Middle-class students are generally better prepared for college, so middle-class black students are also generally better prepared: if we want racial diversity, class diversity cannot be an equal consideration. If we want class diversity, then race cannot be an equal consideration. Lower-class students (of any race) who make it, do so against the odds, and their success is as unique as the individual.
2
One thing that becomes increasingly clear to me as I read so many articles about higher education (not just in the NYT) is that so many, many Americans seem practically obsessed with "elite" colleges, and I am deeply suspicious about how much of that is a genuine belief in the educational experience at said institutions. As a nation, we don't seem to value education, we seem to value brand names, and the (presumed) advantages those schools confer. So if only a small number of colleges matter and they have limited spots for admission, then there is a scare resource mentality that is logical ... though exceedingly distasteful. Seems like our reform energy ought to begin with making more colleges places where education is stronger, rather than beating our chests and wailing about who gets into the Ivy League.
49
The racial and ethnic disparity in college admissions is not as great as most people imagine, and non-Hispanic white students are under-represented on college campuses nationwide, including many “flagship” public universities and elite private schools. According to a recent Pew Research survey, white students make up 59 percent of high school graduates and 58 percent of college students. Blacks make up 16 percent of high school graduates and 14 percent of college students. Hispanics make up 18 percent of high school graduates and 19 percent of college students. Asian make up 6 percent of college graduates and 7 percent of college graduates. Students categorized as “other” make up 1 percent of high school graduates and 2 percent of college students. Since non-Hispanic white students are under-represented nationwide, it’s not as if they are taking slots that should go to minorities. The racial and ethnic gap appears in the percentages of college graduates, not in college fresmen. Non-Hispanic whites make up 69 percent of college graduates, Hispanics make up 9 percent, blacks make up 9 percent and Asian make up 11 percent.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-en...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-en...
6
I really those who do would stop categorizing those who advocate for AA as liberals (or Democrats or progressive or whatever) and those who don’t as conservatives (or Republicans, and so on). Political parties and agendas are not the end all, be all. There are different reasons for supporting AA -- and for not supporting it – so, please, stop with the broad brushes.
6
Is the goal to give able students who have been disadvantaged a helping hand, or is it to put a certain number of of different-colored faces into the classroom? Race-based admissions seems the wrong way to go, and creates even more resentment by those deemed the "wrong" color.
Recent studies have suggested that the discomfort current black students say they feel on campus, and the long list of demands they are making, are actually the result of not being fully qualified.
Recent studies have suggested that the discomfort current black students say they feel on campus, and the long list of demands they are making, are actually the result of not being fully qualified.
10
Let me just come out and say it, "affirmative action," or whatever else its called, is just plain evil. Kids can't control what race they are born, or what socio-economic circumstances they are raised in. Let their own individual merits determine which schools they go to. Giving a peer a leg up, due to something beyond the disadvantaged's control, is unfair, and has resulted in the loss of a great amount of human capital.
6
Before there can be a rational discussion of affirmative action practices, EVERYONE needs to find the written law and read it. Most of you have no idea what you are talking about and will be shocked at what you'll find in the letter of the law AND who it applies to. Many of the current policy practices surrounding affirmative action, namely quotas, are the result of knee-jerk reactions by the institutional powers that be to quickly comply with the law, while using the least amount of imagination possible.
Read the law first, then make educated comments.
Read the law first, then make educated comments.
The anti-affirmative action group unfortunately is the same as the voter-fraud group and the Obamacare Loss-of-Healthcare group.
Its all bluster- and very little facts. The white student not accepted at one college will be accepted to a myriad of other colleges- so what is the real loss?
Local community colleges should not use affirmative action- but for any other school it is a legitimate method to diversify the student body.
Its all bluster- and very little facts. The white student not accepted at one college will be accepted to a myriad of other colleges- so what is the real loss?
Local community colleges should not use affirmative action- but for any other school it is a legitimate method to diversify the student body.
1
This would probably not be an issue if our public schools were up to par; if we would stop lying to ourselves about their quality and direction, and the money we waste on failure. Then, all admissions could be based on achievement and merit, as they should be.
7
In America the fulcrum seems mostly between extremes, a benign misunderstanding of 'equal' on the one hand; or, on the other, a venomous understanding of 'equal' regarding Affirmative Action. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is offfered as mirror in which we should see the peril of institutionalizing AA to achieve racial, gender or ethnic diversity. Civil rights protections are enshrined in the Constitution. Repeatedly we read AA programs offer unmerited benefits to one group [less deserving, elementally substandard] which rob the other group [more deserving, superior] violating inalienable rights.
As we've moved through American history, for all of us, the impact of the past is less knowable, not the least because we've never truthfully been told the story. In America we live in a constantly rejuvenating and reaffirming state of now. What we see, feel, churn is precisely what we want, technology and marketing allow us to customize the America of our lived experience. AA in such a place can only be wrong, who would need it, moreover how would it be possible? To affirm requires an essential understanding of who or what is being affirmed. In our America that shared understanding is not only almost too much to imagine but also, for many, anathema.
I shudder at the potential outcome as AA in American higher education is revisited. Do technology and marketing rejuvenate so often SC Justices are unable to share an understanding?
As we've moved through American history, for all of us, the impact of the past is less knowable, not the least because we've never truthfully been told the story. In America we live in a constantly rejuvenating and reaffirming state of now. What we see, feel, churn is precisely what we want, technology and marketing allow us to customize the America of our lived experience. AA in such a place can only be wrong, who would need it, moreover how would it be possible? To affirm requires an essential understanding of who or what is being affirmed. In our America that shared understanding is not only almost too much to imagine but also, for many, anathema.
I shudder at the potential outcome as AA in American higher education is revisited. Do technology and marketing rejuvenate so often SC Justices are unable to share an understanding?
2
Yes, let's justify racial discrimination in admissions by pointing out how the discrimination benefits those who are discriminated in favour of. And let's strategically omit the data that undercuts the thesis that this discrimination achieves its ends so we don't have to confront the possibility that our immoral policy isn't even effective. The author once again fails to mention Richard Sander's work, just as she generally ignores it in her published research. The NYT should invite Sander to comment, especially because his work deals with racial preferences as they are implemented in the United States, not in Israel. But it is easier to pretend it doesn't exist.
7
50 years ago, living in New Jersey, I was turned down at Rutgers because my family income wasn't sufficient. I went to Newark College of Engineering (NCE, now NJ Institute of Technology) instead where any high school grad with a 2.0 or better could apply and get in. In the middle of a black ghetto neighbourhood, this was an "all white" school. (Exactly one black student in my starting class). Minimum GPA needed was 2.0, mine was 2.4. I did not interview in person, and no photographs were required in the admission papers. No black applicants met the requirements.
Rutgers was right, after a year of poor scholarship I was working full time. When I had enough money, I took a semester of day school., and then found another job. This happened a few times, and by then I was a Junior. The school was totally white at this point.
Uncle Sam came after me, so I joined the Air Force.
20 years later, I was still in the Air force living in Virginia, and my son applied to the AF Academy. My congressperson was in the same neighbourhood as NCE. His staff found that kids from that locale never completed well at the Academy. Lacking any prospects to replace yet another Academy drop-out, my representative reluctantly selected my son. He graduated.
Terrible economic living conditions produce terrible students. Everywhere! Education is a right, not a privilege of the middle class and above.
Rutgers was right, after a year of poor scholarship I was working full time. When I had enough money, I took a semester of day school., and then found another job. This happened a few times, and by then I was a Junior. The school was totally white at this point.
Uncle Sam came after me, so I joined the Air Force.
20 years later, I was still in the Air force living in Virginia, and my son applied to the AF Academy. My congressperson was in the same neighbourhood as NCE. His staff found that kids from that locale never completed well at the Academy. Lacking any prospects to replace yet another Academy drop-out, my representative reluctantly selected my son. He graduated.
Terrible economic living conditions produce terrible students. Everywhere! Education is a right, not a privilege of the middle class and above.
2
While the idea of class-based affirmative action is an attractive alternative to race-based affirmative action, the empirical evidence from Israel shows that class-based affirmative acton could fail to achieve the deisred diversity goals.
An alternative not frequently mentioned is to base affirmative action on the lack of quantitative skills, as demonstrated by low SAT or other standardized testing scores. Low quantitative skills from high school are highly correlated to high schools that predominantly serve either minority or lower economic class students. Admitting a proportion of students who lack the quantitative skills for a non-AA admission could very well acieve the desired diversity goals. These students would also be clearly identified as needing additional coursework to improve their quantitative skills.
An alternative not frequently mentioned is to base affirmative action on the lack of quantitative skills, as demonstrated by low SAT or other standardized testing scores. Low quantitative skills from high school are highly correlated to high schools that predominantly serve either minority or lower economic class students. Admitting a proportion of students who lack the quantitative skills for a non-AA admission could very well acieve the desired diversity goals. These students would also be clearly identified as needing additional coursework to improve their quantitative skills.
The problem is that the goal of affirmative action is itself not clear and certainly does not have the same meaning to different people. It would seem that it should be based on evening out socio economic opportunities without reference to race. I have met poor white people in upstate New York who have many of the same disadvantages that many inner city kids from poor black neighborhoods face. Sorry, but those kids appear to be the beneficiaries of "white privilege" only in a fantasy world. It would seem there is simply no justification in denying those white kids the same opportunities through affirmative action that you would give to similarly disadvantaged blacks. Also, I am confused as to why some assume Asians (many of whom come from backgrounds far more deprived than many American blacks) are not entitled to some consideration in affirmative action. It seems the Asian's legendary historical self-reliance is justification for putting them in the penalty box. If the sole legitimate purpose of affirmative action is to provide redress for slavery in this country and subsequent Jim Crow laws and segregation then race based affirmative action makes sense. Otherwise, it seems it should be race neutral.
11
Keep it simple, admission to unversities should be based on academic performance, the best and brightest get in.
Having a black person with middling math skills does nothing to advance the overall education experience for other students in an advanced physics class.
The problem with this 'protected environment' that race based students live in for 4 years is that upon graduation they meet the real world where personal performance is all that matters - and many do not succeed as they think they are entitled to do.
Having a black person with middling math skills does nothing to advance the overall education experience for other students in an advanced physics class.
The problem with this 'protected environment' that race based students live in for 4 years is that upon graduation they meet the real world where personal performance is all that matters - and many do not succeed as they think they are entitled to do.
8
This is not the case at all. And as is most often the case, your argument is supported by the evidence. Read Shape of the River by Bok and Bowen and you will find that students of color that graduate from predominantly white institutions fare very well in the professions and best their white counterparts in civic engagement.
1
A lot of this could be solved by understanding that educational resources are being unfairly limited. It's a false scarcity. There could be better and more access to universities. We could expand our ability to educate.
That said, people who forget that AA was set up to try to make our society and it's resources and benefits available to people who's families were legally discriminated against for centuries are the blandest example of why we need more diversity. Mr. Alon's arguement is interesting but ultimately he is no American. He doesn't get where we came from and why there is a moral imperative that has to be addressed. My white kids did fine getting into a good universities. And they benefited from the diversity they found there.
That said, people who forget that AA was set up to try to make our society and it's resources and benefits available to people who's families were legally discriminated against for centuries are the blandest example of why we need more diversity. Mr. Alon's arguement is interesting but ultimately he is no American. He doesn't get where we came from and why there is a moral imperative that has to be addressed. My white kids did fine getting into a good universities. And they benefited from the diversity they found there.
Re "Only half of all those students admitted under the [Israeli] program are ethnic minorities, that is, Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs, the groups at the bottom of Israel’s social stratification system."
The critical data omitted is what percentage of the Israeli population is represented by these groups. Arabs are, I believe, about 20%. What percentage of Israelis are of Asian or African origin?
The critical data omitted is what percentage of the Israeli population is represented by these groups. Arabs are, I believe, about 20%. What percentage of Israelis are of Asian or African origin?
I would say that they comprise around 30%, but these numbers are from 2009. Also the people who were counted as being Mizrahi Jews (Middle East and Africa mainly) are first generation immigrants or second generation that their father was a Mizrahi Jew.
So there might be many whose mother was a Mizrahi Jew, and third generation Mizrahi Jews were not considered at all. Demographics are an amorphous thing at times.
So there might be many whose mother was a Mizrahi Jew, and third generation Mizrahi Jews were not considered at all. Demographics are an amorphous thing at times.
2
Has anyone ever presented quantifiable evidence that supports the benefits of diversity, other than criticizing anyone who asks for this sort of evidence? This would make a much more compelling argument in favor of diversity.
9
Social scientists have largely failed to find any benefits of 'diversity' except to the beneficiaries themselves (mostly women).
The best attempt was made by an MIT/Columbia team, whose paper was recently featured in NYT.
In a nutshell, they showed that economics student relied less on groupthink and made a more accurate estimates of stock values when they were in an ethnically 'diverse' group compared to homogeneous. They also showed that it was enough to have ONE person looking differently to create that effect.
Basically, their findings show that when there's someone looking differently in your social environment, you become more alert and less trusting of other's opinion.
This is all we have in terms of evidence for the benefits of ethnic diversity. Duh!
The best attempt was made by an MIT/Columbia team, whose paper was recently featured in NYT.
In a nutshell, they showed that economics student relied less on groupthink and made a more accurate estimates of stock values when they were in an ethnically 'diverse' group compared to homogeneous. They also showed that it was enough to have ONE person looking differently to create that effect.
Basically, their findings show that when there's someone looking differently in your social environment, you become more alert and less trusting of other's opinion.
This is all we have in terms of evidence for the benefits of ethnic diversity. Duh!
4
Statements such as "Only half of all those students admitted under the program are ethnic minorities," trouble me, as they seem to establish ethnicity as the pre-eminent criterion for admission outside the norm. Most columnists, when asked to justify ethnic preference in any situation, fall back on "it exposes the majority ethnic group to cultures unlike there own - and this is good for them." What is missed here is the answer to what is good for the nation. Ethnicity/culture/race should be used to give preferential admission only to students who have demonstrated aptitude for higher level education but, due to the circumstances attendant to their access to proper lower education (due to race/ethnicity/culture,) have not had the opportunity to demonstrate the level of performance a rigorous college demands.
Artificial quota derived from population statistics hold back the best and brightest and demeans those applicants who receive them.
By the way, this applies to legacy admissions as well.
Artificial quota derived from population statistics hold back the best and brightest and demeans those applicants who receive them.
By the way, this applies to legacy admissions as well.
8
Yes, socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants should have a slight advantage. However, these applicants must also hold positive qualities which indicate that they respect others as well as themselves. Academic diversity should not be about race. There are all types of personalities and characters in all types of skin. Disadvantaged applicants and citizens of our country deserve more opportunities in our unfair and unjust society.
1
I agree with this article that a combined race- and class-based affirmative action policy would work best. This accords with research that shows that African-Americans of a certain economic class on average live in poorer neighborhoods, and attend poorer schools, than whites of the same economic class. A combined race- and class-based approach would recognize this, while avoiding the comical situation whereby rich minority children are given affirmative action because they contribute to the "diversity" of an institution while poor whites are not, even though poor whites, like poor people in general, are so underrepresented at elite institutions as to be virtually non-existent.
It is clear to me, however, that universities will never pursue this policy. Universities do not care about diversity; they care about the appearance of diversity. The Supreme Court acknowledged as much in Grutter v. Bollinger, where it said that affirmative action was permissible to "cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry." Universities and the courts are not interested in real legitimacy or equality of opportunity; if they were, they would be doing something about the fact that students from families in the bottom half of the income scale are a tiny minority at institutions like Harvard and Yale, that dominate our economic and political life. Instead, they are interested in the appearance of legitimacy and equality of opportunity.
It is clear to me, however, that universities will never pursue this policy. Universities do not care about diversity; they care about the appearance of diversity. The Supreme Court acknowledged as much in Grutter v. Bollinger, where it said that affirmative action was permissible to "cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry." Universities and the courts are not interested in real legitimacy or equality of opportunity; if they were, they would be doing something about the fact that students from families in the bottom half of the income scale are a tiny minority at institutions like Harvard and Yale, that dominate our economic and political life. Instead, they are interested in the appearance of legitimacy and equality of opportunity.
3
It amuses me to read a long column comparing 'affirmative action' in Israel and the US without as much as even in passing asking an obvious question:
Has the American kind of 'AA' benefitted the higher education in the US more/less than the Israeli 'AA" has benefitted Israel?
Compare the two systems of higher education in achievement and efficiency (not a difficult task at all for a sociology professor), and you'll have all the answers you need.
But I guess prof Alon knows the answer as we all do. In the meantime, I keep meeting holders of BA (or is it BS) degrees who are all but illiterate, some of whom are 'beneficiaries' of AA.
Do we have to make a circus out of our country?
Has the American kind of 'AA' benefitted the higher education in the US more/less than the Israeli 'AA" has benefitted Israel?
Compare the two systems of higher education in achievement and efficiency (not a difficult task at all for a sociology professor), and you'll have all the answers you need.
But I guess prof Alon knows the answer as we all do. In the meantime, I keep meeting holders of BA (or is it BS) degrees who are all but illiterate, some of whom are 'beneficiaries' of AA.
Do we have to make a circus out of our country?
10
Whats the big deal for racial diversity? Doesn't Socio-economic diversity bring in the same advantages of diversity (whatever those are) as racial discrimination?
1
The "big deal" is that diversity is not really the goal of affirmative action in college admissions; the goal is making campus demographics closely match the demographics of the overall population. It's making sure each racial and ethnic groups gets its "fair share" of admissions. A campus on which Asian American students outnumber African American or Hispanic students is just a diverse as a campus on which African American or Hispanic students outnumber Asian students, but it doesn't match racial and ethnic quotas.
1
When will Times pay attention to the OpEd published in the Times in 2013 at this URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/fix-the-census-archaic-racial-... by former Census Director Prof. Kenneth Prewitt.
He has been developing a proposal since then to eventually eliminate the USCB system of assigning people to "races" and ethnicities. The outline of the proposal is to be found in Ch. 11 of his "What Is Your Race?"
So NYT Editors, invite him back. Then discuss "race"-based Affirmative Action in an America where there are no longer any "races" as defined by the US government.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/fix-the-census-archaic-racial-... by former Census Director Prof. Kenneth Prewitt.
He has been developing a proposal since then to eventually eliminate the USCB system of assigning people to "races" and ethnicities. The outline of the proposal is to be found in Ch. 11 of his "What Is Your Race?"
So NYT Editors, invite him back. Then discuss "race"-based Affirmative Action in an America where there are no longer any "races" as defined by the US government.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
1
@Lundgren
Perhaps this is something that has escaped you, living in Sweden. There will always be the question of "Race" in America. Whether it is defined by the U.S. government, or not. It is in our history and part of our DNA.
Perhaps this is something that has escaped you, living in Sweden. There will always be the question of "Race" in America. Whether it is defined by the U.S. government, or not. It is in our history and part of our DNA.
3
I believe the author's purpose is to show the weaknesses of both the American affirmative action program based exclusively upon race, versus the Israeli program based exclusively upon socioeconomic circumstances. When I read the article, it makes me think that we need to reconsider our American system and adjust it somewhat to include not only race but other socioeconomic factors. Our system of affirmative action needs to be altered to include all those who have been left behind as a result of selfishness of our economic system. We also must include penalties for states and schools that do not comply. All Americans who are willing and capable to attend college are entitled to an education that enables them to improve their lives.
7
It's easy to lose sight of the goal of affirmative action (whether race, gender or socioeconomic in form). It's not to give a lucky break to individuals. That's the process, not the goal. The goal is to move toward a society where those non-essential differences no longer matter. And not just for reasons of fairness, but also because ultimately discrimination and disenfranchisement lead to unrest, crime and decay. They make our nation weaker. Even if you move out of the "bad" part of town, you're not insulated. Violence spreads. Drug addiction spreads. Disease spreads. Higher taxes spread.
With that in mind, although it's true that scattered individuals are collateral damage under the wheels of affirmative action policies, the question is, what better policy do we have to reduce structural discrimination and disenfranchisement? What's our plan to deal with the millions of lives ruined by living in impoverished, de facto segregated surroundings? Places that, in these dangerous times, have the potential to be breeding grounds for terror. Do we just sit back and say "Oh well, meritocracy! Should've been born to better, richer, whiter parents, not my fault!" and wait for our increasingly rickety national edifice to come crashing down?
I'm not saying affirmative action is good. I'm saying, maybe, like capitalism itself, it's just the best of a myriad of bad alternatives.
With that in mind, although it's true that scattered individuals are collateral damage under the wheels of affirmative action policies, the question is, what better policy do we have to reduce structural discrimination and disenfranchisement? What's our plan to deal with the millions of lives ruined by living in impoverished, de facto segregated surroundings? Places that, in these dangerous times, have the potential to be breeding grounds for terror. Do we just sit back and say "Oh well, meritocracy! Should've been born to better, richer, whiter parents, not my fault!" and wait for our increasingly rickety national edifice to come crashing down?
I'm not saying affirmative action is good. I'm saying, maybe, like capitalism itself, it's just the best of a myriad of bad alternatives.
18
As a band-aid, maybe (see above comment from Steve). But the underlying problems need to be addressed earlier in life. And funds reallocated accordingly.
2
Reading some of these comments, I'm amazed at the number of people who apparently don't think that any member of an ethnic/racial minority could be admitted to an elite university on the basis of merit alone. NYT, in addition to bringing our attention to the myriad of problems faced by African Americans and other people of color in the United States today, please consider a series highlighting the accomplishments of people of color, like the African-American student who earned the highest score on an open-competition math test sponsored by the University of Chicago, but turned down a full scholarship to that school in favor of an offer from Cambridge University in the UK, or, for that matter, students like one young lady who excelled at my children's high school despite having only entered our school system as an ESL student from the Phillipines at the age of ten.
5
The issue is not minority students admitted on merit alone, but those admitted due to racial and ethic preferences.
8
Universities have no right to ask for or expect that their student bodies will reflect the "diversity" of the United States. These institutions should insist that each student be well-qualified to undertake the academic course of study. Of course, exceptions are always necessary - as in the case of athletes, artists, or (unfortunately) the children of wealthy contributors - but as a general rule, the ethnic diversity of a university should "sort itself out." After all, a student body is not a political ticket that must be balanced to reflect the different ethnic groups in a community. One must earn one's place in a college or university and not have it bestowed by virtue of birth.
8
You meant to say "public universities", right? In that case children of wealthy contributors should not be a factor in anyway. Private universities can do whatever they want as long as it is in line with their chartered purpose.
I am a university scientist/professor who occasionally sits on various admission/selection committees. These are very hard to do fairly due to the frequently large volumes of applicants making rapid filtering necessary. The short (post program filter) lists tend to get more scrutinized. I have a very simple guideline at this level: I have to be comfortable with directly explaining the logic to a applicant why I chose another applicant over them if they are rejected. It is very difficult to factor in race and the supposed sins of ancestors into such conversations. Every individual has their own life and goals that you are potentially negatively impacting. It seems to me that logic better be performance based else you are discriminating unfairly on an individual regardless of their background. If that basis does not produce the composite pool you want, then society has some questions to answer broadly on why the quality of the pool is not more uniform for all segments of society. College admissions is too late to impose a solution to get what you want on a race or ethnic base.
83
Steve,
I know that it can be painful to have to deny the wishes of some of the applicants to your institution. But deny them you do perforce. And the more prestigious the college the more applicants must be denied
But this is a specious argument masquerading behind the face of reason.
Your comfort is not the measure of fairness or reason. That you may feel comfortable explaining your reasons for excluding one applicant does not mean that you have judged correctly regardless of the criteria you believe you have applied.
Moreover race or ethnicity can be a factor in making an admission decision based not on "supposed sins of ancestors" but rather on current effects of well known and persistent policies and practices both past and present.
And if you intend to wait until "society" answers some questions so that colleges don't have to contribute to the solution to a problem that plagues this nation then you might explain which institutions of the society are the ones that should be coming up with the answers.
I know that it can be painful to have to deny the wishes of some of the applicants to your institution. But deny them you do perforce. And the more prestigious the college the more applicants must be denied
But this is a specious argument masquerading behind the face of reason.
Your comfort is not the measure of fairness or reason. That you may feel comfortable explaining your reasons for excluding one applicant does not mean that you have judged correctly regardless of the criteria you believe you have applied.
Moreover race or ethnicity can be a factor in making an admission decision based not on "supposed sins of ancestors" but rather on current effects of well known and persistent policies and practices both past and present.
And if you intend to wait until "society" answers some questions so that colleges don't have to contribute to the solution to a problem that plagues this nation then you might explain which institutions of the society are the ones that should be coming up with the answers.
3
Steve, I disagree.
College is where the next generation of leaders and policy-makers are made. If it worked fine for them, would they make it a priority to make changes that might reduce advantages for their offspring? Should we hold off on fixing what happens In higher education for a few more decades while we work up the political will and correct solutions for what's happening In society, and in elementary and secondary systems? Tell al those currently disadvantaged that they should have been born a few generations later? Or let them in now, so that they can return to their communities with ideas, knowledge, solutions, and connections?
College is where the next generation of leaders and policy-makers are made. If it worked fine for them, would they make it a priority to make changes that might reduce advantages for their offspring? Should we hold off on fixing what happens In higher education for a few more decades while we work up the political will and correct solutions for what's happening In society, and in elementary and secondary systems? Tell al those currently disadvantaged that they should have been born a few generations later? Or let them in now, so that they can return to their communities with ideas, knowledge, solutions, and connections?
1
In past generations too people had their own lives and goals. The sins of the past generations are to be swept away entirely? It is not as though the society we have is now colorblind, right? Society, including those who perpetuated discrimination against black people, has its sins washed away while the fruits of those sins are ignored further. People and institutions that still judge based on skin color now blithely point out that "two wrongs don't make a right" Right?
1
What happened to having done your homework in youth being a prime criteria?
Or sending your SAT scores and a letter of your most valued experience growing up. None of this gives your race, ethnicity or financial position or sex. Of course that would be the rule of thumb for colleges and universities who want student who will study, think and being a contributing factor to a successful people of Earth. If it is done on-line the geography is out of the picture. Liberal Art colleges want a different kind of mind than medical college, etc. Maybe the Supreme court should not accept such self defeating cases for our nation's educational institutions. We have so much work to do fixing our society today, that this seems so very petty. How about keeping everyone fed well so they can make the grade without favoritism.
Or sending your SAT scores and a letter of your most valued experience growing up. None of this gives your race, ethnicity or financial position or sex. Of course that would be the rule of thumb for colleges and universities who want student who will study, think and being a contributing factor to a successful people of Earth. If it is done on-line the geography is out of the picture. Liberal Art colleges want a different kind of mind than medical college, etc. Maybe the Supreme court should not accept such self defeating cases for our nation's educational institutions. We have so much work to do fixing our society today, that this seems so very petty. How about keeping everyone fed well so they can make the grade without favoritism.
1
Race is a social construct.
Only racists think "true, broad diversity" has anything to do with race.
Only racists support racial preferences.
Only racists think "true, broad diversity" has anything to do with race.
Only racists support racial preferences.
7
I'm confused. If Israel is looking at poor neighborhoods and the minorities mentioned come from poor neighborhoods, why isn't there diversity that includes some of those minorities. If a minority represents 1 or 2% of the neighborhood, I get it. Is the NY Times playing statistical games?
I'm tired about talking about diversity. That is a cover for race based admissions. We've been doing this for over 50 years. If you do not have the academic credentials to get into a school, you shouldn't be accepted to that school. My college provided free tutors to black students over their entire undergraduate experience. The drop out rate didn't improve, it got worse.
Achievement should be a critical element in admissions. For state public universities, those living in-state should/must get preference. Let's be honest - like groups of kids hang out together, they want to hang out together. They may be of different races, ethnicity, etc., but they share common values.
NO MORE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Kids that want to go to college must work hard and get good/great grades. Otherwise we dumb down college. Opps, we already did that.
I'm tired about talking about diversity. That is a cover for race based admissions. We've been doing this for over 50 years. If you do not have the academic credentials to get into a school, you shouldn't be accepted to that school. My college provided free tutors to black students over their entire undergraduate experience. The drop out rate didn't improve, it got worse.
Achievement should be a critical element in admissions. For state public universities, those living in-state should/must get preference. Let's be honest - like groups of kids hang out together, they want to hang out together. They may be of different races, ethnicity, etc., but they share common values.
NO MORE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Kids that want to go to college must work hard and get good/great grades. Otherwise we dumb down college. Opps, we already did that.
7
Do you know anything about black or Native American history 500 years behind with a threat for their lives if caught reading, and you say "No more Affirmative Action." The problem with American who seem to be educated ignore the false depictions of ancient history (all Caucasian) and suggest that you are educated?
So where are the blacks in the Greek Classicals (Herodotus, Histories 2.104: 6.53-55). Wasn't Affirmative Action suppose to have been for blacks? google to law, so how is all minorities included, educated you say?
Who actually was the first president of the US, John Hanson, was he not a black moor? What about those black Freemen, or the black Olmec, black Seminoles, black Spainish Moors.......? What does to what black mean? Columbus discovered America, or was it a race war, since John Smith had already been here at James Town in 1419-1422?
So where are the blacks in the Greek Classicals (Herodotus, Histories 2.104: 6.53-55). Wasn't Affirmative Action suppose to have been for blacks? google to law, so how is all minorities included, educated you say?
Who actually was the first president of the US, John Hanson, was he not a black moor? What about those black Freemen, or the black Olmec, black Seminoles, black Spainish Moors.......? What does to what black mean? Columbus discovered America, or was it a race war, since John Smith had already been here at James Town in 1419-1422?
1
@JT What history are your talking about? John Smith wasn't even born by 1422.
3
America has become 2 countries. One for the rich and one for the poor and that is how it is. Mark Zuckerberg went to a high school where the fee is $35,000 per year. High School. Of course he will learn better math and science. Soon America will be a country of Rich or go to Jail.
4
How many Mark Zuckerberg have those high school produced? Not even Harvard can claim credit for Zuckerberg's success, since he dropped out of Harvard when he's merely a sophomore. I do not have an exact number but through my career as a scientist I have seen many successful scientists, engineers, and business men who did not come from elite colleges.
3
Does admission to elite colleges and universities for the underprivileged result in a positive outcome for these students? Are their graduation rates similar to the rest of the student body? Does racial diversity improve interracial contact? Does the lack of equal status reduce or eliminate the chances for meaningful interracial and inter-class contact? How does the poor preparation for college provided by race and class segregated high schools affect the chances of success? Do we do any favor to less qualified students by admission to elite settings rather than admission to institutions who are more prepared to deal with poor preparation for college?
I taught at an historical African American college in the South and at an elite liberal arts college in the West. The only real similarities were that the administration buildings at both places were named after the same white person. If I were education czar, and if I had a rational Congress to deal with, I would concentrate on improving preparation for college for the underprivileged so that those who qualified for an elite post-secondary education would have a chance at success.
I taught at an historical African American college in the South and at an elite liberal arts college in the West. The only real similarities were that the administration buildings at both places were named after the same white person. If I were education czar, and if I had a rational Congress to deal with, I would concentrate on improving preparation for college for the underprivileged so that those who qualified for an elite post-secondary education would have a chance at success.
5
Why is it the job of Congress to have a role in secondary education? Students are taught by teachers, not congressmen. Schools are administered by academics and over-sighted by school boards and districts. The best thing Congress can do for students is nothing.
2
Funding.
1
It is important to consider that affirmative action benefits all students, even those who have achieved the highest academic credentials in high school. Students often learn many new things from each other, especially if they are motivated to learn. How genuinely informed can a college or university classroom discussion about our Constitution, world literature, public housing, societal stratification,foreign policy, inequality, voter suppression, immigration or different medical policies be without genuine input from individuals who are from disadvantaged or lower income groups? How is one to learn about another person's culture if all of the students are from similar backgrounds? There are significant numbers of very promising students who succeed in college and overcome their earlier academic deficits. Most colleges and universities realize that they will need talented and motivated alums from all disciplines and all walks of life. They are looking at the graduates 20, 30 and 40 years out.
I think it's fair to say that diversity, not necessarily through affirmative action, benefits society as a whole; however, affirmative action cannot really be said to benefit all students, because it definitely does not benefit those students who would have been admitted but not for the displacement inherent in that program. As has often been observed, the displaced students are generally only marginally qualified, but presumably have the same hopes and aspirations as any other student.
2
Does it follow then that students in countries where their populations are very homogeneous, like China, Japan, Finland, and Nordic countries, are at a great disadvantage? I thought that is why great literature from a diverse sources is part of a well rounded education.
1
The real truth to the diversity lie is that students to not tend to integrate, they tend to form insular groups based on their own backgrounds. In addition, students in the STEM fields do not tend to get into grand discussions of the social issues of our time. They form study groups and tend focus on the material. The people in each study group tend to be very similar in background.
3
The main advantage of race-neutral affirmative action is that it would take away one of the most effective themes of racist propaganda. The short-term target is to end race-related discrimination in our schools, and race-neutral affirmative action is not as strong a method as race-based or hybrid affirmative action. However, the long-term target is to end racism and racialism completely, and here is where race-neutral policies would appear to be a much better approach than race-based ones.
13
Proponents contend that affirmative action is the antidote to past racial discrimination. Yet whenever affirmative action is used to discriminate in favor of one race over another, more victims of racial discrimination are created. Affirmative action, therefore, perpetuates the damage, but It shifts the damage onto whites, Asians and others. Proponents of affirmative action seem to think racial discrimination is okay as long as blacks are not among its victims.
How do we as a society ultimately benefit from such thinking?
How do we as a society ultimately benefit from such thinking?
59
I couldn't agree more. Affirmative Action is creating an entire generation of white people who are sick of being racially discriminated against. Want to go to college and you're white? You better be rich.
2
All this is about people outside the universities wanting to substitute their judgment for the internal judgment of the university.
1
Who benefits from diversity?
The popular view is that diversity primarily aids minorities and the underprivileged. Also this is true, it is not the most important impact of diversity.
There was a time when Harvard students were predominantly preppies; graduates of Andover, Exeter, and other bastions of privilege. These kids were raised in a bubble, and the bubble extended into their university years. This wasn't much of a problem, because after graduating they would continue to work with their privileged cohort.
The world has changed. All the professions have become globalized and much more diverse. so Harvard does all its students a service by using diversity as an admissions criterion. By ensuring that its student body resembles the real world it is providing much better preparation for all its students, including the ones who come from a world of privilege.
If the Supreme Court limits the ability of admissions committees to create diverse student bodies, we will all suffer.
The popular view is that diversity primarily aids minorities and the underprivileged. Also this is true, it is not the most important impact of diversity.
There was a time when Harvard students were predominantly preppies; graduates of Andover, Exeter, and other bastions of privilege. These kids were raised in a bubble, and the bubble extended into their university years. This wasn't much of a problem, because after graduating they would continue to work with their privileged cohort.
The world has changed. All the professions have become globalized and much more diverse. so Harvard does all its students a service by using diversity as an admissions criterion. By ensuring that its student body resembles the real world it is providing much better preparation for all its students, including the ones who come from a world of privilege.
If the Supreme Court limits the ability of admissions committees to create diverse student bodies, we will all suffer.
3
imagine if you had been rejected from princeton based primarily on your ethnicity. even further, imagine the person who gained your support did so under ethnicity-based affirmative action and turned out to be from a wealthy family.
3
Private colleges using their own money can do whatever and in whichever way they want, according to their charter. Public college is for everybody and that is when equal treatment comes into play. The diversity in elite private colleges is not the same issue as the diversity in public schools. A good example of the former is University of Cambridge, as far as I know it's got great diversity among its students. Cambridge does not have to worry about admitting poorly prepared students and that is how it can afford the diversity. The other case is trying to use college to remedy social ill in the name of diversity. It is not very effective, not efficient, and very expansive. As Joel Friedlander pointed out in his comment, if diversity is to be achieved it has to be done starting childhood.
2
So Harvard tries to ensure that its student body "resembles the real world" in order to better prepare them for it? Then it would be useful also to admit a lot of people who aren't very bright and who don't have a very good primary education behind them, and who aren't very cooperative with others and who don't burn with curiosity about the world around them. That's real-world diversity. Is that what college is for?
Affirmative Action determined off of race alone is troublesome when examining Asian Americans by national group. Southeast Asians are the most economically disadvantaged Asian subgroup (even more disadvantaged than Blacks and Latinos (for example, Hmong and Cambodians are placed in the poorest Black and Brown communities and often come into contact with police harassment, which is why Southeast Asians are disproportionately incarcerated compared to their East Asian and Indian counterparts). There is also a class factors when it comes to affluent Blacks and Latinos. They benefit from the program, but Blacks and Latinos also have high poverty rates. The poor ones need help the most. Could one justify that a middle-class Puerto Rican male in Orlando is equally disadvantaged as a poor Puerto Rican male in Philadelphia?
4
Why are Asian students bundled with white ones, and not with other minorities? On the basis of their achievements? Is that a legitimate basis? If race is the criterion for diversity, Asians are qualified (different race). Justice demands that they, too, get preferred racial quotas. Jews too.
7
Print this or not, I will have my say. Trying to get students over the age of 18 to accept diversity in other college students is not a real possibility for any student who comes from an all white area. If you want diversity to work it must be done in grade school when the students haven't had hatred of other different people burned in their hearts. Yes, I live in a place where everyone feels welcome, if only because there is every different kind of person you can imagine living side by side. A child becomes friends with another child because they both like to dance or they both like to sing or they both like to play ball; it doesn't matter what color or ethnicity they are. If diversity is to be achieved it is necessary to mix together in youth. College is actually too late.
5
I totally agree with Joel. My children attend predominantly White public schools in our upper middle-class neighborhood and I have seen how they easily mix with other children of all races. They invite and are invited to birthday and Christmas parties. However, I also note the the lack of interaction between their parents and us. Sometimes they'll drop off their kids and hardly acknowledge us. When we drop off our kids, their (parents) demeanor and body language is such that they do not expect us to interact with them. Sometimes I wonder if this is sustainable in the long run, and what would happen to my kids when they grow up and find out how the real world operates. Incidentally, during the 2012 elections, my then 8-year old's class held a "mock" election. She noticed, and told me, that she was the only person in their class who voted for Obama!
Joel has a point; begin affirmative action at the K-12 level, and follow up, but deliberately teach the kids that all races matter.
Joel has a point; begin affirmative action at the K-12 level, and follow up, but deliberately teach the kids that all races matter.
5
The minority IS the majority. Admission to college should only be based upon academic achievement. Period! Diversity is not as important as engaging with students who are as bright and curious as YOU.
6
What it tells me is that Israel is a much different country and culture than the US so almost nothing that happens there would happen here. Waste of time and energy and probably will mislead anybody who listens to this sort of "research".
2
The article does not mention Palestinian university students who are Israeli citizens.
1
Without showing the model that is being used this opinion piece is pretty much useless. To me it looks like it is just using the percentages obtained in Israel to predict what would happen in the US. In that sense it is not so strange that suddenly more poor white and asian kids would be accepted at the cost of african and hispanic minorities which are currently benefiting from existing affirmative actions.
I've lived in Israel and feel admiration for what it has achieved, but do not understand how the U.S. so strongly favors a country where "diversity" is considered Jews from different countries, the law is dominated by the Jewish version of Sharia law, and is so heavily dominated politically by the rightwing religious parties that its government comes close to being a theocracy. I wish them well, but as an American devoted to true diversity, I doubt that such a stilted definition of justice will lead to long term peace
3
Unless there is a level playing field regarding education in elementary, middle and high schools where all students in those schools get the same quality education, not skewed by unequal property tax funding, minority students will be disadvantaged.
Also, colleges are admitting many foreign students who have to pay full fare, displacing potential American students who require financial aid.
These are two serious concerns ignored in NYT articles and comments on affirmative action.
Also, colleges are admitting many foreign students who have to pay full fare, displacing potential American students who require financial aid.
These are two serious concerns ignored in NYT articles and comments on affirmative action.
8
AA has become absurd in the light of todays increasing admixture of races. Assigning a person to races and ethnicities cannot be scientifically or logically done. At what hew would you start or stop? AA is long overdue for history’s dust bin. Use economic factors to scout for talent that further input could foster!
Haven’t studies shown, that the beneficiaries of race-based preferences are predominantly middle income blacks? Does this make any sense?
When I am at the doctor I need to be helped. This is only guarantied by supporting the talented.
Haven’t studies shown, that the beneficiaries of race-based preferences are predominantly middle income blacks? Does this make any sense?
When I am at the doctor I need to be helped. This is only guarantied by supporting the talented.
3
@ Oster - I agree. Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/fix-the-census-archaic-racial-...
Former Census Director Prof. Kenneth Prewitt has been developing a proposal since then - see Ch. 11 of his What is Your Race? - Ch. 11 lays out the proposal to eventually eliminate the race/ethnicity boxes.
Then write to Professor Prewitt as I do from time to time to tell him that most Americans and Times writers apparently prefer keeping the race boxes.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
Former Census Director Prof. Kenneth Prewitt has been developing a proposal since then - see Ch. 11 of his What is Your Race? - Ch. 11 lays out the proposal to eventually eliminate the race/ethnicity boxes.
Then write to Professor Prewitt as I do from time to time to tell him that most Americans and Times writers apparently prefer keeping the race boxes.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
1
I think that "unprepared" is the problem, and unpreparedness is more likely in some neighborhoods, among some races, among some economic levels. So, let's fix that by getting students prepared BEFORE applying to college -- we do that by having good teachers and good educational opportunity early, even before kindergarten.
With college admission affirmative action policies we're trying to make up for our earlier negligence. We can prepare more children before the time for college, but we are not doing it.
With college admission affirmative action policies we're trying to make up for our earlier negligence. We can prepare more children before the time for college, but we are not doing it.
5
This article (like many others) confuses seeking diversity of student experience with affirmative action. The latter is an effort to confer educational benefits on defined segments of society which policy makers judge to be underbenefited without that effort, for historic and other reasons. It addressed a problem outside the university, in society as a whole.
Seeking diversity concerns -- or at least is supposed to concern -- another goal altogether: creating a heterogeneous student body so that students are exposed to differing experiences and points of view, thereby enriching their educational experiences and their ability to have informed opinions. It is directed toward the intra-university experience, not the world outside the university.
Seeking diversity is not the same as affirmative action. And while decisions made to further diversity on campus may have the incidental effect of furthering affirmative action goals, the two should not be confused. The list of qualities and experiences which might make a potential student desirable to a school seeking diversity is far longer and broader than the things which affirmative action programs typically address. Is a tuba player -- or a conservative -- inherently less valuable from the standpoint of diversity than a minority applicant?
Problems arise when we confuse these two differing goals, or when the goal of seeking diversity is used to justify affirmative action programs which are constitutionally suspect.
Seeking diversity concerns -- or at least is supposed to concern -- another goal altogether: creating a heterogeneous student body so that students are exposed to differing experiences and points of view, thereby enriching their educational experiences and their ability to have informed opinions. It is directed toward the intra-university experience, not the world outside the university.
Seeking diversity is not the same as affirmative action. And while decisions made to further diversity on campus may have the incidental effect of furthering affirmative action goals, the two should not be confused. The list of qualities and experiences which might make a potential student desirable to a school seeking diversity is far longer and broader than the things which affirmative action programs typically address. Is a tuba player -- or a conservative -- inherently less valuable from the standpoint of diversity than a minority applicant?
Problems arise when we confuse these two differing goals, or when the goal of seeking diversity is used to justify affirmative action programs which are constitutionally suspect.
33
The author gives his results, but does not say why the numbers came out this way. I suspect:
1. The vast majority of blacks and Hispanics who now benefit from affirmative action come from affluent families.
2. Very few blacks and Hispanics from poor families are eligible to be considered, because so many of them are so far behind academically.
3. The lower-class students who could be considered are overwhelmingly white and Asian.
The conclusion? The current system is a feel-good farce that makes the colleges look good, but accomplishes little or nothing.
1. The vast majority of blacks and Hispanics who now benefit from affirmative action come from affluent families.
2. Very few blacks and Hispanics from poor families are eligible to be considered, because so many of them are so far behind academically.
3. The lower-class students who could be considered are overwhelmingly white and Asian.
The conclusion? The current system is a feel-good farce that makes the colleges look good, but accomplishes little or nothing.
19
Any society/nation whose higher education system is based on anything other than competency testing is a system which has allowed social engineering at the expense of excellence.And there is no more glaring evidence of that than America where over the past few decades a BA is no guarantee of literacy and the highest performing ethnicity, the Asians, are discriminated against in favor of lower scoring blacks and latinos.
17
But isn't it true that currently many under-qualified students who have been admitted because of their race end up dropping out?
Therefor if a race-neutral program is set in place which results in 30% fewer minorities, at least the other 70% who are admitted will probably be better qualified academically to stay in school and get their degrees.
Therefor if a race-neutral program is set in place which results in 30% fewer minorities, at least the other 70% who are admitted will probably be better qualified academically to stay in school and get their degrees.
9
The Supreme Court's stated goal of affirmative action in education is to select students who "contribute the most to the 'robust exchange of ideas." If you believe that a wealthy white kid has more in common with a wealthy African-American than with a poor white kid, then a "robust exchange of ideas" more predicated on class than race makes the most sense.
3
There seem to be conflicting goals and assumptions at work here. For "local" diversity: California is 38% Hispanic, 5% black, 15% Asian, Georgia is 31% black, 15% Asian and Hispanic. Alaska is 25% indigenous/mixed, 2% black.
Is the goal to make the local college look like the local high school in diversity? Or the national average (62% white, 18% Hispanic, 12% black, 6% Asian, 3% mixed/other)? Or is economic opportunity more important than racial-ethnic diversity?
As it is, the non-white daughter of wealthy parents is given an ethnic-racial preference in college over someone who is economically disadvantaged. What does that accomplish?
Is the goal to make the local college look like the local high school in diversity? Or the national average (62% white, 18% Hispanic, 12% black, 6% Asian, 3% mixed/other)? Or is economic opportunity more important than racial-ethnic diversity?
As it is, the non-white daughter of wealthy parents is given an ethnic-racial preference in college over someone who is economically disadvantaged. What does that accomplish?
6
While I may agree with his general point, it is amazing that an op-ed about affirmative action in Israel has exactly one single word on "Arab" Israelis. While it is clear that there is very real discrimination against Jews or Asian, African or other non-European backgrounds, which has existed since 1948, it is shocking that the article mentions the Palestinian population of Israel only once in passing. Even without the West Bank and Gaza, Israel has a massive problem with discrimination and racism. Including, as this article does point out, between Jews of various ethnic backgrounds.
2
I understand your criticism, but I disagree. The article is more about a scientific survey about affirmative action. The writer does not need to delve into all of Israel' racism in order to get his point across. One mention of the problem brought the point across. I do agree that these problems exist, however.
1
Mr Rosenbluth - Dr Alon is a woman, not a man as you erroneously suggested.
Incidentally only - while you make a fair contribution, I wish you could visit here in Israel and see what I witness within the current generation of young adults...there are so many Jewish inter-ethnic / inter-racial young married couples in my area that it augurs well for intra-Jewish relations in future generations. And as we know quite well, it takes MANY generational changeovers for improvements to take hold. Much as we wish other, these changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary. My wish for the United States is that it witnesses such improvements.
Incidentally only - while you make a fair contribution, I wish you could visit here in Israel and see what I witness within the current generation of young adults...there are so many Jewish inter-ethnic / inter-racial young married couples in my area that it augurs well for intra-Jewish relations in future generations. And as we know quite well, it takes MANY generational changeovers for improvements to take hold. Much as we wish other, these changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary. My wish for the United States is that it witnesses such improvements.
1
I think the college diversity debate gets sidetracked on who gets in and who misses out.
The greater goal of diversity is not about the disadvantaged students who get in, but about confronting the advantaged students who claim getting in as their birth right. You go from private schools to prep schools to university without interacting much at all with other genders, other races, the poor and marginalized and then you go on to be legislators, congressmen, mayors, governors, President and, Supreme Court justices secure in your biases against other genders, other races, the poor and marginalized. That is what diversity is supposed to crack, if not cure.
The greater goal of diversity is not about the disadvantaged students who get in, but about confronting the advantaged students who claim getting in as their birth right. You go from private schools to prep schools to university without interacting much at all with other genders, other races, the poor and marginalized and then you go on to be legislators, congressmen, mayors, governors, President and, Supreme Court justices secure in your biases against other genders, other races, the poor and marginalized. That is what diversity is supposed to crack, if not cure.
1
Does this argument mean that we don't recognize how many poor White and Asian kids there are?
Does this mean achieving more diversity at elite institutions is a more important question that whether elite institutions themselves should be eliminated for a lottery system of college admission, such as that which I believe exists in Canada and some places in Europe?
Remember the great cartoon about the Clinton years: ten people of different races, ethnicities, and gender standing next to each other, all dressed in suits--all of them are lawyers.
Does this mean achieving more diversity at elite institutions is a more important question that whether elite institutions themselves should be eliminated for a lottery system of college admission, such as that which I believe exists in Canada and some places in Europe?
Remember the great cartoon about the Clinton years: ten people of different races, ethnicities, and gender standing next to each other, all dressed in suits--all of them are lawyers.
2
I wish people would be interested in fostering talent rather than lots of skin hues. Aren’t we profiting from talent? I wish for the day when we can proudly say that we have chosen well, because we have advanced such noble tasks as cancer research through letting the talented in. Diversity doesn't matter in cancer treatment. Finding talent on socio-grounds does. Way to go Israel!
5
These findings should come as no surprise. While on average some minority groups lag in per capita socioeconomic advantage, the raw numbers show that the majority of disadvantaged people in the country are still white. In addition, a large proportion of the individuals receiving race-based admission preferences to highly selective schools are middle or upper class, coming from high performing high schools and living in good neighborhoods.
In a way, it's good that the class-based proxy won't achieve the desired diversity ends. If racial diversity on campus is really a compelling need (which can be argued either way), then let's address it head on, with resolve and honesty, not hypocrisy and slight of hand.
In a way, it's good that the class-based proxy won't achieve the desired diversity ends. If racial diversity on campus is really a compelling need (which can be argued either way), then let's address it head on, with resolve and honesty, not hypocrisy and slight of hand.
2
Seems to me that israel has this right. Notwithstanding the writer's opinion. Diversity for diversity's sake is not a reasonable goal. Because it's called by an artificially created term of "Affirmative Action", it's still racially based quotas. If we truly want to address the stated grievances of the proponents of the affirmative action - then Israel's approach is correct: give some preference to applicants from the lower economic levels, and from the underfunded schools. That levels the playing field and leaves the rest up to the individual and his or her family. As it should be.
24
I am always skeptical of people who argue that race is more determinative than class, because I find that most people who say that have never been less than upper middle class. The purpose of AA in education is to give those who need it a leg up so that they can achieve economic and social mobility. There is simply no other way for a poor white or Asian student to attend an elite institution. They need the kind of financial aid that a class-based AA policy would make available. After school, of course, their class status will and should become invisible. The fact that racial disadvantage continues throughout life in America is reason for race-based AA to be utilized in other spaces beyond education. But it is not a reason for eliminating class-based educational AA.
2
Financial assistance and admissions based on affirmative action are not the same thing. Class-based affirmative action is about admission only. The financial aid is then calculated according to socioeconomic status.
Of course there is a "silver bullet" for colleges----- admit ALL students who place above a certain percentile rank within their respective schools.
So called objective testing is not so, as is well known throughout the academic world.
The problem is not in choosing the means, it is the entrenched power of institutionalized racism. Far more pervasive and long-standing than overt racism, it lends itself to denial, very easily.
So called objective testing is not so, as is well known throughout the academic world.
The problem is not in choosing the means, it is the entrenched power of institutionalized racism. Far more pervasive and long-standing than overt racism, it lends itself to denial, very easily.
What this suggests is that even when the bar is adjusted for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, blacks in the US need even more of an advantage.
It begs the questions: how much of the achievement gap is cultural. According to the work of John Ogbu, a Nigerian-American professor of anthropology, cultural factors were evident even among children of high achieving black parents. He also identified peer pressure against African American students who were derided as "acting white" by their peers when they worked hard at school.
Who's willing to tackle that barrier?
It begs the questions: how much of the achievement gap is cultural. According to the work of John Ogbu, a Nigerian-American professor of anthropology, cultural factors were evident even among children of high achieving black parents. He also identified peer pressure against African American students who were derided as "acting white" by their peers when they worked hard at school.
Who's willing to tackle that barrier?
8
Matt, I work at a university in northern CA and know of many black students who come here from LA or SF for that very reason. They are hassled for getting a "white" education back home. At first I had trouble believing but after years hearing they do, I believe them. I have no idea how to tackle such an enormous problem either.
4
So the NYT is allowing an op-ed person to CLEARY state the we WANTS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.
It is time to end race discrimination completely, now and forever, with no quibbles. The call for discrimination against whites and Asians, which certainly now exists, must stop. Period. There musty be no "surrogates" either.
Universities, mine included, have clearly stated racial and sexual bias, completely blatant, towards blacks and women in faculty hiring, by giving financial aid top departments hiring those groups. Absolutely this is race and sex discrimination. It must stop. NOW!
It is time to end race discrimination completely, now and forever, with no quibbles. The call for discrimination against whites and Asians, which certainly now exists, must stop. Period. There musty be no "surrogates" either.
Universities, mine included, have clearly stated racial and sexual bias, completely blatant, towards blacks and women in faculty hiring, by giving financial aid top departments hiring those groups. Absolutely this is race and sex discrimination. It must stop. NOW!
7
I would question one thing here, namely that Israel has not factored in ethnic origin for things like university admissions. Arab students constitute 20% of the total student population, which is slightly above the percentage of Arab citizens in Iasrael as a whole. The government is also making serious efforts to improve Arab schools and to introduce Arabic lessons in other national schools.
2
Before one engages in patent racial discrimination, creating an entirely new class of people deprived of opportunity due to their skin color (whether “White” or Asian), one has to assess why “diversity” matters one whit. For every group for which one asserts there are “too few”, one must assert that, for another, there are “too many”.
And, put simply, that sort of group-think mentality is absolute poison, wholly contrary to American notions of individualism, especially when the constitution of the groups is wholly arbitrary.
Each student is entitled to be consider on her individual merit, not on his status as a representative of a particular racial/ethnic group.
Reparations for slavery? OK, good point. Any ex-slave – heck, let’s go further: the children of any ex-slave – are entitled to special solicitousness. 150 years after the fact, there’s no one left entitled to reparations, and no one alive who owes them.
More than six decades after Brown, isn’t it about time we accepted that plaintiffs there were right, that the government has no business according benefits or imposing burdens based upon race?
“Fair” means treating people – individually, not as groups – as each deserves, and group-think, identity obsessed policies produce precisely the opposite result.
ANY consideration of race inevitably creates victims, and it simply doesn’t matter to what group the victims, or the beneficiaries belong. Only individual merit should be considered at all.
And, put simply, that sort of group-think mentality is absolute poison, wholly contrary to American notions of individualism, especially when the constitution of the groups is wholly arbitrary.
Each student is entitled to be consider on her individual merit, not on his status as a representative of a particular racial/ethnic group.
Reparations for slavery? OK, good point. Any ex-slave – heck, let’s go further: the children of any ex-slave – are entitled to special solicitousness. 150 years after the fact, there’s no one left entitled to reparations, and no one alive who owes them.
More than six decades after Brown, isn’t it about time we accepted that plaintiffs there were right, that the government has no business according benefits or imposing burdens based upon race?
“Fair” means treating people – individually, not as groups – as each deserves, and group-think, identity obsessed policies produce precisely the opposite result.
ANY consideration of race inevitably creates victims, and it simply doesn’t matter to what group the victims, or the beneficiaries belong. Only individual merit should be considered at all.
10
The question then becomes which flavor of diversity do we favor more? Personally, I think I have more differences with someone of completely different SES regardless of race than I do the black kid (I'm half-Asian) who grew up in the same affluent suburb as I did.
3
At some level, US colleges have indeed been applying a class-based affirmative action. We have been through two college application processes with our kids so far, and it has become clear that the advantage goes to the applicant who had a disadvantage, and overcame it, or is at least struggling with it. Required essay questions even ask explicitly: describe an adversity that you overcame. The tougher the adversity, the more compelling the application. For kids raised in middle to upper class homes with loving parents and a nurturing environment, by the end of the application process, they end up feeling that they might not get accepted because there was no hardship story in their narrative.
7
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I teach at an elite private university which now gives more scholarships to foreign students than Americans. Why? It's good for building the university's international brand. And of course, the university can appear to be more diverse than it is. The big irony is that most of the foreign students I know on scholarships have plenty of money. The new catch phrase that the universities in NY use to justify this is "merit-based" scholarships. In fact, none of the elite universities in NYC look at financial need when determining their scholarships. It's beyond pernicious and horribly unfair to poor Americans of all races, but this policy keeps the"right" people at the universities - namely, rich people.
14
First, international students are part of a diverse student body. Diversity is not a measure that applies only to domestic students.
Second, Columbia is the only Ivy League school in NYC, and it certainly does give need based scholarships.
Let's get the facts right before coming to a conclusion.
Second, Columbia is the only Ivy League school in NYC, and it certainly does give need based scholarships.
Let's get the facts right before coming to a conclusion.
There's something wrong with the math here. The author says:
"Only half of all those students admitted under the program are ethnic minorities, that is, Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs, the groups at the bottom of Israel’s social stratification system. If a race-based affirmative action policy had been implemented instead of this policy, the level of ethnic diversity would have been twice as high."
If half of students are ethnic minorities under the current system, and a different system would double that, that means that in the latter case, all the students would be from ethnic minorities.
"Only half of all those students admitted under the program are ethnic minorities, that is, Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs, the groups at the bottom of Israel’s social stratification system. If a race-based affirmative action policy had been implemented instead of this policy, the level of ethnic diversity would have been twice as high."
If half of students are ethnic minorities under the current system, and a different system would double that, that means that in the latter case, all the students would be from ethnic minorities.
4
I hope that other mathematically-literate people will correct me, if I am wrong, but I think this is one of those tricky "story" problems to which the answer would be that we haven't been given enough information for a solution. We don't know what the percentage of the total admitted group was admitted through the affirmative action program, and, in any case, the second part deals with not the level of diversity among that group only, but among the admitted group as a whole. And we don't know what percentage of the group admitted without the benefit of affirmative action; i.e., on the basis of legacy, merit, ability to pay full tuition, etc., would be counted as members of a racial or an ethnic minority.
The math problem is in your reasoning. The half applies to "THOSE STUDENTS ADMITTED UNDER THE PROGRAM". Thus if 20% of all students are admitted under the program, 10% are ethnic minorities. Under a different program, 20% might have been from ethnic minorities.
1
I would like to see something slightly different -- affirmative action aimed at the minority students that need the most help -- disadvantaged minorities from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Nearly all of the minority students where I sent to law school hailed from wealthy or educationally elite (e.g., parents both highly educated professionals), basically the top 1% of America from a socioeconomic perspective, who presumably would have a huge advantage over students coming from a low socioeconomic background. I would like to see affirmative action aimed at those who faced economic adversity and who didn't have any a family unit with an elite educational background to guide them.
5
I thought the purpose of affirmative action was to "level the playing field" for those minorities who have been victims of the systemic racism in this country - not to make university campuses more diverse.
2
The Court's Bakke decision upheld affirmative action largely on the grounds of diversity and the demonstrable benefits diversity provided to an entire campus.
1
"But it achieved these goals at the price of ethnic diversity. Only half of all those students admitted under the program are ethnic minorities, that is, Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs, the groups at the bottom of Israel’s social stratification system."
This column provides disturbing findings about affirmative action policies that consider low socioeconomic status instead of race or ethnicity. It is of limited value, though, because it offers no explanation for the reported outcome in Israel or for the results it projects for the United States.
The reason for affirmative action in college admissions is to allow underprivileged applicants a chance to overcome discrimination at the personal and structural levels in order to have a chance at personal social and economic mobility.
The beneficiaries are and should continue to be disadvantaged applicants, the children of families who do not come from the socioeconomic classes that have historically dominated college campuses.
Surely the author isn't suggesting that we use race and ethnicity to give preferential admissions to the upper and upper middle class children of minorities who are already the beneficiaries of class privilege. That position takes a problematic essentialist view of race and ethnicity. Worse, it suggests that racial and ethnic minorities are not on campus to get ahead but to somehow spice up the cultural environment for the benefit of well-off white students.
This column provides disturbing findings about affirmative action policies that consider low socioeconomic status instead of race or ethnicity. It is of limited value, though, because it offers no explanation for the reported outcome in Israel or for the results it projects for the United States.
The reason for affirmative action in college admissions is to allow underprivileged applicants a chance to overcome discrimination at the personal and structural levels in order to have a chance at personal social and economic mobility.
The beneficiaries are and should continue to be disadvantaged applicants, the children of families who do not come from the socioeconomic classes that have historically dominated college campuses.
Surely the author isn't suggesting that we use race and ethnicity to give preferential admissions to the upper and upper middle class children of minorities who are already the beneficiaries of class privilege. That position takes a problematic essentialist view of race and ethnicity. Worse, it suggests that racial and ethnic minorities are not on campus to get ahead but to somehow spice up the cultural environment for the benefit of well-off white students.
2
Some comments indicate many commentators don’t understand how affirmative action and holistic admissions processes works at U.S. universities. Admissions officers take factors such as socioeconomic status into consideration for all students. A black student who grew up below the poverty line in a single-parent family gets extra points, but so does a white student who grew up in similar circumstances. Racial and ethnic preferences don’t offset socioeconomic disadvantages; they are layered on top of all the other factors that go into the holistic admissions process. Universities assert that racial and ethnic preference are merely one of many factors, but the evidence shows they are determining factors. In an amicus brief filed in the Fisher vs. Texas case, a UCLA law professor pointed out that racial preferences at the University of Texas are decisive factors: “For example, among freshmen entering the University of Texas at Austin in 2009 who were admitted outside the top-ten-percent system, the mean SAT score (on a scale of 2400) of Asians was a staggering 467 points and the mean score of whites was 390 points above the mean black score. In percentile terms, these Asians scored at the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT takers nationwide, whites at the 89th percentile, Hispanics at the 80th percentile, and blacks at the 52nd percentile.” If racial and ethnic preferences were not decisive factors, the University of Texas would not be defending them before the Supreme Court.
13
Our colleges don't care about "broad diversity," what they care about is making amends for past racism by increasing the number of black students, regardless of qualifications. They originally did this using flat out racial quotas, and it was only when the Supreme Court ruled that this was illegal that they started to use "diversity" as a justification. If the Supreme Court had allowed them to continue openly discriminating against whites (and Asians), we would be hearing a lot less nonsense about "diversity" today. In retrospect, that might have been a good thing!
7
I think this research just shines a light on the issue of what the actual goal of affirmative action should be. Many of the underrepresented minority students in elite universities come from privileged backgrounds themselves--they are the children of professionals, attended good schools, and had the resources to participate in costly extracurricular activities, similar to their white peers. Racial barriers can exist at all income levels, but we need to question if it is it really a bad thing if universities instead showed preference for economically disadvantaged students, who might be black, Hispanic, and yes, also Asian, white, south Asian, Arab, etc. As we are often reminded by proponents of affirmative action, privilege and oppression are indeed "intersectional."
7
Ethnic diversity has no value. Only racists think about race.
What matters is creating unity from diversity: e pluribus unum.
What matters is creating unity from diversity: e pluribus unum.
15
Our version of Affirmative Action does not work to help the majority of poor minority students. What it does it help middle class minority students get into better schools than their white or Asian classmates with similar resumes. My best friend from high school got into Fordham Law with a lower GPA and a lower LSAT score than me. Why? Because she was able to check the "Hispanic" box due to her Cuban heritage. I'm not at all racist. My network of friends is incredibly diverse. However, I do resent unmeritorious systems. The truth is, my upper middle class friend offered Fordham Law no more relevant diversity than I would have. I am all for helping underprivileged individuals, but our Affirmative Action system doesn't do that well.
34
'Cuban heritage', eh? Were her ancestors wealthy businessmen who spoke Spanish? How does that differ from having as your ancestors wealthy businessmen who spoke French or German?
It is so confusing.
The elite "favor" underprivileged applicants. I'm sure the underprivileged are grateful for being born with disadvantages.
Also, the elite, apparantly, need to be able to play at being diverse and pretend they are part of the solution.
And the advantages to having more diversity in physics courses is what?
By the way, being intimidated in physics courses at MIT, Cal Tech, Cal or Chicago seems to occur regardless of race.
Note that private colleges can diversify all they want without running afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is fine and appropriate.
The elite "favor" underprivileged applicants. I'm sure the underprivileged are grateful for being born with disadvantages.
Also, the elite, apparantly, need to be able to play at being diverse and pretend they are part of the solution.
And the advantages to having more diversity in physics courses is what?
By the way, being intimidated in physics courses at MIT, Cal Tech, Cal or Chicago seems to occur regardless of race.
Note that private colleges can diversify all they want without running afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is fine and appropriate.
I've got one idea: every student should be assessed for gifted programs before attending kindergarten, and there should be places for all of them who test into these programs. A huge pool of kids who never get the chance to excel from would be scooped up. I'm not talking about lowering the standard, I'm talking about adding gifted classes to accommodate all who make the grade. By the time they're ready for college race based goals may actually be achieved organically.
1
Somehow, Israel and "race-neutrality" don't fit into the same sentence. Not in universities, and not in real life. And for such a divisive country, the premise that someone can address Affirmative Action in the United States is simply mind-boggling. There is more to this case than some legal strategy. This decision is something that in many ways defines American society for what it is, and for what it has become. The term "underprivileged" is not the strict domain of any specific race, nor has it strictly to do with "diversity". And both are over-used code words for something far more nefarious. I take umbrage with almost every aspect of this commentary.
6
There will always be ways of dividing people. If not by race, then by national origin, religion, or where they live. If a group is being discriminated against, it doesn't matter if it is for race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else. It is their group membership that is disadvantaging them, and that is what should be addressed. I recently went to a meeting of my homeowners association, where someone asked me if I live on the "Streets" or the "Courts." Before that moment I had no idea that our little development of 157 houses had such a dichotomy. There will always be an excuse to discriminate.
@Scottilla
I do not doubt that there will always be ways of dividing people. However I fail to see the analogy between a homeowner's association meeting, and the critical socioeconomic and racial divisions within our society when it comes to Affirmative Action.
I do not doubt that there will always be ways of dividing people. However I fail to see the analogy between a homeowner's association meeting, and the critical socioeconomic and racial divisions within our society when it comes to Affirmative Action.
The argument of this article is wrong for one simple reason: ending race-based affirmative action will not lead to less enrollment of racial minorities, it will rather alter the distribution of minority students across state school systems. When California did away with its affirmative action policy in the 1990's, there was a drop in African American enrollment at Berkeley, the most selective UC institution, but a rise in African American enrollment in the less selective UC institutions, where the enrolled students were able to compete against the median level student. But even at top level institutions, while the number of racial minorities went down, graduation rates went up by nearly 200%--this is because those minorities who were left were there because they deserved to be, academically speaking.
So the real issue here is whether we should be channeling minority students AWAY from second and third tier schools, where they could excel, and perform well enough to have the grades, confidence and recommendations for continuing (graduate) education, and TOWARD elite schools when they are ill equipped to compete with the average students at those institutions (who, on average, have an advantage of 300 SAT points over affirmative action students).
"Diversity" is a sham: it is nothing more than white liberal elites, in collaborate with self-interested diversity bureaucrats with lucrative positions, to use racial minorities to make there institutions APPEAR more inclusive.
So the real issue here is whether we should be channeling minority students AWAY from second and third tier schools, where they could excel, and perform well enough to have the grades, confidence and recommendations for continuing (graduate) education, and TOWARD elite schools when they are ill equipped to compete with the average students at those institutions (who, on average, have an advantage of 300 SAT points over affirmative action students).
"Diversity" is a sham: it is nothing more than white liberal elites, in collaborate with self-interested diversity bureaucrats with lucrative positions, to use racial minorities to make there institutions APPEAR more inclusive.
15
Is it possible that every college and university admits only those students who are capable of doing the work and benefiting from the experience? That anyone who doesn't get in is incapable? Tell that to all the disappointed prep school grads who didn't get into Harvard,Yale, or Princeton, and had to settle for "lesser" schools. The reality is, if they can succeed at Dartmouth, they could have succeeded at Harvard.
In reality, there is a pool of applicants for every place, a group of young people who could all do the work and benefit from the experience. Colleges and universities (largely) get to choose who they want in their student body, so whether any individual gets in is somewhat random.* If we choose to promote some of this pool of young people, who have had demonstrated barriers to achievement, this does not mean that they are incapable. It only means they needed a boost and social support once they get to college.
*except for rich white people affirmative action, i.e., legacy admits
#staymadabby
In reality, there is a pool of applicants for every place, a group of young people who could all do the work and benefit from the experience. Colleges and universities (largely) get to choose who they want in their student body, so whether any individual gets in is somewhat random.* If we choose to promote some of this pool of young people, who have had demonstrated barriers to achievement, this does not mean that they are incapable. It only means they needed a boost and social support once they get to college.
*except for rich white people affirmative action, i.e., legacy admits
#staymadabby
3
Actually, most of the thousands of colleges and universities admit nearly ll applicants. Only a small percentage are selective or highly selective.
diversity is not an holy grail. It should be remembered that, as result, many who are not qualified are let in and then sink. This does those chosen (and society) a serious disservice. Far better that society do a better job in elementary and high schools at fostering skills. Part of this involves providing a safe and secure environment in schools. No more tolerance of trouble makers. Bring back the rod. Making parents more accountable for being active in their chilrden's education. It should be mandatory they, at least, meet with students. Lastly, birth control should be made more widely available to keep illigitmacy down. THis last is the root of many problems but that the NY Times never mentions.
9
One of the many flaws of "social sciences" is their dependence on analogies as a form of argument. In fact analogies are the weakest form of analysis--if they count as analysis at all. To be instructive, analogies must be restricted to two or more examples that are highly similar phenomena. The notion that some dynamic in an Israeli social situation can be extrapolated to a somewhat similar dynamic in American culture is dubious, at best.
6
I completely disagree. Your comment shows how little you know about research and statistic analysis in the Social Sciences. Prof. Alon would never publish her research if it was based on isolated data. Furthermore, statiscs are always analized thoroughly before being published. The data analysis process makes sure that the research does not take into account irrelevent factors that might altar the results. So you can be sure that Alon's findings are definitive. Instead of posting "talkback" that sound informative but are really empty of content, maybe you should have first read her book on the subject. Only then will your opinion be taken seriously
1
By definition a conservative does not want diversity because that would be a change to the status quo. Notwithstanding our Constitutional requirement of Equal Protection of the law, this conservative court will do that which it believes to be in the best interest of conservatives.
No, equal protection if its to mean something means equal protection. Blacks and other minorities are not entitled to retribution for past discrimination unless that discrimination was first intentional against blacks and second those who imposed that discrimination will receive their due punishment and yes it is punishment nor diversity. Obviously that's not possible. AA seeks to punish today's students for the sins of the past and that is something totally and completely an anathema to the equal protection clause. Rest my case.
2
Not me, I want quality which means a tight distribution within the criteria that matter. Race does not matter unless you insist that some races are less competent or smart. Surely no progressive thinks this.
2
Is racial and ethnic diversity on campus a legitimate goal for a public university? I can only say that if I were to walk onto a campus at a major American university and see only some races and ethnic groups represented and a near-absence of others, I would be heartsick, not just for the groups who weren’t there, but also for the ones that were.
Public universities exist to serve society at large. That means providing a supply of educated people to create science and the arts, but it also means playing a role in organizing society so that it functions well. Creating a permanent underclass of less-educated disadvantaged young people cannot possibly benefit society, nor can asking young people to spend their formative years without the opportunity to meet others from backgrounds unlike their own.
But the question is: can race alone successfully be used as a marker of “disadvantage?” Certainly there was a time in our history when the answer would have to be “yes.” But now I’m guessing that the country would be divided on this question. Perhaps it’s time to go to a race-neutral plan based mostly on merit but with consideration of societal structures (schools, neighborhoods, parental income) as well.
Might this be worth a try? It would at least have the virtue of defusing some of the resentment we’re seeing that arises because there’s something in our national spirit that doesn’t like seeing any public activity based on race. What we want is simply to be fair.
Public universities exist to serve society at large. That means providing a supply of educated people to create science and the arts, but it also means playing a role in organizing society so that it functions well. Creating a permanent underclass of less-educated disadvantaged young people cannot possibly benefit society, nor can asking young people to spend their formative years without the opportunity to meet others from backgrounds unlike their own.
But the question is: can race alone successfully be used as a marker of “disadvantage?” Certainly there was a time in our history when the answer would have to be “yes.” But now I’m guessing that the country would be divided on this question. Perhaps it’s time to go to a race-neutral plan based mostly on merit but with consideration of societal structures (schools, neighborhoods, parental income) as well.
Might this be worth a try? It would at least have the virtue of defusing some of the resentment we’re seeing that arises because there’s something in our national spirit that doesn’t like seeing any public activity based on race. What we want is simply to be fair.
29
I'm going to try and be as generous here as I can be: recent polling shows the number of Americans who think racial tension and racism is a major problem is rapidly increasing. With that I mind I cannot see your claim that race cannot be used as a marker of disadvantage as anything but ludicrous.
1
To what extent was this article about public universities? At one point Alon mentions "elite" universities, most of which are not public.
Aren't you proposing exactly what UC purports to do with its current admissions program?
If Affirmative Action laws and schemes weren’t so serious, they would be laughable. Affirmative Action and all of its spinoffs, such as class-based Affirmative Action - essentially boil down to doing what liberals tell us is patently un-American: Providing certain people special privileges based of their race.
The flip side of Affirmative Action and all its spin-offs is that they discriminate against others – usually Whites and Asians – based on their race. It’s a zero sum game: Every student and every employee who holds a position based on his or her race, means that another, better qualified, student or employee was denied that position based on his or her race.
The liberal Media delights in displaying the happy faces and telling us the success stories of individuals who’ve benefited from Affirmative Action. But the Media never shows us the faces or tells the stories of those who have lost because of Affirmative Action.
Liberals have spent six decades keening over the plight of low-income Blacks who’ve suffered from racial discrimination. So where is their concern about low-income Whites who’ve suffered because of racial discrimination, such as due to sixty years of Affirmative Action?
The flip side of Affirmative Action and all its spin-offs is that they discriminate against others – usually Whites and Asians – based on their race. It’s a zero sum game: Every student and every employee who holds a position based on his or her race, means that another, better qualified, student or employee was denied that position based on his or her race.
The liberal Media delights in displaying the happy faces and telling us the success stories of individuals who’ve benefited from Affirmative Action. But the Media never shows us the faces or tells the stories of those who have lost because of Affirmative Action.
Liberals have spent six decades keening over the plight of low-income Blacks who’ve suffered from racial discrimination. So where is their concern about low-income Whites who’ve suffered because of racial discrimination, such as due to sixty years of Affirmative Action?
16
Well, no really only Asians since whites get legacy admissions and sports admissions in which they are not qualified to attend. Also, of course, women who are far outstripping men.
If it was a true "merit" based system. There would be a lot, and I do mean a lot less white men attending college. So I think it behooves white men to be a bit more gracious. They really don't want a true merit system to take hold.
If it was a true "merit" based system. There would be a lot, and I do mean a lot less white men attending college. So I think it behooves white men to be a bit more gracious. They really don't want a true merit system to take hold.
Has there ever been a study that shows that all races and all ethnic minorities and all ethnic majorities are equal in basic abilities or is that just an assumption? People should be given equal opportunities based on their status as individuals, not as members of a particular group.
15
That's the whole point! There is no brick wall between a person's status as an individual and membership in a particular group. If the later didn't affect the former - there wouldn't be a problem now would there? Is that fairly straightforward logic really so terribly difficult to understand? The better question would be - for what reasons is it hard to understand? The type of affirmative action that Chief Justice Roberts or Antonin Scalia received at birth provokes little concern compared to the child born, through no fault of its own, into conditions far, far different from those of relative privilege. Can any system that turns a blind eye to that fact really call itself just? Who would really want to live in a system dominated by such shameful deception?
What a relief to know that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are benefiting from Israel's sterling affirmative action policies.
So THIS is what "race neutrality' looks like.
Awesome.
Let's bring Israeli affirmative action to America as soon as possible.
So THIS is what "race neutrality' looks like.
Awesome.
Let's bring Israeli affirmative action to America as soon as possible.
14
Actually, about 15% of students at Ariel University are Arabs residing within the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority - that is about 2,250 out of the approximately 15,000 and growing student population.
Want to talk about "race neutrality"? Ariel has the largest student population of Ethiopian Jews of any Israeli university. Ethiopian Jews are, if you did not Samsara in the West, very African and very black...and very welcome.
So I agree with you....Awesome...and you SHOULD bring Israeli affirmative action to augment existing affirmative action.
There is one thing, though, which I disagree with you - your very uneducated (by choice?) sarcasm.
Want to talk about "race neutrality"? Ariel has the largest student population of Ethiopian Jews of any Israeli university. Ethiopian Jews are, if you did not Samsara in the West, very African and very black...and very welcome.
So I agree with you....Awesome...and you SHOULD bring Israeli affirmative action to augment existing affirmative action.
There is one thing, though, which I disagree with you - your very uneducated (by choice?) sarcasm.
2
Samsara:
Is there a program at Palestinian Universities such as Birzeit or An-Najah to assure that there is cultural diversity there? Do Jewish Palestinians get to go there? Have any of the institutions in Palestinian lands pre-1948 or 1967, or in any of the surrounding countries at any time, ever provided support for secular education for Jews? Your bias and one-sidedness curdle your cheese.
Is there a program at Palestinian Universities such as Birzeit or An-Najah to assure that there is cultural diversity there? Do Jewish Palestinians get to go there? Have any of the institutions in Palestinian lands pre-1948 or 1967, or in any of the surrounding countries at any time, ever provided support for secular education for Jews? Your bias and one-sidedness curdle your cheese.
2
For the U.S., a race-neutral socio-demographic admission policy might be more successful in generating more student diversity if it gave more weight to students coming from single parent households. Of course, the difficulty here would be overcoming arguments that a single parenthood criteria would be perceived as both racist towards african-americans and anti-single parenthood.
The Israeli case is interesting but exotic from an American point of view. A more telling example would be India, which had a rigid stratification system more similar to the US than most Americans would admit, and centuries of virulent discrimination against near-permanent underclasses. The encouraging results of legislation to improve the opportunities of outcaste and stigmatized people suggests that the long shadow of white hatred of African-origin Americans could be improved by programs to promote education at all levels. Racism makes a worthy fight, but 'making everyone equal' will always fall harshly on American ears.
2
Race, gender, and ethnicity based affirmative active is a flagrant violation of the clear wording of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Since the Bakke decision, the Supreme Court has permitted it, which makes little sense to many of us, including myself.
We undermine the equal protection clause at our extreme peril. Unless we give credence to the clear wording of the civil rights and protections provided in the Constitution, we are risking everything. After all, we are nation of laws, and this had made us the great country that we are.
Is diversity based on race, gender, and ethnicity beneficial? Perhaps. My own opinion, shared by many, is that it is not an important as having a diversity of points of view, which by most measures today's affirmative action does not achieve.
Is equal opportunity important? Very much so. But it is best achieved by admissions programs based on socioeconomic need, which is not what most of this country's affirmative actions programs target.
If a majority of this country's citizens believe that the sorts of AA programs we have today are of great importance (and I do not think most of us really hold this view) the correct approach is to stop playing games, and to amend the Constitution. Disregarding the the clear language of the equal protection clause, as we do today, is wrong headed and places at risk the basis of our great constitutional democracy.
We undermine the equal protection clause at our extreme peril. Unless we give credence to the clear wording of the civil rights and protections provided in the Constitution, we are risking everything. After all, we are nation of laws, and this had made us the great country that we are.
Is diversity based on race, gender, and ethnicity beneficial? Perhaps. My own opinion, shared by many, is that it is not an important as having a diversity of points of view, which by most measures today's affirmative action does not achieve.
Is equal opportunity important? Very much so. But it is best achieved by admissions programs based on socioeconomic need, which is not what most of this country's affirmative actions programs target.
If a majority of this country's citizens believe that the sorts of AA programs we have today are of great importance (and I do not think most of us really hold this view) the correct approach is to stop playing games, and to amend the Constitution. Disregarding the the clear language of the equal protection clause, as we do today, is wrong headed and places at risk the basis of our great constitutional democracy.
9
If I am not mistaken, the affirmative action programs in Israeli universities admitted one to a preparatory program and not to particular departments, and in Israel one is accepted to departments. These students still had to be accepted at the end of their preparatory period to matriculate as "regular" students and in the more competitive departments these students would not receive additional consideration and even if they did, the attrition rate is high. Succeed or out.
Having taught at an Israeli university for over 35 years, I am not sure that there are any parallels here. The systems are very different in terms of acceptance to university, i.e. state matriculation grades and the Israeli equivalent of SATs. No interviews, no extra-curricular activities, no essays, no legacies and no consideration of high school grades.
Sometimes also there is very little diversity. Talk Russian around a math department and somebody will answer and nobody is bothered by this.
In any case, I am not sure that Prof. Alon has all that much to offer US universities and colleges in terms of race and affirmative action.
Having taught at an Israeli university for over 35 years, I am not sure that there are any parallels here. The systems are very different in terms of acceptance to university, i.e. state matriculation grades and the Israeli equivalent of SATs. No interviews, no extra-curricular activities, no essays, no legacies and no consideration of high school grades.
Sometimes also there is very little diversity. Talk Russian around a math department and somebody will answer and nobody is bothered by this.
In any case, I am not sure that Prof. Alon has all that much to offer US universities and colleges in terms of race and affirmative action.
98
A sample of 50 comments at Choose Your Own Identity 12/15 @ http://nyti.ms/1m0DXIq bears upon the discussion here. In my reading a greater percentage of my fellow *American commenters than ever before express the view that it is time to end the USCB practice of boxing in Americans by assigning them to races and ethnicities that cannot be scientifically or logically defined.
So let’s start talking about Professor Kenneth Prewitt’s proposal to see Americans in terms of education, economics, country of birth, and living situation and end the use of race boxes. A Times Editor invited Prewitt to write this in 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/fix-the-census-archaic-racial-... It is Time to bring him back to explain how his plan bears upon the end of “race-based” Affirmative Action.
Diversity is for me an essential goal. So let’s talk about new ways to get there. One step would be to do as Sweden already does and Bernie Sanders would like to be done, provide free or lower cost education.
Time to move on.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
So let’s start talking about Professor Kenneth Prewitt’s proposal to see Americans in terms of education, economics, country of birth, and living situation and end the use of race boxes. A Times Editor invited Prewitt to write this in 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/fix-the-census-archaic-racial-... It is Time to bring him back to explain how his plan bears upon the end of “race-based” Affirmative Action.
Diversity is for me an essential goal. So let’s talk about new ways to get there. One step would be to do as Sweden already does and Bernie Sanders would like to be done, provide free or lower cost education.
Time to move on.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
4
And why do you assume that "Diversity" involves something that is free or at lower cost?
1
@ N Smith - this is a commnt section I said nothing about free or lower cost. One step at a time.
The most fair affirmative action policy would be to base it more on economic status rather than just racial status.
Assuming that economic status affirmative action would indeed include minorities as well as whites, this should put an end to a divisive policy. A poor white kid would have less possibility in life than a rich black kid and vice versa. Minorities living in poverty would automatically be included in the mix. While racism is still present in our society, at the end of the day- it is being one of the extreme poor that is the most difficult to overcome. There are many single parent white families on welfare that are much more disadvantaged than a middle class black family.
Assuming that economic status affirmative action would indeed include minorities as well as whites, this should put an end to a divisive policy. A poor white kid would have less possibility in life than a rich black kid and vice versa. Minorities living in poverty would automatically be included in the mix. While racism is still present in our society, at the end of the day- it is being one of the extreme poor that is the most difficult to overcome. There are many single parent white families on welfare that are much more disadvantaged than a middle class black family.
9
It is impossible to manipulate racial and ethnic diversity on college campuses without trampling the Fourteenth Amendment’s ban on racial, ethnic and religious discrimination. However, we could easily increase ethnic diversity without resorting to affirmative action by acknowledging ethnicity for all students, not just Hispanic students. For example, the freshman class at the University of Texas is 45 percent non-Hispanic white, 23 percent Asian, 21 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent African American. We create the ethnic imbalance by categorizing all non-Hispanic white students as something there are not—they are not Hispanic—instead of categorizing them by their true ancestry. In Texas, non-Hispanic whites are referred to as “Anglos,” but most are not Anglo Americans. Instead, most are Scotch-Irish Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans and Anglo Americans. If the University of Texas at Austin permitted all students to list their ethnicity, the freshman class would be about 23 percent Asian, 21 percent Hispanic, 18 percent Scotch Irish, 15 percent German American, 7 percent Irish American, 5 percent Anglo, 4 percent African American, etc. Hispanic American students would probably become the largest ethnic group on campus within a year or two. It would be easier of course to stop counting Hispanic students separately from other groups simply because they have an ancestor or ancestors who immigrated to the United States from a Spanish-speaking country.
4
The premise of each of these models is flawed. Their weakness is understandable since it flows from the flawed reasoning of our Supreme Court. Our laws assume that racial discrimination is rare, is only a problem when done intentionally and is adequately addressed by federal and state civil rights laws.
But our social science demonstrates is that racial discrimination is pervasive, it occurs most often at an unconscious level, but it is decisive in numerous settings where decision makers exercise discretion. In effect we still have a very unequal playing field in the US today.
The single area where our courts and social scientists agree is that racial bias causes harm. The difference is that the courts pretend that the harm is almost non-existent whereas the data tells us that it occurs everyday, in a host of settings, including our schools.
The real rationale for affirmative action isn't diversity, though the science has recorded its benefits. The real rationale is that the promise of Brown v. Board of Ed. that Blacks be free from racial discrimination has not been met. The district court in Brown also found that racial discrimination causes harm for which a legal remedy was in order. While the form of discrimination has changed since 1954, the fact of discrimination has not. Nor is this discrimination purely private.
As a nation we continue to avoid facing the racial nature of our bitter past and so continue its mistakes in our future. Truth is the only light
But our social science demonstrates is that racial discrimination is pervasive, it occurs most often at an unconscious level, but it is decisive in numerous settings where decision makers exercise discretion. In effect we still have a very unequal playing field in the US today.
The single area where our courts and social scientists agree is that racial bias causes harm. The difference is that the courts pretend that the harm is almost non-existent whereas the data tells us that it occurs everyday, in a host of settings, including our schools.
The real rationale for affirmative action isn't diversity, though the science has recorded its benefits. The real rationale is that the promise of Brown v. Board of Ed. that Blacks be free from racial discrimination has not been met. The district court in Brown also found that racial discrimination causes harm for which a legal remedy was in order. While the form of discrimination has changed since 1954, the fact of discrimination has not. Nor is this discrimination purely private.
As a nation we continue to avoid facing the racial nature of our bitter past and so continue its mistakes in our future. Truth is the only light
3
"The single area where our courts and social scientists agree is that racial bias causes harm. ... The real rationale is that the promise of Brown v. Board of Ed. that Blacks be free from racial discrimination has not been met."
The first sentence above is true. The second sentence is true too! But what this article and they Left Wing refuse to admit, though it is blatant, is that the victims of it are these days either white or Asian.
This must stop. Race must not be used in any way, nor surrogates for it,
in education.
The first sentence above is true. The second sentence is true too! But what this article and they Left Wing refuse to admit, though it is blatant, is that the victims of it are these days either white or Asian.
This must stop. Race must not be used in any way, nor surrogates for it,
in education.
1
In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court rule African Americans could not be barred admission to public schools due to their race; however, it did not require colleges to enroll African Americans due to their race. Besides, today most affirmative action admits are white middle-class students who have Hispanic surnames or an ancestor who immigrated to the United States from a Spanish-speaking country instead of a country where English, Gaelic, Germany, French, Italian, Greek, Arabic, Yiddish, Polish, Japanese, Chinese, etc. were the dominant languages.
1
Left unmeddled, we already have race diversity, perhaps even some gender diversity, who's to say. Though I have yet to hear a male, regardless of race ask for gender equality in carrying a child full-term.
Tinkering with leveling playing fields and tweaking genes and DNA makes little sense. Think BHG or BST for cows. Nature knows best what nature presents us. Let's not meddle with Mother Nature.
We all bring something unique and needed in our being here, and we don't need artifice or sham to make it happen.
Tinkering with leveling playing fields and tweaking genes and DNA makes little sense. Think BHG or BST for cows. Nature knows best what nature presents us. Let's not meddle with Mother Nature.
We all bring something unique and needed in our being here, and we don't need artifice or sham to make it happen.
2
The best way to help economically disadvantaged students or minority students is to stop worrying so much about who gets into “flagship” university and create more high-quality regional colleges that students can attend while living at home. The Texas Top 10 Percent policy which grants automatic acceptance to any student who finishes in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class dramatically increased Hispanic enrollment at the University of Texas at Austin, but had almost no impact on black enrollment because most black students eligible for automatic admission to UT-Austin opted instead to attend one of the University of Texas System’s nine regional universities, where both the tuition and flunkout rates are lower. They are more likely to end up with a degree and a good job instead of burdensome student debt and no degree.
11
Interesting that so many of the comments are stuck on the concept of skin tone - this is part of the problem of discussing race in America. Interesting also that many of the comment seem to imply that the commenters feel that anyone who is nonwhite is somehow undeserving of their place at an elite institution, that some white student has been "robbed". As a Black man who attended elite schools, I cannot tell you how many times I was asked how I got in (and for you skeptics, yes, the dialogue was that blunt). Racism is America's original sin and we've all bought in to it. Until that changes, and we all do some serious truth-telling, we will keep inflicting these wounds generationally. Is everyone truly prepared for blind admissions? I doubt it.
10
Well, I would guess you were asked about it because affirmative action creates a giant question mark around all black and Hispanic students which, as many have pointed out, is one of the things that makes it unfair to *them* as well as to white and Asian students.
3
Well bring it on. I can tell you right now, if we used blind admission based on tests and achievement that Blacks would be left far behind. Why else is there Affirmative Action? You're the ones not ready.
1
I think this is an interesting editorial, but fundamentally misses the point about why we have affirmative action in the United States in the first place. While wide spread diversity (including economic and geographic) is an unqualified good thing, it shouldn't necessarily be the primary driver behind our affirmative action policy. The main purpose of which, in my opinion, is to help counteract gigantic, grievous, and demonstrable social and work place bias against African Americans who have never entirely shed the legacy of racism and slavery that is this country's original sin. Frankly, it is not in America's interest to have a permanent underclass that is distinguishable by the unmistakable marker of darker skin color. Until a black high school graduate with no criminal record has the same job opportunities as a White former convict with no high school diploma (which currently they don't have) we have a societal problem. Any affirmative action policy that's worth its weight in salt must have a strong racial component. Any parallel with Israel might share the facts but not the flavor.
For sure, there are profound disadvantages for individual white Americans who grow up under adverse circumstance which I will not minimize. However, once a white person from a poor background escapes that background there is little danger that his or her progeny will carry the mark of his/her family's historic degradation. The same can not be said for African Americans.
For sure, there are profound disadvantages for individual white Americans who grow up under adverse circumstance which I will not minimize. However, once a white person from a poor background escapes that background there is little danger that his or her progeny will carry the mark of his/her family's historic degradation. The same can not be said for African Americans.
23
Except the Supreme Court has ruled out "reparations" as a justification for affirmative action. The ONLY justification is "diversity in the classroom" so no, what you're talking about has never been the underlying motivation behind affirmative action.
I couldn't disagree with you more. As I look around my office, "white" is one of the least represented races. I can also state with 100% certainty that a white with a criminal history has a less chance of employment here than a black without a criminal history. I can say this since we require clearances that general are unavailable to those with records.
1
Dan, my points aren't exactly of the agree or disagree variety... while I don't doubt that you believe that blacks are somehow more employable then whites... and it may in fact, be true "at your office"... especially if you work for a large equal opportunity employer like the federal gov't. It's decided not true across the country writ large... and it is, in fact, much harder for African American of comparable skills to get comparable employment particularly for middle class jobs... and at the low end it is easier for convicts to get jobs then black high school grads with no record. The times did a great series where they reported on studies of African American unemployment and the prison example is just one of the tid bits that was there in black and white.
LL, as for the supreme court... We have multiple justices approaching or passing the 80 year old mark... the next president, if she last two terms will likely completely remake the court. And I am willing to bet the next president will, in fact, be a she by the name of Hillary Clinton. So, while I have little doubt this court will fully abandon race based affirmative action, I wouldn't bet on it lasting long.
LL, as for the supreme court... We have multiple justices approaching or passing the 80 year old mark... the next president, if she last two terms will likely completely remake the court. And I am willing to bet the next president will, in fact, be a she by the name of Hillary Clinton. So, while I have little doubt this court will fully abandon race based affirmative action, I wouldn't bet on it lasting long.
1
We should adjust to racial, ethnic and socioeconomic inequities by eliminating college degrees and diplomas. There should be no such thing as “college graduates” or “college drop-outs.” The chief purpose of a college degree or diploma is to stigmatize students who attend college, but for a variety of reason—often financial—do not fully complete a degree plan. College students should be permitted to select from a menu of courses that they think will best help them achieve their life objectives or land a job in their chosen occupational field. There should be no “required courses” to serve as stumbling blocks. No one would graduate and no one would receive degree or a diploma; students would simply shows transcripts to employers to indicate he or she has taken courses applicable to the positions they are seeking. No one would ask job applicants if they have a degree or why they didn’t “complete” their degree because no one would have a degree.
2
It may be time to call out the very concept of race. Consider this paradox. In order to compensate the descendants of slaves, we give preference to many individuals who include slave owners and overseers among their ancestors. We give preference to individuals from other countries who probably have no slave ancestors. Does this make sense?
14
@ RG - My comment 6 down from yours makes the same point and does so by citing a formal proposal being developed by former US Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt. See my comment if you are interested. I note with emphasis that it has thus far been impossible to take up the subject of the elimination of classification by race/ethnicity. I give the URL to Prewitts 2013 OpEd, the only article on this subject in the past 3 years at least.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
1
What the arguments on diversity overlook is that one of its potential benefits is not to those admitted in an affirmative action program, but , generally, our society, and particularly, the elite of this country who otherwise might not have had any exposure to people of various ethnic or lower socio-economic status. This exposure would help the development of empathy for and assimilation of various and divergent groups and cultures.
5
Socioeconomic based affirmative action would help level the playing field of those born into ;poverty who attended poorly functioning elementary and high schools. College would offer the poor the chance to catch up, and the economically disadvantage would have to work hard to meet academic standards needed to graduate. Race based affirmative action discriminates against large numbers of economically disadvantaged Asians and whites who achieve stellar scores on all measurements of academic achievement. Is economic diversity less valuable than racial diversity. Ethnic minorities would still factor into socioeconomic affirmative action.
15
I can support a class-based preference program, because those raised under socioeconomic disadvantage may have the ability to do well academically that's not obvious because of poor quality schools and other issues. These students, many of whom may be the first in their family to attend college, will need additional guidance and help to graduate since they will not have the background of others for whom college is an expectation.
But as many studies have shown, the beneficiaries of race-based preferences are predominantly middle and upper income blacks. Does it make any sense to favor a middle income black student over a poor white student?
But as many studies have shown, the beneficiaries of race-based preferences are predominantly middle and upper income blacks. Does it make any sense to favor a middle income black student over a poor white student?
66
Yes. Yes it does.
1
So, you would have the child of a white family, where no one has ever finished high school, let alone gone to college, get an advantage over a more qualified white child whose parents were Ivy graduates? We're already doing this in my local public school system, in the admission policies to the more elite magnet schools.
Sorry, the "go to the back of the line" policy for white children "unfortunate" enough to have educated parents and to be excellent achievers themselves, is utter garbage.
Those who are the most qualified should be the ones admitted.
Sorry, the "go to the back of the line" policy for white children "unfortunate" enough to have educated parents and to be excellent achievers themselves, is utter garbage.
Those who are the most qualified should be the ones admitted.
1
Because of the legacy of segregation, many of those students will still be going to inferior schools.
1
Advantaging someone disadvantages someone else. You can't add x to the first side of an equation without the second side immediately having x less than the first side.
27
Affirmative Action works in the US because English is the mother tongue. Mr. Alon is poorly placed to compare both countries due to segregation in the Israeli education system.
Jewish Israeli's are taught in the dominant language while non Jewish Israeli's learn in Arabic when most University courses at taught in Hebrew with a few in English placing them at a disadvantage which reflects the anti Arab bias that saturates Israeli Universities.
Jewish Israeli's are taught in the dominant language while non Jewish Israeli's learn in Arabic when most University courses at taught in Hebrew with a few in English placing them at a disadvantage which reflects the anti Arab bias that saturates Israeli Universities.
7
Most Israeli Arabs are fluent in Hebrew, as are nearly all Israeli Jews of African or Middle Eastern ancestry.
It would appear, however, that you are not so fluent in Hebrew -- Dr. Alon is not a "Mr.", as is apparent from her name.
It would appear, however, that you are not so fluent in Hebrew -- Dr. Alon is not a "Mr.", as is apparent from her name.
1
You don't even bother to mention the Russian that many recent immigrants speak as a native tongue clearly exposing your thinly veiled anti-Israeli agenda.
1
Actually, many textbooks are still in English, especially in grad school. Which places both Jews and Arabs at a disadvantage. As to the so-called bias which "saturates" Israeli universities, what about the fair number of Arab professors?
1
We are a competitive society that promotes individual initiative and accountability as desirable values. That said, individual initiative alone will not change deep rooted biases that affect the general well being of our society and quality of life. LBJ was right on that one.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is a failure. There is no evidence that such policy is either effective or changes our society for the better.
Diversity for the sake of creating a more inclusive social fabric, one which demonstrates to all that the promise of individual initiative and accountability can lead to individual advancement and prosperity should be our goal. Democracies can only succeed in the long run when the vast majority of the population believes the system works in their benefit, which in our case is a level playing field.
America needs more minorities to attain positions of professional and business success. These are necessary role models for others. If the only way that minorities gain admittance to good schools is with set-asides, then so be it. The good outweighs the bad.
However, let's be clear.
Minorities who gain admission via set asides also have an obligation to demonstrate role model effort and behavior. If they major in disciplines that do not lead to business or professional careers, the majority of them will not attain middle class lifestyles. If they self segregate into minority enclaves while in college, they will only perpetuate their isolation.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is a failure. There is no evidence that such policy is either effective or changes our society for the better.
Diversity for the sake of creating a more inclusive social fabric, one which demonstrates to all that the promise of individual initiative and accountability can lead to individual advancement and prosperity should be our goal. Democracies can only succeed in the long run when the vast majority of the population believes the system works in their benefit, which in our case is a level playing field.
America needs more minorities to attain positions of professional and business success. These are necessary role models for others. If the only way that minorities gain admittance to good schools is with set-asides, then so be it. The good outweighs the bad.
However, let's be clear.
Minorities who gain admission via set asides also have an obligation to demonstrate role model effort and behavior. If they major in disciplines that do not lead to business or professional careers, the majority of them will not attain middle class lifestyles. If they self segregate into minority enclaves while in college, they will only perpetuate their isolation.
10
"Diversity for the sake of creating a more inclusive social fabric, one which demonstrates to all that the promise of individual initiative and accountability can lead to individual advancement and prosperity should be our goal. "
No. It is wrong to force anyone to accept anyone else based on their personal opinions, whether acceptable opinions based on society or not. Being the 'Thought Police' is one of the reasons we have the problems with inclusion and diversity now. Forcing a solution to a problem by harming one group to help another only breeds resentment, whether open or hidden. As someone who has been on the other end of the line when helping others, it sucks. Nature cures this over time. Humans are impatient, especially those on the receiving end. When you get something for 'free'. you never get enough. Let time heal the wounds and fix the attitudes. It will come. In the mean time, the answer to gain this point is personal responsibility, for both sides.
No. It is wrong to force anyone to accept anyone else based on their personal opinions, whether acceptable opinions based on society or not. Being the 'Thought Police' is one of the reasons we have the problems with inclusion and diversity now. Forcing a solution to a problem by harming one group to help another only breeds resentment, whether open or hidden. As someone who has been on the other end of the line when helping others, it sucks. Nature cures this over time. Humans are impatient, especially those on the receiving end. When you get something for 'free'. you never get enough. Let time heal the wounds and fix the attitudes. It will come. In the mean time, the answer to gain this point is personal responsibility, for both sides.
1
A Russell Baker column addresses the real issue in affirmative action
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50D15FD385F117A93C6AB178CD...
"Women and blacks have absorbed a lesson that white males have yet to learn: to wit, that it is easier to make discrimination work for you than it is to eliminate it from American life.
The question no one asks is why the country must have a large supply of people to be
discriminated against. This takes us into dangerous water indeed, for when there are enough jobs to absorb a nation's talents and enough schools to fulfill people's desires for education, the need for discrimination withers away.
The country obviously does not provide enough jobs and schools. Some say It cannot afford to and that trying to do so would destroy a system which, after all, is working pretty well. If not, if have-nots in large supply are an economic necessity, then victims of discrimination are a vital part of the system, and the cunning will make sure that the duty of victimhood passes to some¬body else."
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50D15FD385F117A93C6AB178CD...
"Women and blacks have absorbed a lesson that white males have yet to learn: to wit, that it is easier to make discrimination work for you than it is to eliminate it from American life.
The question no one asks is why the country must have a large supply of people to be
discriminated against. This takes us into dangerous water indeed, for when there are enough jobs to absorb a nation's talents and enough schools to fulfill people's desires for education, the need for discrimination withers away.
The country obviously does not provide enough jobs and schools. Some say It cannot afford to and that trying to do so would destroy a system which, after all, is working pretty well. If not, if have-nots in large supply are an economic necessity, then victims of discrimination are a vital part of the system, and the cunning will make sure that the duty of victimhood passes to some¬body else."
8
Senator Sanders' plan to institute a "Tobin Tax" (financial transaction tax) would raise enough money to provide free tuition at public colleges and universities (and tech schools).
$20 billion a year cold expand the seats available, but of course students still have to do the work at an acceptable level.
The idea of scarcity in education as a tool of continued privilege for SOME can be eliminated by simply giving students the chance.
Private colleges will still want to select their freshmen in order to assemble the type of student body they believe yields the best EDUCATION
$20 billion a year cold expand the seats available, but of course students still have to do the work at an acceptable level.
The idea of scarcity in education as a tool of continued privilege for SOME can be eliminated by simply giving students the chance.
Private colleges will still want to select their freshmen in order to assemble the type of student body they believe yields the best EDUCATION
1
If we taxed unrealized capital gains at death [elimination of step up in basis] we would raise 43 B /year which is more than twice the 20 B in Sanders' "Tobin Tax".
The strong assumption underlying many of the comments is that positions granted to members of ethnic minorities on the basis of policies designed to promote ethnic diversity leave the "higher academic merit" Whites without any opportunities at all. The reality is that Whites and Asians do still receive the majority of admissions into elite institutions, and the odds of getting into a top-tier university are still far better for ambitious students from White or Asian-American families than for Blacks or Hispanics.
61
"The reality is that Whites and Asians do still receive the majority of admissions into elite institutions, ..."
The reality is, those who worked harder and achieved more got less in your scenario. Hardly fair and absolutely against the very thing Affirmative Action is suppose to be promoting. Are Blacks able to compete with whites and Asians or aren't they?
The reality is, those who worked harder and achieved more got less in your scenario. Hardly fair and absolutely against the very thing Affirmative Action is suppose to be promoting. Are Blacks able to compete with whites and Asians or aren't they?
5
could this be that the white students and asians are better prepared? They have parents that know and value education? That push their children accordingly? ON the West Coast, for example, many asian parents push their students into Jukus (after school cram schools).
5
White folks have had a place at the table for hundreds of years. The idea of meritocracy falls a bit flat when you look at a George W. Bush or that incompetent boss you have. Access is the key. Access to jobs and education. And, access to a quality education in America is unequal, because unlike Germans or other western countries, Americans have no problem with glaring inequalities between educational funding and outcomes between wealthy enclaves and inner cities. So, let's be honest, as Americans, we want winners and losers. We don't really value access and equality. Diversity is a problem for minorities and some HR departments. Arguing for merit is pretty disingenuous in a rigged system.
30
Student applicants haven't "had a place at the table for hundred of years." Most are about 18 years old.
5
Actually, the Inner Cities eat more dollars per student than any other location.
1
Just more sanctimonious hot air, and prescriptions for others to follow, unless and until it's embraced by the Human Resources Department at the Times.
8
It's frustrating that Asians are not considered as a minority.
Asians were brought to the US as indentured servants to build the rail network, were illegally imprisoned in WWII and suffer daily micro-/macro-aggressions to this day.
Yet somehow, liberals view Asians as "white" when convenient and decry the "model minority" myth.
Why don't we look at the California school system as remarkably diverse given how well Asians have done?
Why don't we see that allowing more high performing Asians from poor families will allow America's social mobility percentages to soar?
Asians were brought to the US as indentured servants to build the rail network, were illegally imprisoned in WWII and suffer daily micro-/macro-aggressions to this day.
Yet somehow, liberals view Asians as "white" when convenient and decry the "model minority" myth.
Why don't we look at the California school system as remarkably diverse given how well Asians have done?
Why don't we see that allowing more high performing Asians from poor families will allow America's social mobility percentages to soar?
82
Socioeconomic affirmative action will not increase racial and ethnic diversity at U.S. colleges and universities because African Americans and Hispanic Americans are only disproportionately poor. In raw numbers, poor white students far outnumber poor African American students or poor Hispanic American students, and poor white students have higher GPAs and SAT/ACT scores than poor and lower-middle class African American and Hispanic students. Socioeconomic affirmative action creates only a diversity of ideas and perceptions; it doesn’t establish racial and ethnic quotas, which are the true goal of affirmative action.
8
Non-white people couldn't get into college for generations because of the color of their skin. Were you folks with your conservative mindsets asleep when that was going on? This country was built on the backs of slaves, and as of this time our government still can't apologize for slavery. Call it a form of reparations. If we could deny students of color admission because of skin color, giving them a leg up because of skin color doesn't seem like a bad idea. It seems FAIR---that's a word that conservatives simply don't understand. It may as well be written in Swahili or Aramaic.
106
The majority of students eligible for affirmative action preference in college admissions are students who identify as white but have Hispanic surnames or an ancestor who had a Hispanic surname. They are not the descendants of slaves.
3
Slavery is an unforgivable act, no apologies can make it "better". But to state "This country was built on the backs of slave" is wrong and not true. More than that, believing this statement, made many black people "adopt" it as the excuse not to advance in life and to reach the point that 75% of black children are born to single mothers today in USA.
Many nations have gone through severe changes and still recovered and succeed, many poor and disadvantage children,' white and Asian, have gone through poverty and suffering, but managed to rebuild their life and take it a step farther then their parents before them. It is high time that black leadership and people, will start asking themselves, How can we change and reshape our lives" without screaming "slavery" as their excuse.
I wish that Mrs. Obama would have used her position as First Lady, to go from one school to the other, saying "Look at us, we can make it if we wish hard for it" - it would have done more then the "food Campaign". Its not only her, its every black person, who "made" it, I wish they will step forward and become the true model to black children.
Your success will be our salvation
Many nations have gone through severe changes and still recovered and succeed, many poor and disadvantage children,' white and Asian, have gone through poverty and suffering, but managed to rebuild their life and take it a step farther then their parents before them. It is high time that black leadership and people, will start asking themselves, How can we change and reshape our lives" without screaming "slavery" as their excuse.
I wish that Mrs. Obama would have used her position as First Lady, to go from one school to the other, saying "Look at us, we can make it if we wish hard for it" - it would have done more then the "food Campaign". Its not only her, its every black person, who "made" it, I wish they will step forward and become the true model to black children.
Your success will be our salvation
3
Well said!
The US, Israeli and French attempts show that Affirmative Action takes patience and will. Results need the same time frame to work as the damage took to occur. But I think if all are treated ACCORDING TO THE NEED from prenatal to college application then all would be treated "equally". Students should have sufficient material resources to fill those basic physical needs equally. If those with more income wish to experiment with excess that is fine.
3
I was a disadvantaged college student when no one cared about such matters. Sink or swim, there's the pool. Jump in.
The first in my family to attend college, because of my father's work my older brother and I had been dragged through 8 schools by my third grade. In all, our public school accumulation totaled 11 schools by high school graduation. We spent five crucial years in a very rural, poor school district in southeastern Oklahoma that started the school year in the summer and adjourned for six weeks in the fall so the kids could help bring in the crops (we did).
Later, we landed in a suburban high school in Pennsylvania where fellow students had studied foreign language since the 4th grade. Catching up, and in other subjects five years later, was not a likely prospect.
It would be a huge mistake to implement admissions based on economic and social background. We need to end the idea that college admissions officers have a critical role in picking "winners" and "losers" in each rising generation, realizing that doing so is inherently unfair and wrong headed.
The hidden, unstated purpose of virtually all college admissions is to pick those who will become professors, those who will struggle upward to a Ph.D. In this manner, the college establishment serves its own ends rather than the needs of students and true, broader and deeper education. Instead, students should be rated as ready for college (or not) and then at least 1/3 should be admitted anywhere by lottery.
The first in my family to attend college, because of my father's work my older brother and I had been dragged through 8 schools by my third grade. In all, our public school accumulation totaled 11 schools by high school graduation. We spent five crucial years in a very rural, poor school district in southeastern Oklahoma that started the school year in the summer and adjourned for six weeks in the fall so the kids could help bring in the crops (we did).
Later, we landed in a suburban high school in Pennsylvania where fellow students had studied foreign language since the 4th grade. Catching up, and in other subjects five years later, was not a likely prospect.
It would be a huge mistake to implement admissions based on economic and social background. We need to end the idea that college admissions officers have a critical role in picking "winners" and "losers" in each rising generation, realizing that doing so is inherently unfair and wrong headed.
The hidden, unstated purpose of virtually all college admissions is to pick those who will become professors, those who will struggle upward to a Ph.D. In this manner, the college establishment serves its own ends rather than the needs of students and true, broader and deeper education. Instead, students should be rated as ready for college (or not) and then at least 1/3 should be admitted anywhere by lottery.
7
Here's the deal. We all jump into the pool, and it's sink or swim for each of us.
1
For many, the pool is preheated and pretested. Take, as but one example, legacy admissions. This amounts to affirmative action programs for well off white students. No one complains. When the system works as it is supposed to, when it confers advantages on those who are advantaged by the time of their birth, no one even notices.
On my wife's side of our family, everyone of the younger generation has advanced degrees, save two. The examples and assistance of their parents paid off academically. This should not be a required path to follow, but it is one that should be open to more, if they desire to follow it.
It was not my intention to complain about my own individual reality as a college student. The disadvantages I faced, in turn, represented huge advantages to me. For one thing, because the course work was not that difficult where I went, I had time for independent study and reading (I even had time to think, which is something one is not likely to get at an Ivy League or other "top tier" school). I also was able to establish a career in journalism, with difficulty, while still in college.
If I would speak for anyone now, however, it would be students who come from families without a college background and who struggle to pay the bills. It is these students that are either tossed aside or left to fend for themselves and many don't make it.
On my wife's side of our family, everyone of the younger generation has advanced degrees, save two. The examples and assistance of their parents paid off academically. This should not be a required path to follow, but it is one that should be open to more, if they desire to follow it.
It was not my intention to complain about my own individual reality as a college student. The disadvantages I faced, in turn, represented huge advantages to me. For one thing, because the course work was not that difficult where I went, I had time for independent study and reading (I even had time to think, which is something one is not likely to get at an Ivy League or other "top tier" school). I also was able to establish a career in journalism, with difficulty, while still in college.
If I would speak for anyone now, however, it would be students who come from families without a college background and who struggle to pay the bills. It is these students that are either tossed aside or left to fend for themselves and many don't make it.
2
One other comment. One thing that was dramatically lacking in my educational background in high school and college was the ability to figure out what the teachers/professors wanted and then to serve it up. In a family where the parents had gone to college, such advice would be readily at hand. This sounds like a minor problem, but it is not. It is one of the keys to being a successful college student, even in law school. They are not looking for brilliance, but performance to standards.
The other disadvantage for students who are considered "working class" is that the parents can, and many do, actively oppose the aspirations of their children. The reasons are complex. In my case, my father questioned my dedication to college (it was total) and his questions were inspired in part by other members of the family. As a result, I abandoned his financial assistance (in the main) and paid for my own college and living expenses for the last three years. Not a big deal, to anyone but me, but these are the kinds of obstacles that many face and making "swimming" a lot more problematic.
The other disadvantage for students who are considered "working class" is that the parents can, and many do, actively oppose the aspirations of their children. The reasons are complex. In my case, my father questioned my dedication to college (it was total) and his questions were inspired in part by other members of the family. As a result, I abandoned his financial assistance (in the main) and paid for my own college and living expenses for the last three years. Not a big deal, to anyone but me, but these are the kinds of obstacles that many face and making "swimming" a lot more problematic.
2
Mr. Alon, a rhetorical question: Does it bother you that Asians, Hispanics and probably whites are underrepresented in the NBA & NFL (and if not why not)?Shouldn't very nearly 50% of U.S. combat-casualties (and trash-collectors) be women? Shouldn't we be striving for perfect representative diversity in every aspect of American life? As a practical matter no we shouldn't.
AA has done a disservice to all. Blacks & Hispanics would almost certainly have a higher graduation-rate if AA did not exist. As it is many of them are being admitted to schools that they aren't prepared for. Related to that I have to wonder how many of them that graduate from a top-ranked school with a humanities degree could've obtained a business degree from a 2nd-ranked school or a STEM degree from a 3rd-ranked school.
A great many people, disproportionately on the Left, are in denial of certain facts. The most intelligent group on the Planet are Ashkenazi Jews with an average I.Q. of 110; northeast Asians @ 105; Caucasians @ 100; "browns" @ ~90; U.S. blacks @ 85; African blacks @ ~70. Denying the truth doesn't make it any less true. It is pointless to try to artificially engineer perfect diversity on college campuses.
I suspect that when you say diversity you actually mean "nonwhite." If that's the case then I have good news. Blacks & Hispanics have been taking slots from Asians. Eliminate AA and campuses will be every bit as "diverse" (nonwhite) it's just that the mix will be different.
AA has done a disservice to all. Blacks & Hispanics would almost certainly have a higher graduation-rate if AA did not exist. As it is many of them are being admitted to schools that they aren't prepared for. Related to that I have to wonder how many of them that graduate from a top-ranked school with a humanities degree could've obtained a business degree from a 2nd-ranked school or a STEM degree from a 3rd-ranked school.
A great many people, disproportionately on the Left, are in denial of certain facts. The most intelligent group on the Planet are Ashkenazi Jews with an average I.Q. of 110; northeast Asians @ 105; Caucasians @ 100; "browns" @ ~90; U.S. blacks @ 85; African blacks @ ~70. Denying the truth doesn't make it any less true. It is pointless to try to artificially engineer perfect diversity on college campuses.
I suspect that when you say diversity you actually mean "nonwhite." If that's the case then I have good news. Blacks & Hispanics have been taking slots from Asians. Eliminate AA and campuses will be every bit as "diverse" (nonwhite) it's just that the mix will be different.
48
..... and then we should think long & hard about I.Q. statistics, nature/nurture, ethnicity & the emphasis one's parents placed on education & travel.
I'm not sure we can ever achieve "a level playing field", no matter how well-intentioned we are. This article is food for thought.
I'm not sure we can ever achieve "a level playing field", no matter how well-intentioned we are. This article is food for thought.
Thanks for posting this. The facts of IQ distributions are well-established by testing but rarely mentioned in these debates. Liberals accept the unscientific principle, founded by Franz Boas and Ashley Montague, that human beings differ only along cultural lines. This is not true, and it goes beyond superficial features. Human beings, once some had left Africa about 50,000 years, evolved along different lines according to the challenges represented by different environments and the cultural histories that followed. Given these widely disparate circumstances for natural selection, they developed different bodies and capacities. It is actually surprising, given that the major continental ancestries were separated for 50,000 years, that they are as similar as they are. But they are significantly different when it comes to tested intelligence, as JTY indicates.
5
And what do you think I.Q. measures? Is this The Bell Curve revisited?
I don't like racial preferences either, but I doubt that any test can establish "the most intelligent group on the planet".
I don't like racial preferences either, but I doubt that any test can establish "the most intelligent group on the planet".
2
Interesting! I always though both were considered though perhaps not in unison.
Make higher education free to all who can maintain a B average, make a B average mean something by hiring public school teachers with degrees in the subject they teach, not in "education," and this issue will solve itself within three generations.
4
The call for racial diversity on college campuses is a red herring. There is nothing inherent in the color of one's skin that results in kind of differences where diversity matters any more than there is in one's height, hair color or physical build. Physical attributes do not create diversity and to suggest that they do perpetuates prejudice by implying that skin color causes people to be different.
The only reason for considering race is to compensate for systematic prejudice. The same prejudice that is reinforced by the discussion of race as a driver of diversity. Until we can focus on the real issue and get comfortable with the fact that it is prejudice rather than physical attributes that creates differences, we will struggle to achieve real equality.
The only reason for considering race is to compensate for systematic prejudice. The same prejudice that is reinforced by the discussion of race as a driver of diversity. Until we can focus on the real issue and get comfortable with the fact that it is prejudice rather than physical attributes that creates differences, we will struggle to achieve real equality.
6
Professor Alon’s article helps expose affirmative action for what it truly is: a program of racial preferences for specific minority population masquerading as initiative for diversity. The reason why college have not used socioeconomic based admission processes is that their own internal modeling revealed exactly what Professor Alon's research did, namely that such a program would result increased numbers of whites and Asians, and not increase the number of black and Hispanic students. Diversity already exists in college. Only 44% of students at Ivy League colleges are white, meaning that whites are underrepresented in proportion to their population.
45
While more black children may grow up in poverty, there are more white poor children numerically. Perhaps it is time for them to share in the preferential acceptances to universities. The children of my husband's black law school roommate, who graduated from Harvard, should not be preferred over mine. Affirmative action has to some degree served its purpose. There are black middle and upper middle class children that benefit. The program should serve all the poor children. Black, white, brown....
38
Are university admissions the object, or the means to a larger object?
Is this aimed to improve universities, or American society as a whole?
Do we we seek to fix racial problems in universities, or in American society?
I think that diversity in our universities started to be a concern at the same time as segregation in our housing via redlining, voting rights, and other racial issues.
Our racial issues have not gong away. Things are evolving, but we are a long way from where we need to be. Just look at police shootings, and the neighborhoods in which they are happening.
College is the gateway to the American mainstream. We seek diversity in admissions to re-shape American society.
Those who opposed diversity in admissions include those who oppose voting rights reforms, mixed communities, and see no problem with the police shootings. It imay not be limited to them, but it includes all of them.
Is this aimed to improve universities, or American society as a whole?
Do we we seek to fix racial problems in universities, or in American society?
I think that diversity in our universities started to be a concern at the same time as segregation in our housing via redlining, voting rights, and other racial issues.
Our racial issues have not gong away. Things are evolving, but we are a long way from where we need to be. Just look at police shootings, and the neighborhoods in which they are happening.
College is the gateway to the American mainstream. We seek diversity in admissions to re-shape American society.
Those who opposed diversity in admissions include those who oppose voting rights reforms, mixed communities, and see no problem with the police shootings. It imay not be limited to them, but it includes all of them.
23
If you want to game the system to your advantage and keep folks under thumb, be sure they're poorly educated. It works every time.
1
Mark, are you confusing racism with race neutral based admissions? They are not one in the same as you seem to indicate.
1
"Only half of all those students admitted under the program are ethnic minorities, that is, Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs, the groups at the bottom of Israel’s social stratification system."
That ratio tell me nothing, unless I can compare it to the percentage of Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs in the total population of Israel.
That ratio tell me nothing, unless I can compare it to the percentage of Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs in the total population of Israel.
60
Nor the percentage of applicants admitted under the program, nor the resulting percentages.
3
So diversity is a greater value than race-neutrality? Who needs the 14th Amendment?
51
This comment is what is wrong with internet commenters.
Re-read the last paragraph. It contains two If-then statements. If diversity trumps race-neutrality, do this. If race-neutrality trumps diversity, do this other thing. Full stop, end of article.
Your "questions" show you missed the point.
Re-read the last paragraph. It contains two If-then statements. If diversity trumps race-neutrality, do this. If race-neutrality trumps diversity, do this other thing. Full stop, end of article.
Your "questions" show you missed the point.
4
the Left does not believe in the constitution only in equal outcomes whether deserved or not.
6
Really, this is not rocket science; If you want to give advantages to disadvantaged students, you advantage them; if you want to give advantages to racial groups, you advantage them. Either way, you are rewarding people for their status rather than their own achievements -- a result that is at odds with a truly free society and meritocracy.
Somewhat fewer minorities at top schools is hardly a disaster for them or for their fellow students -- if they have what it takes, they will do just fine at universities with somewhat less stellar reputations. Indeed, given the recent reports on the coddling of students at exclusvie universities, the minorities might be better off at a school where they have to be subjected to the real world, rather than at universities that violate the First Amendment to "protect" their students from "microaggressions."
Somewhat fewer minorities at top schools is hardly a disaster for them or for their fellow students -- if they have what it takes, they will do just fine at universities with somewhat less stellar reputations. Indeed, given the recent reports on the coddling of students at exclusvie universities, the minorities might be better off at a school where they have to be subjected to the real world, rather than at universities that violate the First Amendment to "protect" their students from "microaggressions."
137
Nino,
America had 250 years of slavery and another 150 years of Jim Crow, which denied blacks basic rights such as voting, and broke up black families.
You would expect them to be disadvantaged, and according to the data, they are. Social class has an effect, as British researchers have shown, but race has an independent effect beyond social class.
Slavery was a tort against the black population, and its effects clearly exist to this day.
When Jews were enslaved during WWII, our own government and courts demanded that they be compensated, and they were. Logical consistency demands that we compensate our own victims of our own American slavery as well.
If we assume that blacks would have done as well as whites, absent slavery, then we should pay every descendent of American slaves the difference between the average white assets and income, and the average black assets and income. That would finally bring them up to a fair starting line, and we would no longer need racial preferences.
The money would come from people like you. I'm sure that would not be a great hardship for you. If you have what it takes, you'll just pay it and do fine.
America had 250 years of slavery and another 150 years of Jim Crow, which denied blacks basic rights such as voting, and broke up black families.
You would expect them to be disadvantaged, and according to the data, they are. Social class has an effect, as British researchers have shown, but race has an independent effect beyond social class.
Slavery was a tort against the black population, and its effects clearly exist to this day.
When Jews were enslaved during WWII, our own government and courts demanded that they be compensated, and they were. Logical consistency demands that we compensate our own victims of our own American slavery as well.
If we assume that blacks would have done as well as whites, absent slavery, then we should pay every descendent of American slaves the difference between the average white assets and income, and the average black assets and income. That would finally bring them up to a fair starting line, and we would no longer need racial preferences.
The money would come from people like you. I'm sure that would not be a great hardship for you. If you have what it takes, you'll just pay it and do fine.
6
In a "truly free society and meritocracy," everyone begins with a level playing field. Unless you live under a rock, you know that is not the case in the good old US of A.
5
James, I would have agreed with you 15 years ago, before I became a high school teacher. I have since taught in both Los Angeles and Toronto, Canada. I have taught in both the poorest (by median income) and the wealthiest (by median income) high schools in Ontario. The differences between the family-based advantages between the two are staggering. For example; in the low-income group they struggle with housing instability, food insecurity, broken homes, undiagnosed/supported learning disabilties, English language learning challenges, lack of sufficient time in the day to study (many work 20 - 30 hours a week in part time jobs to help their families pay the rent and eat), or even a proper place in their home for quiet study. Many live in crumbling public housing apartments that reek of urine, are controlled by dangerous gangs, and are overcrowded. They are isolated in rings of "outer suburbs" where public transit is spotty, and access to cars is limited (and in some cases, non-existant) In the high income group they live in spacious, luxurious homes, ride/drive around in luxury cars, eat the healthiest, highest quality (re: taste and nutrition) food, travel the world on their vacations and/or summer in "cottages" in tony Muskoka, have access to every imaginable kind of supportive technology, tutoring, extracurricular activity. Most do not (and have never) worked a part time job.
Obviously, this is a fair, level playing field, for success in school, right?
Obviously, this is a fair, level playing field, for success in school, right?
Is there a reason that disadvantaged white kids who show academic promise should go unrewarded? That is happening now in the attempt to recruit more minorities to campus, often regardless of their ability or prospects for graduation.
167
That has ALWAYS happened. That is not a new thing.
Yes - because of the Liberal doctrine of original sin. All white people owe nonwhites a debt and should eternally feel guilty or something.
3
"That is happening now in the attempt to recruit more minorities to campus"
i am not convinced this is the case and would like something other than your assertion to verify it...
i am not convinced this is the case and would like something other than your assertion to verify it...
Mr. Alon is on target. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race", Chief Justice John Roberts utterly naive,and increasingly infamous pronouncement on race, stands as an disingenuous engraving on the body of recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action. I don't believe that Roberts, or Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito are racists.They simply have trouble accepting that racism exists, because it violates their idealized concept of America. Roberts,however, displayed real racial insensitivity by his clueless implication in the recent oral argument in Fisher, that diversity doesn't matter in a physics class. I would urge those Justices to reexamine the sociometrics surrounding race in the U.S, and hopefully realize that only affirmative action can bring real diversity to American Universities.
18
True diversity would be beneficial. Diversity that is artificially achieved through racial preferences is not. The whole problem at UT was that its facially neutral 10% policy added black and brown faces to the student body, but they weren't the good students that the university needed for its classrooms. So UT wanted to discriminate when selecting students from the 25% of applicants not subject to the 10% policy, so as to provide a "diverse" student body with a better mix of successful minority students. Isn't this going a bit too far?
6
" and hopefully realize that only affirmative action can bring real diversity to American Universities."
I assume you believe in racial diversity in the hospital operating room on TV but not in real life, when it may be your life at stake.
I guess for colleges diversity is ok since it seems lately they are places for young adults to extend their childhoods.
I assume you believe in racial diversity in the hospital operating room on TV but not in real life, when it may be your life at stake.
I guess for colleges diversity is ok since it seems lately they are places for young adults to extend their childhoods.
wesnerje, I think considering white AA personified by legacies and the differential in SAT scores produced by racially related varibles justify AA. There is no level playing field. Any exception proves the rule.
1
As interesting as it is to learn the Israeli system does not produce the pattern of appropriate dots sought by those who view society through a racial lens, it is of little significance. Discrimination on the basis of race remains unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court is struggling to avoid acknowledging it. Perhaps this time they will see the obvious and strike down these racist programs.
56
What racist programs do you refer to? Hebrew University is bustling with both Israeli and Palestinian Authority Arabs. As is Technion in Haifa. As is Tel Aviv University in TA. As is Ariel University in (gasp!) the Samaria district of the Disputed Territories.
And hey, should we forget that Israel's High Court of Justice (what you erroneously called the Supreme Court) has been graced by Justice Salim Joubran since 2004 (if you did not figure it out from his name, he is a very well regarded Israeli and Christian ARAB).
Oh, and let's talk about "racist" Hadassah Medical Center, where both my wife and I have been treated by marvelous nurses, technicians and physicians who are quite, quite, Arab...check the Hadassah web site and you will lose count of how many physicians are Arab.
Societal problems? Yep.
Programmed Racism? Bogus and uneducated accusation.
And hey, should we forget that Israel's High Court of Justice (what you erroneously called the Supreme Court) has been graced by Justice Salim Joubran since 2004 (if you did not figure it out from his name, he is a very well regarded Israeli and Christian ARAB).
Oh, and let's talk about "racist" Hadassah Medical Center, where both my wife and I have been treated by marvelous nurses, technicians and physicians who are quite, quite, Arab...check the Hadassah web site and you will lose count of how many physicians are Arab.
Societal problems? Yep.
Programmed Racism? Bogus and uneducated accusation.
3
The application of quota based Affirmative Action is unconstitutional in the US because as a policy it does not treat all races equally - so has the Supreme Court decided in the past. The Texas law up for question uses quotas in a rather devious manner by admitting the top 10% from Texas schools. Sounds fair- but still in practice it is a quota based system favoring race above all in admissions.
Comparisons with Israel - as with almost all other countries - is irrelevant to what occurs in the US. Remember Bernie's favorite socialist European country, Denmark? Abortion there is prohibited after the first trimester - should the US in Bernie's eyes be more like Denmark and adopt that law too? "No not that part" is a certain response from Sander and HRC supporters.
In this country there is no proof that diversity programs work to achieve - diversity - none! Isn't it logical that teenagers placed for the first time away from their homes and in a stressful environment are going to aggressively seek out a measure of comfort and assurance where they can find it? That's been the observation at our elite schools especially. To expect otherwise is about a clearest example of "ivory tower thinking" one could possible imagine.
Comparisons with Israel - as with almost all other countries - is irrelevant to what occurs in the US. Remember Bernie's favorite socialist European country, Denmark? Abortion there is prohibited after the first trimester - should the US in Bernie's eyes be more like Denmark and adopt that law too? "No not that part" is a certain response from Sander and HRC supporters.
In this country there is no proof that diversity programs work to achieve - diversity - none! Isn't it logical that teenagers placed for the first time away from their homes and in a stressful environment are going to aggressively seek out a measure of comfort and assurance where they can find it? That's been the observation at our elite schools especially. To expect otherwise is about a clearest example of "ivory tower thinking" one could possible imagine.
26
Affirmative action is an idea who's time has come and gone. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against it. The Supreme Court is just reflecting that sentiment. The desperate move for diversity for diversity's sake simply has no long term support in Congress, the courts, or the voting public. We are moving towards a race neutral admission policy. Accommodations for those from a lower socio-economic background yes....race no. Diversity is about different ideas and backgrounds, letting one person in because of their skin color while keeping his neighbor out because they have a different skin color is not creating a diverse environment. It's duplicitous and we should be happy that it is ending.
122
An incredibly disproportionate share of the world's most talented people are, and have been, Ashkenazi Jews, the Jews of central and eastern Europe). That Israeli class-based affirmative action continues to include such people, making them overrepresented as a whole, is a feature, not a bug. How many Einsteins are you willing to forfeit for an appearance of social equality? There is just no good evidence for the view that talent is distributed equally across ethnic lines, and good reasons to think that it is not distributed equally. This is one of the big failings of race-based affirmative action. It wastes immense amounts of talent. There are many above-average students in America with grades and test scores showing the ability to do advanced work who do not attend elite institutions. They are overwhelmingly poor and lower-middle-class whites, rather than black or non-white Latino students. America wastes their talents as it searches for college classes that "look like America."
111
Perhaps you could cite some evidence to support your claim that ethnic background affects intellectual potential? In the absence of such empirical support, your argument seems like an expression of the kind of prejudice this country continues to wrestle with.
9
Amanda,
The totally original and creative contributions that African Americans have contributed to American culture stand at its defining forefront world wide. Their influence is also disproportionate to their number in the population.
These are dangerous and unproven assertions you are making. Keep in mind that the genius of Picasso was heavily influenced by African sculpture so all of modern 20th century art is indebted to that source.The biological father of Steve Jobs', another defining talent of our times, was a Syrian. One could go on and on.
I don't even understand the argument. It is a fact that evolution favors diversity.
The totally original and creative contributions that African Americans have contributed to American culture stand at its defining forefront world wide. Their influence is also disproportionate to their number in the population.
These are dangerous and unproven assertions you are making. Keep in mind that the genius of Picasso was heavily influenced by African sculpture so all of modern 20th century art is indebted to that source.The biological father of Steve Jobs', another defining talent of our times, was a Syrian. One could go on and on.
I don't even understand the argument. It is a fact that evolution favors diversity.
7
Albert Einstein was a product of the German and European educational system.
His father was an engineer who brought home magnets for him to play with (those who know anything about Einstein's work will appreciate the significance of magnets). He was also wealthy.
Although Einstein's work, which I studied in high school and college, was significant, after a point his reputation is a public relations myth.
If you read Science magazine you'll learn that science is a collaborative effort, and not as much the work of individual geniuses.
If we created an environment for everyone like the environment Einstein grew up in, we would have more Einsteins. That's what Ashkenazi Jews tried to do when they got to this country -- create the same opportunities for everyone. They succeeded dramatically with City College, which turned out Nobel laureates who never could have gone to college otherwise. They worked with every other group, and fought against discrimination. Their politics were even farther to the left than Bernie Sanders today.
The genius of the Ashkanazi Jews is to know that everyone else can accomplish just as much as we did, if they have equal opportunity. And you get equal opportunity by organizing and demanding it.
His father was an engineer who brought home magnets for him to play with (those who know anything about Einstein's work will appreciate the significance of magnets). He was also wealthy.
Although Einstein's work, which I studied in high school and college, was significant, after a point his reputation is a public relations myth.
If you read Science magazine you'll learn that science is a collaborative effort, and not as much the work of individual geniuses.
If we created an environment for everyone like the environment Einstein grew up in, we would have more Einsteins. That's what Ashkenazi Jews tried to do when they got to this country -- create the same opportunities for everyone. They succeeded dramatically with City College, which turned out Nobel laureates who never could have gone to college otherwise. They worked with every other group, and fought against discrimination. Their politics were even farther to the left than Bernie Sanders today.
The genius of the Ashkanazi Jews is to know that everyone else can accomplish just as much as we did, if they have equal opportunity. And you get equal opportunity by organizing and demanding it.
12
The interesting thing to me is that Israel -- a country surrounded by enemies devoted to destroying it and currently experiencing a new wave of terrorism -- would have either the time, energy or inclination to seek solutions for problems pertaining to diversity on its college campuses.
One would think that having to deal with daily incidents of Palestinian terrorism and the now-looming danger of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands created by President Obama, that Israelis would already have enough on their plates to temporarily put aside questions regarding college admissions and similar social issues in their country.
But Israelis move ahead trying to improve conditions in their country for the benefit of everyone, despite the widespread opposition and hostility their country faces almost everywhere in the world.
Way to go Israel!
One would think that having to deal with daily incidents of Palestinian terrorism and the now-looming danger of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands created by President Obama, that Israelis would already have enough on their plates to temporarily put aside questions regarding college admissions and similar social issues in their country.
But Israelis move ahead trying to improve conditions in their country for the benefit of everyone, despite the widespread opposition and hostility their country faces almost everywhere in the world.
Way to go Israel!
74
"One would think that having to deal with daily incidents of Palestinian terrorism and the now-looming danger of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands created by President Obama..."
Not to mention figuring out which lucky bunch of West Bank Palestinian farmers get to be evicted from their farms to make way for new settlements.
Not to mention figuring out which lucky bunch of West Bank Palestinian farmers get to be evicted from their farms to make way for new settlements.
17
A. Stanton,
I think they do what's necessary in an attempt to have a thriving society.
I think they do what's necessary in an attempt to have a thriving society.
1
Your comment struck me as an oxymoron, "improve conditions in their country for the benefit of everyone".... Clearly you must be aware of the travesty of their social services program who removes children from their homes and parents at an unprecedented rate, thus profiting from a private institutional system, tearing Israeli families apart. Their 50+ discriminatory laws applied to non-Jews only does not improve conditions for the benefit of everyone. The widespread hostility Israel is experiencing is a direct response to their racist policies and actions, violations of international law and gross human rights violations and is well deserved.
4
A reasonable interim step as we evolve. It's a tough discussion. We want diversity but we also need to be fair to socioeconomically disadvantaged folks who also want to improve their life via education. It shouldn't be a zero sum game. At a time when good paying jobs require a college education and more, it is imperative that high school graduates have access to college. If we can materially lower Government waste, lower healthcare costs and curb our military spending appetite, there should be enormous amounts of money to use for this critical purpose. But it still may not be enough money.
9
Slice it and dice it as you will, when someone, because of their race, gets a slot at a university and displaces someone else of another race that is race based discrimination. Call it affirmative action, diversity, or "class based" it is racially based discrimination.
Public institutions should not discriminate by race according to our amended Constitution. The University of Texas is a public institution,
And their are many laws against private organizations discriminating by race.
Doublespeak is still with us.
Public institutions should not discriminate by race according to our amended Constitution. The University of Texas is a public institution,
And their are many laws against private organizations discriminating by race.
Doublespeak is still with us.
98
Yet in Amarillo, as in many other Texas cities, all public schools are not created equal. If all students in public schools were given equal opportunities, there would be no need for affirmative action at "some" Texas public universities. That said, attending a Texas "flagship" university does not guarantee the best education.
2
What do you call it when someone gets a slot at a university and displaces someone else because their sibling or parent went there? Or because they can afford full tuition, while not fully academically qualified?
1
When a public university admits thousands of students from a large and diverse population, merit is essential. But merit is also difficult to define in a uniform and precise manner, and can result in arbitrary decisions that outnumber race-based affirmative-action admissions. At any rate, intervention at the college admissions stage is cosmetic feel-good measure. Why? Because it focuses on those who have had the luck and pluck to overcome many obstacles such as dysfunctional families, unsafe neighborhoods, bad schools and many other problems due to lack of money. If affirmative action at the college level is scratched for being too late as an intervention, I have no complaint.
Issues of race in the US can be very complex. Some people who appear white actually have a substantial percentage of African DNA from fairly recent (last 300-400 years) ancestors. Most of these people are part of the central and lower Southern population that the rest of the country loves to deride, whose mixed-race ancestors moved westward to escape institutionalized racism, inventing along the way the story that they were descended not from black and white people, but from darker-skinned Europeans. Others of the same group who were able to prove or to successfully claim Native American ancestry remained on the Eastern Seaboard. A large percentage of these people are yet disadvantaged, so denying them special consideration based upon their lighter skin color seems wrong.
One of the points at risk of getting lost in the furor over Justice Scalia's poorly articulated remarks of last week is not whether affirmative action generally hurts those it is intended to help, but whether African-Americans are represented across the academic spectrum at more selective schools; in other words, as I believe Scalia was trying to say, how many of those who are helped by affirmative action go on to earn degrees qualifying them for higher-paying jobs in STEM fields? From which schools are successful African-American scientists more likely to come? Is diversifying some fields not as important as diversifying others? These are questions that should be asked, however uncomfortable they make us.
One of the points at risk of getting lost in the furor over Justice Scalia's poorly articulated remarks of last week is not whether affirmative action generally hurts those it is intended to help, but whether African-Americans are represented across the academic spectrum at more selective schools; in other words, as I believe Scalia was trying to say, how many of those who are helped by affirmative action go on to earn degrees qualifying them for higher-paying jobs in STEM fields? From which schools are successful African-American scientists more likely to come? Is diversifying some fields not as important as diversifying others? These are questions that should be asked, however uncomfortable they make us.
10
Colleges and Universities want to make themselves attractive to the majority of students who don't want to attend an all-white (or all-Asian, or 60% Asian and 40% white) institution. This in and of itself significantly motivates and justifies race-based affirmative action.
We forget that colleges and universities aren't in the business of rewarding virtue. They have their own agendas. I was admitted to a lot of colleges on the strength of my musicianship, while a lot of more talented and more serious musicians didn't get in. Because I played the viola, and they played the violin, and all the orchestras already had a bunch of violinists. They wanted violists. Even ones who weren't as good as a lot of candidate violinists.