"Pocahontas" Pwns President

RealityForAll said:

Disadvantaging one group and advantaging another group appears to me to be problematic.  

It's very problematic. Minorities and women have been complaining about it for decades, but it's fallen on deaf ears.

DaveSchmidt said:

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.

 Agree. After repeating the list of the many prospective students who may be good candidates (as cited by DS - What about athletes? Pianists? Low-income students? Montanans?), the only conclusion I can draw is that anti-diversity people are hung up on race. 

As I said earlier, I have a friend who perseverates on Indian-American kids for some reason, as opposed to black and brown kids. 

Race is clearly at root in this opposition. No mention of the tennis coach advocating for an athlete; no mention of the band that needs a French horn player. Or the kid from Iceland.

High profile anti-diversity activists have won the argument with their focus on the "undeserving."

If you can't accept that whites have long held an advantage in preferences, you can't see why that's still not the rule. 

With reference to RFA's discussion of SES as admission criteria and FYI for those who were unaware:

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/08/nyregion/proletarian-harvard-turns-150-its-mission-expanding.html

dave23 said:

RealityForAll said:

Disadvantaging one group and advantaging another group appears to me to be problematic.  

It's very problematic. Minorities and women have been complaining about it for decades, but it's fallen on deaf ears.

Is it fair to disadvantage prospective, mostly 18 years old, Asian students for complaints from decades ago (some complaints apparently from before such students were even born)?

Does your answer to the above question change if the prospective Asian student is from China or Japan (and has never before been in the US prior to applying to Harvard)?

Would we not all be better off if diversity of SES was instead embraced?

GL2 said:

Race is clearly at root in this opposition. No mention of the tennis coach advocating for an athlete; no mention of the band that needs a French horn player. Or the kid from Iceland.

Race is at the root of so much in American history.  As I read about major episodes in U.S. history - The Civil War, The Reconstruction, etc., you can see that a major thread has been to keep the black man down.  I see this in reading a biography of Grant by Ron Chernow or U.S. history by Zinn.  With so many major political battles, all you have to do is peel back the covers and you will find an effort to keep the black man down.

And of course, the follow-on axiom used to protect the oligarchs is this:

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

We really have to remember that admission to a university, especially a private selective one, is neither an "entitlement" nor a "right".  Sometimes, people forget that and take the position that I "should" have been admitted but was "cheated" out of my rightful place because somebody whose SAT score was lower than mine was accepted and I wasn't.  That happens all the time, folks! The reality is that two students can have the same relative credentials but a college is perfectly free to admit one and not the other as long as it isn't acting in violation of Title VI or some other law.   No college wants 200 Millburn HS grads in its freshman class even though they might all have the necessary credentials.   And, no college wants all physics majors even though all of those applicants might be very bright. They choose some and deny others to get the class mix they want...it's more of an art, not a science and it's done every year.  

     Before the makeup of the Supreme Court changed, I would have expected the Harvard decision to have paralleled the Michigan and Fisher/Texas decisions that afforded colleges latitude under Title VI to create the sort of student body they deemed necessary to accomplish their stated educational mission. I know the circumstances of every case are unique but if the court didn't go in that same direction in the Harvard matter, I think it would be an odd self-reversal in doctrine...at least in my mind.  But with the Plaintiff being a group of students of color (clever ploy by Blum) and with the new justices onboard, not so sure what will happen.  It may be a decision that turns on some specific action that Harvard is doing (e.g. setting quotas, etc), finding that specific practice inappropriate but keeping the court's general prior doctrine in place. 

RealityForAll said:

Is it fair to disadvantage prospective, mostly 18 years old, Asian students for complaints from decades ago (some complaints apparently from before such students were even born)?

I swear I’ve seen, read or heard somewhere that complaints continue.

GL2 said:

... the only conclusion I can draw is that anti-diversity people are hung up on race. 

Because it’s immutable, and of no consequence, but becomes all that matters.

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

Is it fair to disadvantage prospective, mostly 18 years old, Asian students for complaints from decades ago (some complaints apparently from before such students were even born)?

I swear I’ve seen, read or heard somewhere that complaints continue.

 As you know, I was responding to dave23's comment referring to complaints from decades ago [paraphrasing here].  You have intentionally removed dave23's quote.  In order to present my comment out of context.  

We can disagree.  However, playing games like you have in this instance is something that I had thought was beneath you.  

Duplicate Posting.

GL2 said:
If you can't accept that whites have long held an advantage in preferences, you can't see why that's still not the rule. 

Largest lynching event ever:  11 Italians Lynched in New Orleans See https://www.history.com/news/the-grisly-story-of-americas-largest-lynching

Italians Interned During WWII:  see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Italian_Americans

Please note, Italian internment was not of the same scale as Japanese internment.  However, it evidences a distrust by the US government of some Italians during the WWII era.

Both of the above links demonstrate that whites have not always had an advantage in preferences (unless you prefer being lynched or sent to an internment camp).  Additionally, how long do you believe your methodology of disadvantaging one group and advantaging a different group should last?

Back to the prospective Asian Americans students applying to Harvard, what is your justification for disadvantaging these Asian American students?

RealityForAll said:

We can disagree.  However, playing games like you have in this instance is something that I had thought was beneath you.  

Feh. The posts are there for all to read.

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

We can disagree.  However, playing games like you have in this instance is something that I had thought was beneath you.  

Feh. The posts are there for all to read.

 Right.  When you can't make your argument with substance, then go into distortion mode.

RealityForAll said:

 Right.  When you can't make your argument with substance, then go into distortion mode.

If my reply distorted your comment, have at it.

RealityForAll said:

GL2 said:
If you can't accept that whites have long held an advantage in preferences, you can't see why that's still not the rule. 

Largest lynching event ever:  11 Italians Lynched in New Orleans See https://www.history.com/news/the-grisly-story-of-americas-largest-lynching


Italians Interned During WWII:  see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Italian_Americans
Please note, Italian internment was not of the same scale as Japanese internment.  However, it evidences a distrust by the US government of some Italians during the WWII era.


Both of the above links demonstrate that whites have not always had an advantage in preferences (unless you prefer being lynched or sent to an internment camp).  Additionally, how long do you believe your methodology of disadvantaging one group and advantaging a different group should last?

Back to the prospective Asian Americans students applying to Harvard, what is your justification for disadvantaging these Asian American students?

Nice try.  There was anti-German hysteria in WWI too.

But reactions to our Caucasian enemies in time of war fall way short of our reactions to Asian enemies.  The internment of the Japanese was most certainly a racist action.

the thing about admission to Harvard, or even U. of Michigan or Texas is that there are literally tens of thousands of rejected students who have perfectly fine credentials for acceptance.  An argument could be made that each of them deserves admission over hundreds of students who were accepted.  By Harvard's own account, over 42,000 students applied last year for admission, but only about 2,000 were admitted (1,600 matriculated, which makes one wonder how four hundred kids could have given a hard pass to attending this magical and wonderful place.  their lives are now doomed!).  Given that there's a good amount of self-selection before students even apply, it's safe to assume that at least 30,000 applicants "deserved" admission to Harvard this year, based on grades, class rank, standardized test scores, and involvement in extracurricular activities.  And yet 28,000 of them didn't make the cut.  In circumstances like admission to Harvard or Berkeley or or Wellesley or any number of elite schools, acceptances are almost necessarily going to be arbitrary.  How can anyone objectively decide which kid ranked #1 in his/her class, with 1600 SATs, captain of the [blank] team, debating society star, committed community volunteer makes the cut?

tjohn said:

RealityForAll said:

GL2 said:
If you can't accept that whites have long held an advantage in preferences, you can't see why that's still not the rule. 

Largest lynching event ever:  11 Italians Lynched in New Orleans See https://www.history.com/news/the-grisly-story-of-americas-largest-lynching


Italians Interned During WWII:  see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Italian_Americans
Please note, Italian internment was not of the same scale as Japanese internment.  However, it evidences a distrust by the US government of some Italians during the WWII era.


Both of the above links demonstrate that whites have not always had an advantage in preferences (unless you prefer being lynched or sent to an internment camp).  Additionally, how long do you believe your methodology of disadvantaging one group and advantaging a different group should last?

Back to the prospective Asian Americans students applying to Harvard, what is your justification for disadvantaging these Asian American students?

Nice try.  There was anti-German hysteria in WWI too.
But reactions to our Caucasian enemies in time of war fall way short of our reactions to Asian enemies.  The internment of the Japanese was most certainly a racist action.

 And, by implication, the internment of Italians (WWII) and Germans (WWI and WWII) were NOT racist actions.  Please tell me more.

And, by implication, the internment of Italians (WWII) and Germans (WWI and WWII) were NOT racist actions.  Please tell me more.

How could reactions to Germans be racist with so many  Americans having German roots?  Xenophobia is not the same as racism.

I thought the largest lunching in this county was the 38 Native Americans hung on Lincoln’s orders?

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.

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

Kahlenberg  testified on Monday:

"Kahlenberg relied on a complex model of Harvard’s admissions process to argue switching to a race-neutral, income-based admissions system would increase the diversity of Harvard’s campus. The University — on Monday and in weeks prior — endeavored to prove the opposite.

Well before heading to court this week, Kahlenberg collaborated with Duke Professor of Economics Peter S. Arcidiacono, another expert witness in SFFA’s employ, to build a model of the Harvard admissions process based on six years of internal data associated with more than 150,000 applications.

The model allowed Kahlenberg and Arcidiacono to assign different weights to various factors Harvard uses to evaluate applicants — factors such as race, legacy status, and socioeconomic background — and then guess at the makeup of the resulting College class.

To test a race-neutral admissions system, Arcidiacono began by “turning off” the racial preference. He then boosted the “tip” given to low-income students.

Kahlenberg presented four variations of this admissions scenario Monday. All predicted an increased percentage of Asian-American admits. Three of the four scenarios led to increased Hispanic enrollment and decreased white enrollment. Every single one of the simulations predicted a decreased percentage of African-American admits." 

.................

"But Harvard has its own experts.

Relying on analysis from University of California Economics Professor David E. Card, the University argued ahead of the trial that ending race-conscious admissions would severely drive down minority enrollment. Card, who was paid by Harvard for his work, projected that a race-blind admissions process would reduce the number of College students who identify as African-American, Hispanic, or “Other” by roughly 50 percent.

Besides, University lawyers argue, Harvard is already pursuing race-neutral programs that help achieve a diverse student body. Attorneys pointed to the school’s generous financial aid program, its wide-ranging recruitment efforts, and its special consideration of students from “disadvantaged” backgrounds, among other things." 

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/23/admissons-race-neutral-alternatives/

Scully said:

I thought the largest lunching in this county was the 38 Native Americans hung on Lincoln’s orders?

 I am not familiar with that but there were certainly more than 38 killed at Wounded Knee and Sand Creek (I think I have that name correct).

LOST said:

Scully said:

I thought the largest lunching in this county was the 38 Native Americans hung on Lincoln’s orders?

 I am not familiar with that but there were certainly more than 38 killed at Wounded Knee and Sand Creek (I think I have that name correct).

 Please don't conflate lynchings with massacres.

I learn something new every day.

https://www.thenation.com/article/largest-mass-execution-us-history-150-years-ago-today/

tjohn said:

 Please don't conflate lynchings with massacres.

 They are not exactly the same but neither are lynchings by a mob and executions by the authorities after a trial of some sort.

RealityForAll said:

tjohn said:
Nice try.  There was anti-German hysteria in WWI too.
But reactions to our Caucasian enemies in time of war fall way short of our reactions to Asian enemies.  The internment of the Japanese was most certainly a racist action.

 And, by implication, the internment of Italians (WWII) and Germans (WWI and WWII) were NOT racist actions.  Please tell me more.

 Immigrants from Italy (and more important, their children) were not treated the same as immigrants from Japan and their children.  I don't know why anyone would argue differently.  

Did RealityForAll just imply that white victims of violence are evidence that there is no white privilege?

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

tjohn said:
Nice try.  There was anti-German hysteria in WWI too.
But reactions to our Caucasian enemies in time of war fall way short of our reactions to Asian enemies.  The internment of the Japanese was most certainly a racist action.

 And, by implication, the internment of Italians (WWII) and Germans (WWI and WWII) were NOT racist actions.  Please tell me more.

 Immigrants from Italy (and more important, their children) were not treated the same as immigrants from Japan and their children.  I don't know why anyone would argue differently.  

 I was making a counterpoint to GL2's statement as follows:  

GL2 said:
If you can't accept that whites have long held an advantage in preferences, you can't see why that's still not the rule. 

=========================================================

It is hard to imagine that when Italian Americans were being lynched and sent to internment camps* that they were feeling privileged (or held an advantage in preferences).  Nohero deleted GL2's comment (when posting my comment) in order to take my comment out of context.  Nohero, you can do better.  Why don't we discuss the substance.  Instead of you playing games and trying to distort my comments by taking them out of context.

*- my comment was intended as a counterpoint to GL2's privilege/advantage argument set forth above.

Tom_Reingold said:
Did RealityForAll just imply that white victims of violence are evidence that there is no white privilege?

 Tom:

See my comment right before this one.  In the prior comment, I clarify the fact that Nohero quoted me out of context in order to mislead you and others.  

I suggest that the people who lynched Italian immigrants did not consider them "White".

https://theundefeated.com/features/white-immigrants-werent-always-considered-white-and-acceptable/