"Pocahontas" Pwns President
Runner_Guy said:
If Harvard ended racial preferences, the increase in Asian-American enrollment might well exceed the falls in Latino and black enrollment, so any increase in white enrollment would be small.
The New Yorker wrote the other week, “Research suggests that if race-conscious admissions were abolished the largest gains would be enjoyed by white applicants, calling into question which groups are actually in competition with one another.” I don’t know the sources for that assertion, but I assume The New Yorker fact-checked it.
Further, the Supreme Court is not going to prohibit admissions preferences that are based on parental income, parental education level, living in a high-poverty town, and/or attending a high-poverty school. Since on average, Latinos, blacks, and Native American are less wealthy than whites and Asians, SES affirmative action would increase minority enrollment compared to what admissions would be if they were based strictly on academic & non-scholastic talents.
When the University of California tried this after the state banned race-based preferences two decades ago, it apparently benefited Eastern Europeans and Vietnamese* more than the groups you mention. A caveat is that a state system’s applicant pool would reflect local demographics in ways that Harvard’s wouldn’t.
*One thing that can get lost in this discussion is how diverse Asia itself is.
Also, note what has happened to black and Latino enrollment at Berkeley:
And if you want to argue that Blum, if anything, is hurting white applicants by trying to clear a way for more Asian-American acceptances, here’s a question: Generally speaking, what kind of campus do you think white applicants would prefer — one with more Asian-Americans or one with more African-Americans?
polling appears to indicate that Americans don't seem to actually know what they want regarding the makeup of institutions of higher education. A recent poll by WGBH News found that 86 percent of American residents said it was at least somewhat important to strive for an ethnically diverse student body at universities. However, 72 percent said they do not support the use of race as a factor in the college admissions process.
Actually seems kind of contradictory if you ask me. Or if you ask Ken Cooper, senior editor for WGBH who oversaw the poll:
“Some of the results show a divergence between what Americans think and how they are willing to act,” Cooper wrote, “so this divergence became a theme in our reporting on the poll.”
Basically it appears that people know what's right, but they don't want to do it if it might disadvantage people like themselves.
ml1 said:
Basically it appears that people know what's right, but they don't want to do it if it might disadvantage people like themselves.
Especially if they’re told that race is all that matters in the preferences.
Runner_Guy said:
How is Blum not an advocate for the Asian-Americans who oppose race-based affirmative action?
I simply meant that I believe his primary motivations aren't to advocate for the interests of Asian-Americans. He is not an attorney. Rather, he is a former stockbroker and a neo-conservative who has a history of recruiting plaintiffs for cases challenging a variety of laws, most of which concern race, and matching them with attorneys willing to take the case. If not for the affirmative action issue, I don't know of him being involved in any other issue of concern or interest to Asian-Americans. However, in this matter I suppose his interests do align with those of some Asian-Americans so, in that sense, he is their advocate.
Your mentioning of the fact that some at Harvard view Asian-Americans as "faceless grinds" who detract from the student body is reminiscent of an earlier era of discrimination. Oddly, enough, that was the same argument Harvard and other Ivy League schools used in the 1920's in regard to what they openly termed "The Jewish Problem". As the number of Jewish students admitted grew due to their superior academic credentials, Ivy Presidents became concerned. Jewish students were viewed as "academic grinds" whose lack of interest in the campus social life that was prominent on campuses at the time (e.g. that guy in the raccoon coat and straw skimmer hat at the Yale football game with his flapper girlfriend) was thought to be detrimental. Harvard and other universities developed ways to reduce the number of Jewish students via strategies that somewhat parallel what allegedly is being done with respect to Asian-American Students today. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12
Another infamous episode in the history of Harvard's efforts to implement their vision of the ideal student body was the effort to purge the university of those believed to be homosexual. In 1920, a "secret court" was established to identify, put on trial, and get rid of students or staff members who were suspected of being gay or condoning gay activity. Ultimately, eight students and one faculty member were tried and removed from the university. But it didn't end there. Harvard was powerful enough to get the city of Cambridge to force these individuals to move out of the city and Harvard also arranged for them to be blacklisted at other schools. When Harvard learned one expelled student had applied to Brown, Amherst College, and the University of Virginia, Harvard sent letters to each institution urging them to reject his application. A brief book about this pathetic episode is here:
https://www.amazon.com/Harvards-Secret-Court-Savage-Homosexuals-ebook/dp/B009OZN694
These may be old news but sometimes you gotta wonder what Harvard and similar universities are thinking...
Norman_Bates said:
Your mentioning of the fact that some at Harvard view Asian-Americans as "faceless grinds" who detract from the student body is reminiscent of an earlier era of discrimination. Oddly, enough, that was the same argument Harvard and other Ivy League schools used in the 1920's in regard to what they openly termed "The Jewish Problem". As the number of Jewish students admitted grew due to their superior academic credentials, Ivy Presidents became concerned. Jewish students were viewed as "academic grinds" whose lack of interest in the campus social life that was prominent on campuses at the time (e.g. that guy in the raccoon coat and straw skimmer hat at the Yale football game with his flapper girlfriend) was thought to be detrimental. Harvard and other universities developed ways to reduce the number of Jewish students via strategies that somewhat parallel what allegedly is being done with respect to Asian-American Students today. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12
pp. 12-26 of the Plaintiff's complaint discusses Harvard's "Jewish Problem."
I'm linking the full complaint:
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/ED-MA-0002-0001.pdf
Norman_Bates said:
However, in this matter I suppose his interests do align with those of some Asian-Americans so, in that sense, he is their advocate.
It bears keeping in mind that whatever its prestige and symbolic purposes, Harvard is just one school. While a ban on race-conscious admissions might increase Asian-American enrollment at the expense of whites at top universities and West Coast colleges that draw relatively large numbers of Asian-American applicants (which I believe has happened at Berkeley, for instance), think of all the schools where Asian-American applications aren’t a big factor. To put the New Yorker statement I quoted in some context, guess who stands to benefit at the vast majority of American universities if racial preferences are banned. I assume Blum is aware of this.
The best daily coverage of the trial is at https://www.thecrimson.com/
DaveSchmidt said:
Norman_Bates said:It bears keeping in mind that whatever its prestige and symbolic purposes, Harvard is just one school. While a ban on race-conscious admissions might increase Asian-American enrollment at the expense of whites at top universities and West Coast colleges that draw relatively large numbers of Asian-American applicants (which I believe has happened at Berkeley, for instance), think of all the schools where Asian-American applications aren’t a big factor. To put the New Yorker statement I quoted in some context, guess who stands to benefit at the vast majority of American universities if racial preferences are banned. I assume Blum is aware of this.
However, in this matter I suppose his interests do align with those of some Asian-Americans so, in that sense, he is their advocate.
Do believe that the current Harvard selection process disadvantages students of Asian ancestry?
Do you believe that the prior Harvard selection process (of the 1920s and 1930s) disadvantaged students of Jewish ancestry?
Do you believe a private university may make admissions decisions that favor underrepresented classes of person? The class could be racial, SES, based on region, based on gender.
Or should the federal government decide who that private university must admit.
breal said:
Do you believe a private university may make admissions decisions that favor underrepresented classes of person? The class could be racial, SES, based on region, based on gender.
Or should the federal government decide who that private university must admit.
That was not my question. With respect to your question (highlighted above), there are a number of issues related to the question before it can be answered such as the following (for starters):
1. Does the fact that Harvard students receive federal assistance affect the answer (namely, does Title VI apply) ?
2. Are Harvard admissions done in a race conscious manner?
3. Are Harvard admissions done in an SES conscious manner?
PS Why don't you also answer my questions in my prior post (which I posed before your post).
given that it's likely that Harvard rejects twice as many objectively qualified students each year as it accepts, perhaps they should just take the top 10,000 applicants and pick the first year class by lottery.
Harvard does need a certain percentage of each class to be the "my rich parents got me here" students. Other students, especially those from less-privileged socioeconomic backgrounds, get to connect with those from the really wealthy families. Networking and "old school ties" advantages follow. At least, that's one way to look at it.
I think nohero needs to edit this thread title, but I can contribute this to the discussion...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/harvard-admissions-trial-judge-burroughs.html
mtierney said:
I think nohero needs to edit this thread title, but I can contribute this to the discussion...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/harvard-admissions-trial-judge-burroughs.html
The judge only managed to graduate from Middlebury College and Penn Law School.
Poor her.
ml1 said:
mtierney said:The judge only managed to graduate from Middlebury College and Penn Law School.
I think nohero needs to edit this thread title, but I can contribute this to the discussion...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/harvard-admissions-trial-judge-burroughs.html
Poor her.
Well, you read the whole article, so you know that.
No, the thread title will remain, no matter what the rabble may be posting here.
About 40 years ago I worked with someone who graduated Harvard and Harvard Law, as did his father. His son, a double legacy, was rejected by Harvard - he went ballistic, which is not surprising. His son went to Yale.
RealityForAll said:
Do believe that the current Harvard selection process disadvantages students of Asian ancestry?
Do you believe that the prior Harvard selection process (of the 1920s and 1930s) disadvantaged students of Jewish ancestry?
Yes and yes.
Do you believe they’re disadvantaged for the same reasons, or does Norman_Bates’s “somewhat parallel” comparison allow for meaningful differences?
ml1 said:
mtierney said:The judge only managed to graduate from Middlebury College and Penn Law School.
I think nohero needs to edit this thread title, but I can contribute this to the discussion...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/harvard-admissions-trial-judge-burroughs.html
Poor her.
The NYTimes article contained a telling admission from Harvard as to why they don't want to use SES-based affirmative action.
In court on Monday, Mr. [Richard] Kahlenberg, who was testifying for the plaintiffs, offered his analysis of how Harvard could use socioeconomic factors rather than race to achieve the diversity it seeks, a view Harvard heartily contests.
Mr. Khurana countered that Harvard would find it impossible to create a class of such excellence if it did not include race as one of many factors.
“We’re not trying to mirror the socioeconomic or income distribution of the United States. What we’re trying to do is identify talent.”
So, indeed, Harvard is admitting here they are uninterested in recruiting low-income students and giving them a preference in admissions. Since this is in the context of a defense of racial preferences, Harvard is saying that being from an underpreresented minority is itself "excellence" or a "talent."
Runner_Guy said:
ml1 said:The NYTimes article contained a telling admission from Harvard as to why they don't want to use SES-based affirmative action.
mtierney said:The judge only managed to graduate from Middlebury College and Penn Law School.
I think nohero needs to edit this thread title, but I can contribute this to the discussion...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/harvard-admissions-trial-judge-burroughs.html
Poor her.
In court on Monday, Mr. [Richard] Kahlenberg, who was testifying for the plaintiffs, offered his analysis of how Harvard could use socioeconomic factors rather than race to achieve the diversity it seeks, a view Harvard heartily contests.
Mr. Khurana countered that Harvard would find it impossible to create a class of such excellence if it did not include race as one of many factors.
“We’re not trying to mirror the socioeconomic or income distribution of the United States. What we’re trying to do is identify talent.”
So, indeed, Harvard is admitting here they are uninterested in recruiting low-income students and giving them a preference in admissions. Since this is in the context of a defense of racial preferences, Harvard is saying that being from an underpreresented minority is itself "excellence" or a "talent."
You are criticizing Harvard for not doing something that virtually no competitive U.S. university is doing. While it's true that only 4.5% of Harvard's undergrads come from families in the bottom quintile in HH income, only 6.8% of Rutgers undergrads for example, are from the bottom income quintile. Unless the government mandates that all competitive colleges and universities mirror the income distribution of the U.S., it would be unfair to expect only Harvard and other similar institutions to do so.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/rutgers-university
FYI... here is an op-ed by Richard Kahlenberg about how the use of SES-based affirmative action would still produce _racially_ diverse classes.
We began by simulating what would happen if Harvard eliminated the blatantly unfair obstacles that it throws in the path of disadvantaged students, such as the substantial preference provided to the privileged children of alumni and faculty children, and a back-door “Z-list” admissions system that favors, among others, those who make it on to a special “dean’s interest” list. We then provided a preference to economically disadvantaged students that is about half the size of the leg up Harvard currently gives to athletes. Students of different races were treated equally.
The result? The admission of African American and Latino and other underrepresented minority students rose from 28 percent to 30 percent. Meanwhile, the proportion of first-generation college students increased from 7 percent to 25 percent, a development that would surely make classrooms discussion more interesting at a university where in recent years, the number of high-income students has outnumbered the number of low-income students by 23 to 1.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/10/12/still-need-affirmative-action-just-not-race/dDAPCPn0MHBjrLAh8S5FiN/story.html
Runner_Guy said:
Since this is in the context of a defense of racial preferences, Harvard is saying that being from an underpreresented minority is itself "excellence" or a "talent."
If that’s what Harvard is saying, then the mere fact I played in the high school band was itself a sign of musical excellence or talent.
What I take from that quote is that an applicants’s talent (a broad term when applied to an individual’s qualities) can be informed by or otherwise connected to his or race, and that universities should be allowed to acknowledge that when they see it. Race is not, as you appear intent on treating it, a Get Into Harvard Free card.
FYI... here is an op-ed by Richard Kahlenberg about how the use of SES-based affirmative action would still produce _racially_ diverse classes.
That’s an interesting proposal. But get a load of the “if.” Let’s see Blum litigate that.
maybe this discussion isn't the place for it, but IMHO Harvard isn't the place to remedy the tremendous disadvantages that exist for poor children. There are a whole host of problems that begin for poor people while they are still in utero.
We need as a country to address income inequality, poor health care, differential educational opportunities, mass incarceration and all the other obstacles to achievement before we can just decide to place kids from poor families in competitive universities.
Maybe as a country some of us would feel better if we forced the Ivies to collectively admit 10,000 kid from lower SES homes each year. But that would leave tens of millions of them in the same hardship they are today. But maybe we could feel like as a country we've done our jobs because we can force Harvard to change its admissions policies.
Runner_Guy said:
FYI... here is an op-ed by Richard Kahlenberg about how the use of SES-based affirmative action would still produce _racially_ diverse classes.
Follow-up question: If Harvard agreed to commit to Kahlenberg’s system, would you drop the lawsuit?
DaveSchmidt said:
RealityForAll said:Yes and yes.
Do believe that the current Harvard selection process disadvantages students of Asian ancestry?
Do you believe that the prior Harvard selection process (of the 1920s and 1930s) disadvantaged students of Jewish ancestry?
Do you believe they’re disadvantaged for the same reasons, or does Norman_Bates’s “somewhat parallel” comparison allow for meaningful differences?
Disadvantaging one group and advantaging another group appears to me to be problematic. Especially, when the remedy has no stated life span (generally, remedies are supposed to last for a limited period of time). The disadvantage/advantage procedure just feels unfair looking from the outside in.
RealityForAll said:
Disadvantaging one group and advantaging another group appears to me to be problematic. Especially, when the remedy has no stated life span (generally, remedies are supposed to last for a limited period of time). The disadvantage/advantage procedure just feels unfair looking from the outside in.
What about athletes? Pianists? Low-income students? Montanans? All unfair? Perhaps, a la Runner_Guy, you see race as a specifically problematic, undeserving advantage in admissions. It’s an opinion, like mine that the Asian-American objections are distinct from the historical Jewish rejections. No doubt you, too, have your reasons.
ml1 said:
given that it's likely that Harvard rejects twice as many objectively qualified students each year as it accepts, perhaps they should just take the top 10,000 applicants and pick the first year class by lottery.
Thanks for reminding me to buy a Mega Millions ticket.
A relative by marriage went to Cornell a long time ago and taught my wife this song: (I have edited out the politically incorrect parts).
Hairy-Chested Men
A song for football rival University of Pennsylvania, sometimes known simply as “Don’t Send My Son to Harvard.” Many versions of the song exist both at Cornell and at other institutions, though the tunes vary. One theory has it a parody of “Don't Send My Boy to Prison,” a folk song performed by Billy Bennett in the 1920s, whereas another traces it to “Sing a Song of Colleges,” of even older and more uncertain origin.
Don't send my son to Harvard, the dying mother said.
Don't send my son to Yale, I'd rather see him dead.
Send him off to Dartmouth, or better yet, Cornell.
And as for Pennsylvan-i-a, I'll see him first in hell!
To hell, to hell with Pennsylvania,
To hell, to hell with Pennsylvania.
To hell, to hell with Pennsylvania.
To hell with U of P— P-U!
(innocently) We were only, only, foolin',
We were only, only, foolin',
We were only, only, foolin'—
The hell we were! P-U! P-U!
How is Blum not an advocate for the Asian-Americans who oppose race-based affirmative action?
If Harvard ended racial preferences, the increase in Asian-American enrollment might well exceed the falls in Latino and black enrollment, so any increase in white enrollment would be small.
Further, the Supreme Court is not going to prohibit admissions preferences that are based on parental income, parental education level, living in a high-poverty town, and/or attending a high-poverty school. Since on average, Latinos, blacks, and Native American are less wealthy than whites and Asians, SES affirmative action would increase minority enrollment compared to what admissions would be if they were based strictly on academic & non-scholastic talents.
If Harvard had to admit more Asians as a result of ending race-based affirmative action, and also committed itself to SES affirmative action, the fall even in Latino, black, and Native American enrollment would not be that large either, which would further reduce or eliminate the increase in white enrollment.
I agree that suing on behalf of Asian applicants is a strategic decision though because Asians are discriminated against relative to whites. Harvard's own documents have revealed how Harvard's interviewers stereotyped Asians as faceless grinds. Harvard's own documents show that Asian admits have higher test scores and GPAs than white admits.