own personal experiences enter into my points above, but I keep deleting it -- those experiences are personal, after all!)

[JerryLandis]

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?

[fred987]

I do not know if it plays a role in admissions or not, but I do believe that affirmative action is in need of great reform. Checking a box is not sufficient description of one's minority status, which is why I strongly believe in the Diversity Statement. I think it is interesting the AA approach that has been taken by law schools, with a special regard to underrepresented minorities.

Edited February 2, 2010 by fred987

[modernity]

I never said that people who benefit from affirmative action are not qualified. But still, why is it okay for two people with reasonably similar resumes/applications to be sorted into the acceptance or rejection pile based one their races?

But there are still plenty of white people who grow up homeless or in crappy homes, are raised by uneducated parents with low incomes, and come from generally poor families. Meanwhile, there are black people who grow up in mansions, are raised by high earning, well educated parents, and come from wealthy families.

The form of racism as we know it today is entirely modern and would not be understandable to people living before the modern era. Hating or oppressing people from other geographical locations or religious backgrounds is not racism, it's xenophobia. Racism requires that the sentiment is caused by genetic, physical differences between the groups of people.

I'm not saying that our current society in the US is post-racial, but I do think it's possible for a multi-racial society to exist without racism or racist undercurrents.

AA would only come in, in that situation (between two equally qualified individuals) if the department had a significant lack of minority presence- to the point where people were questioning/protesting it. If the department chooses to do it to increase diversity at their institution, that's a personal choice.

There are plenty of poor white people, and plenty of rich black people - but they are still a significant minority. Laws/rules/suggestions are made for the "usual" cases - not necessarily for the exceptions to the rule. Personally I think giving AA a significant push in the low SES direction would be a good idea as it might help some of those exceptions to the rule...this may come around in the coming years - especially with the economy forcing the poor to be poorer...who knows.

Racism is not caused by genetic differences - it's caused by perceived differences in appearance/background and social categories - which can be the result of geographic locations, and many other subjective factors depending on the society you're talking about (the US has 5 major racial categories while Brazil has over one hundred).

Take the US for example... the races we generally think of are:

White - skin color

Black - skin color

Asian - geographic location

Native American - location

Hispanic - ethnicity (the US census doesn't count this as a race, but that's another story)

Even when you go by things like skin color - some people have very different definitions of what passes for white or black (see Obama and the big Is he white enough? Is he black enough? debate).

Although this is really getting off topic again, because we're mostly questioning institutional racism more than any other - and in that case, no one has really argued against the fact that in general minorities are at a disadvantage when it comes to certain opportunities (education for example), which is the point of things like AA - to correct institutionalized racism.

It's quite possible that some day multi-racial societies will live without these sorts of issues (I certainly hope for it!), but for now, and probably for some time, it's here.

[khalif54]

Wow

So as an African American male I have been in and seen the outcome of these conversations. There is a logical argument for and against and I appreciate it when people argue from those places and not from emotion or vested interest. Affirmative action is biased against poor whites...and favors wealthy African Americans--this is true. However, what I've found is that the folks who are most upset by affirmative action are middle class/upper middle class whites or middle or upper middle class Asians. These 2 groups I've found place a lot of emphasis on this idea or meritocracy. Yet, seldom realize that meritocracy does not exist. Extremely wealthy people regardless of race get into whatever school they want-we can't lose sight of this fact as they are taking some of the coveted spots away from the rest of us. I wonder whose spot George Bush took at Harvard Business School--think about it. The middle and lower class argue over the scraps left behind, that's just the way our system works.

When it comes to statistical analysis about who benefits, folks like to look at admission rates by applicant race and gender as an indicator of unfair bias in admissions. However this approach is flawed because it usually compares 2 vastly different numbers of applicants. If there are only 20 African American applicants and 100 White applicants for 4 spots and 2 White and 2 African American students are chosen--the African American acceptance rate is 10% whereas the white student rate is 2%. Some policy makers, lawyers, media outlets will argue that the 10% acceptance rate is proof that minorities are getting special treatment--never explaining the flawed logic behind their argument.

The next logical question is why are there only 20 African American applicants? Well most student self select out of applying to certain schools. They may know that their GRE scores are too low or their GPA won't get it done. Based on GRE data alone there small number of African Americans, or other "under represented minorities for that matter, who meet certain testing thresholds--say the 1300 level. As such schools may view a minority student with a 1300 GRE similar to a White or Asian student with a 1500 GRE. They do this for the earlier reason of scarcity along with the knowledge that most research indicates that the tangible difference between a student with a 1300 and 1500 GRE score is negligible in terms of Graduate School GPA, publications, etc. No while we may think that extra 100 points means a whole lot, research shows it does not.

The myth I get most upset about is usually based on insecurity. The myth that somehow I got into this school on some affirmative action kick. Well, when I'm in these discussions, I typically say yes I believe in affirmative action and yes I believe I am qualified and then I ask people for their stats. Most people assume that I will have low stats because I argue the merits of affirmative actions. I have a 1470 GRE 750 Q 720 V (in the social sciences) (taken only once) and 3.8 GPA undergrad and 3.9 Grad GPA both from an IVY league school. Typically that silences them. I say this not to brag but to solidify my point.

For those who minimize the effect of diverse learning environments, find out what the research says about the benefits of a diverse school or work environment. I think you'll find that a diverse and inclusive environment benefits us all.

I also think people should also be honest about losing out in competition. Sometimes you just lose. Since most of the folks on here are probably type A personalities who don't lose often it difficult to accept. We may want to find out what unfair external force led to our failures--because it couldn't have been our fault, RIGHT. Its OK take a deep breath, dust yourself off and get back on the horse. We all can't win all of the time.

Now if you are poor and white--you got beef and I can't justify Affirmative Action to you;its not fair to you. You still benefit from White privilege but no where near a middle or upper class White person. That is why I am also in favor of socio-economic diversity--it matters. I also believe that wealthy African Americans/Minorities don't have it easy by any means (look at research on middle class and upper middle class African American college failure rates)-- however they should not have the same benefits from affirmative action that poor folks should have {that's just my opinion}.

Peace

[zilch]

poor asian kid here. Meritocracy does exist (its how I got into college), although it is far from ideal. George Bush is a case of political clout, while we can't escape that it is also a very small percentage of cases.

the world isn't perfect, nor is it fair. You will have privileges and you will be gypped. I've never really cared that AA seemed to disadvantage me. All I do is try and if I fail I figure out something else. Also, this debate has about run its course, interesting points were made on both sides but it's unlikely that either side is going to convince the other.

[khalif54]

@ favorfire

Thats exactly what I mean. Try not to parse out areas that you do not like--any of the items or claims that I have made can be verfied by using JSTOR or EBSCO you could probably find some evidence on Google Scholar. The point is that you have to do the research. Take the arguement as a whole and attempt to understand, if you feel that my claims don't old up research and refute. In the end its whether or not you want to be open to something you may not like. Because you don't agree with something doesn't make it racist--it just means you don't agree. As I'm sure you attended or attend a reputable institution I won't attempt to belittle your accomplishments there but your statement about mine betrays your intractibility to things that are different. It's OK, its a free country. I hope you get in to the school of your dreams so hopefully you can shed those misplaced notions of racism.

Edited February 2, 2010 by khalif54

[ColorlessGreen]

I think we can all agree that minorities should be better represented in higher education, yes? Can anyone really argue that this is a bad thing? I doubt it. So in fact it seems as thought there are two main arguments being brought against AA - 1) the worthy poor white boy and 2) a perception of AA as discrimination in and of itself.

1) is an interesting anecdote that often seems to be brought up primarily by the middle or upper classes: "What if it came down to a privileged black woman and a poor white boy?" Now, this could theoretically become more of a problem in hiring,when only one person can fill the position in question, but I find it to be an extremely odd thing to bring up in admissions, when usually at least 10 students are being admitted. Everyone I've talked to about AA assumes that the privileged black woman would be taking the spot away from the poor white boy. What about the 8 privileged white men and women who would presumably be admitted as well? Why should the choice be to let in all 8 of them, but just one of the "less desirable" candidates? An admissions committee could reject one of the other candidates instead, but we assume that those other 8 are fully qualified and that the two in question are simply not. Admitting them is seen as a magnanimous concession - a gift, rather than something that is earned.

I think that this is proof that there is racism in this country, and sexism, and discrimination against people of lower socioeconomic status. These are precisely the things that AA, when implemented properly, should be attempting to remedy. The reason we need AA, the reason that individual conscientiousness is insufficient to change these prejudices, is that those of us who are privileged, white, male, or anything else especially favored do not realize that we have privilege. Our prejudices are ingrained and unexamined. That is what leads people to believe myth 2), that AA creates discrimination where there was none before. AA is intended to correct discrimination - it says that, all else being equal, a minority should be favored over a white candidate in order to correct a bias already at work.

It is true that sometimes all else is not equal. Sometimes the white candidate may have marginally better scores, or grades, or SOPs, or LORs, and yet is still rejected because of something beyond their control. But that is true of any decision. Life isn't fair. It's not fair that my dad is comfortably employed at a job he enjoys when my friend's dad works at Walmart, despite having once been a successful accountant, due to a language barrier he can't break through. Life isn't fair. But AA isn't intended to contribute to that unfairness - it's meant to level the playing field in some small part. It won't make everything totally equal, but it might remove a large rock barring my neighbor's way. And I think that's a good thing.

[JerryLandis]

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? First of all, I never said that AA is wrong because it could boil down to rejecting a poor white man in favor of a rich black woman. I never brought gender into this so to say that arguments against affirmative action (but only when middle class white people bring it up) are inherently sexist is ridiculous. Also, bringing up that scenario does not mean that I assumed that the other 8 admitted students were qualified because they are wealthy and white. They could be from any combination of racial or economic backgrounds, the point is that they have the best applications so they were selected first for admission, leaving the other 2 in the running against each other, 2 who happen to have similar qualifications but are of different races. The reason I bring up this hypothetical situation is to demonstrate that AA is fundamentally flawed because, in seeking to redress socioeconomic imbalances, it assumes that all black people must be poor and underprivileged, and all white people must be rich and overprivileged, when it could skip that inaccurate assumption by just evaluating its decisions based on socioeconomic status instead of race. Yes, the hypothetical scenario I bring up may be uncommon or, of course, entirely hypothetical, but the fact is that it is made possible by AA, and is being used as an example to explain why the system is fundamentally unjust. The reason I use the example is not that someone taught it to me in some secret meeting about controlling the world that I had in my high school We Love Being White class, but that it makes sense and is entirely applicable to the discussion. I know that what I'm saying about AA isn't going to convince anyone to change their minds (although many of you in favor of it seem to actually agree with me, in saying that you think it should be adjusted to consider socioeconomic factors), but I just really don't like being told that I can't understand the issue because I'm just so freaking white and privileged, I can't possibly fathom all the deep thoughts in my tiny spoiled brat brain. How would any of you like it if I said that as black people, which I guess some of you are, your opinions about AA are typical of your race and should really just be brushed off because you've simply been raised from a standpoint that is biased in favor of it, because it could directly benefit you? 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?

[katalytik]

Someone mentioned here that, its just tough luck.........and live with it. I don't think so, because policy can make changes. The goals of government is not to put in loopholes, but to provide solid policy that benefits its people, not harms them. I am against AA because of its policy problems, where socioeconomic status is trumped by race. Skin color should never be an issue, and it is sad that to this day we will focus on color. How does anyone expect to get past this when we keep bringing it up as even relevant, and have idiotic policies that support such color-based approaches to "help" people. How about we just focus on poor socioeconomic areas and get them up to speed, early on in their life. Head Start seems to suck, but it is a goods start. I think low socioeconomic status is what keeps people down, not race. Someone needs to blind our politicians to our color and have them focus on specifics about how to improve the livelihood and educational opportunities of poorer America -- whether it is Asian, Black, White, Pink, Blue or Polka Dot.

[red_crayons]

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.