Zone1 Let's Talk About "Merit"

Status
Not open for further replies.

IM2

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Mar 11, 2015
77,115
34,355
2,330
A prime example of the length and consistency of a big lie is the distortion of Affirmative Action. Whites have been given what the right complains about blacks getting since the beginning of this country. The discomfort some whites have in recognizing how they benefit from race-based law and policy is evident in any discussion a person of color has with a person who opposes equal rights legislation. Do they not understand how long whites were hired, promoted, admitted into colleges, and even allowed citizenship rights only because of the color of their skin? Do they not question the qualifications of white legacy students?

While Harvard is currently gearing up for a lawsuit around affirmative action and discriminatory admissions policies against Asian Americans, the real vector for race-based discrimination goes on unchallenged: white privilege. While white privilege operates at every level of society, the case against affirmative action cleverly hides how white privilege influences college admissions specifically. This article will answer the question what is white privilege, and will explain how it is pertinent within the discussion of affirmative action and college admissions. To conclude the article, a discussion of how our understanding of white privilege can be rectified in concrete ways to help end racial discrimination in college admissions. The central argument of this article is that white privilege affects admissions in three crucial ways: the importance placed on legacy admissions and connections, affluence-restricted athletics, and wealth.

Before we can analyze how white privilege affects admissions, it is important to examine what white privilege means. Francis E. Kendall, author of Understanding White Privilege, explains white privilege as ā€œhaving greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] doā€. There are two main aspects of white privilege that have been identified over the last 50 years: 1) legal and systemic advantages, or overt white privilege 2) subconscious, psychological prejudice. As Cory Collins writes in his article ā€œWhat is White Privilege, Really?ā€, ā€œwhite privilege is both unconsciously enjoyed and consciously perpetuated. It is both on the surface and deeply embedded into American lifeā€. This dual thrust of white privilege is critical to understanding how white privilege operates both visibly and behind the scenes. While there are some overt policies that can be directly critiqued as favoring whites, the subtle ways that white privilege operates can be much harder to identify. Within the realm of college admissions, both forms of white privilege operate in equal measure.

The first way that white privilege impacts admissions is through overt admissions preference through legacy admissions. To contextualize, legacy admissions are defined as ā€œthe boost that most private colleges and universities give to the children of alumniā€. The the list of schools that place weight on legacy status include: Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Cornell, Georgetown, the University of Southern California and the University of Virginia. These students who are eligible for legacy consideration are called ā€œlegaciesā€, and they are ā€œadmitted at twice the rate of other applicants at some universities, and average SAT scores for legacies are, in some cases, [are] lower than the average scores of their peersā€.



While legacy admissions are not overtly racialized, Richard D. Kahlenberg explains that these advantages overwhelming benefit white students: ā€œlegacy preferences disproportionately benefit white students to the detriment of AsianAmerican, African-American, and Hispanic studentsā€¦ only 7.6% of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8% of all studentsā€. To drive this point home even further, while ā€œAsian Americans composed 15.7% of all Harvard applicant [they only represented] 3.5% of alumni childrenā€. While legacy admissions could benefit any student who has family that attended the university, research shows that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white students. As a result, they form one arm of white privilegeā€™s impact on admissions. In concurrence with legacy admission, elite private universities also place a large amount of weight on the connections of a student and there family. For example, ā€œat the University of Texas at Austin, an investigation found that recommendations from state legislators and other influential people helped underqualified students gain acceptance to the schoolā€. These preferences thus elevate ā€œpredominantly white, affluent applicantsā€.


ā€˜Affirmative Actionā€™ For Wealthy, White Students: Why Collegesā€™ Legacy Admissions Must End Now​

In 1963, Duke University admitted its first five Black undergraduates.

When I walked onto campus as a freshman 29 years later, most of my Black classmates and I were still the first in our families to attend the prestigious university. Weā€”like many lower-income students across racial and ethnic backgrounds and first-generation college studentsā€”could not benefit from the legacy preference that was extended to our white, wealthier peersā€”a privilege bestowed upon applicants whose parents or grandparents are alum of the school.

While the United States Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissionsā€”essentially ā€œaffirmative actionā€ for wealthy and white studentsā€”remain untouched.

Itā€™s time to demand colleges and universities end the unfair, unjust, and unearned privilege of legacy admissions that has excluded students of color and low-income students for decades.

Among the top 30 universities, legacy students have a 45% greater chance of being admitted than non-legacy students and fill between 10% and 25% of all available slots in an incoming class
 
A prime example of the length and consistency of a big lie is the distortion of Affirmative Action. Whites have been given what the right complains about blacks getting since the beginning of this country. The discomfort some whites have in recognizing how they benefit from race-based law and policy is evident in any discussion a person of color has with a person who opposes equal rights legislation. Do they not understand how long whites were hired, promoted, admitted into colleges, and even allowed citizenship rights only because of the color of their skin? Do they not question the qualifications of white legacy students?

While Harvard is currently gearing up for a lawsuit around affirmative action and discriminatory admissions policies against Asian Americans, the real vector for race-based discrimination goes on unchallenged: white privilege. While white privilege operates at every level of society, the case against affirmative action cleverly hides how white privilege influences college admissions specifically. This article will answer the question what is white privilege, and will explain how it is pertinent within the discussion of affirmative action and college admissions. To conclude the article, a discussion of how our understanding of white privilege can be rectified in concrete ways to help end racial discrimination in college admissions. The central argument of this article is that white privilege affects admissions in three crucial ways: the importance placed on legacy admissions and connections, affluence-restricted athletics, and wealth.

Before we can analyze how white privilege affects admissions, it is important to examine what white privilege means. Francis E. Kendall, author of Understanding White Privilege, explains white privilege as ā€œhaving greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] doā€. There are two main aspects of white privilege that have been identified over the last 50 years: 1) legal and systemic advantages, or overt white privilege 2) subconscious, psychological prejudice. As Cory Collins writes in his article ā€œWhat is White Privilege, Really?ā€, ā€œwhite privilege is both unconsciously enjoyed and consciously perpetuated. It is both on the surface and deeply embedded into American lifeā€. This dual thrust of white privilege is critical to understanding how white privilege operates both visibly and behind the scenes. While there are some overt policies that can be directly critiqued as favoring whites, the subtle ways that white privilege operates can be much harder to identify. Within the realm of college admissions, both forms of white privilege operate in equal measure.

The first way that white privilege impacts admissions is through overt admissions preference through legacy admissions. To contextualize, legacy admissions are defined as ā€œthe boost that most private colleges and universities give to the children of alumniā€. The the list of schools that place weight on legacy status include: Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Cornell, Georgetown, the University of Southern California and the University of Virginia. These students who are eligible for legacy consideration are called ā€œlegaciesā€, and they are ā€œadmitted at twice the rate of other applicants at some universities, and average SAT scores for legacies are, in some cases, [are] lower than the average scores of their peersā€.



While legacy admissions are not overtly racialized, Richard D. Kahlenberg explains that these advantages overwhelming benefit white students: ā€œlegacy preferences disproportionately benefit white students to the detriment of AsianAmerican, African-American, and Hispanic studentsā€¦ only 7.6% of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8% of all studentsā€. To drive this point home even further, while ā€œAsian Americans composed 15.7% of all Harvard applicant [they only represented] 3.5% of alumni childrenā€. While legacy admissions could benefit any student who has family that attended the university, research shows that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white students. As a result, they form one arm of white privilegeā€™s impact on admissions. In concurrence with legacy admission, elite private universities also place a large amount of weight on the connections of a student and there family. For example, ā€œat the University of Texas at Austin, an investigation found that recommendations from state legislators and other influential people helped underqualified students gain acceptance to the schoolā€. These preferences thus elevate ā€œpredominantly white, affluent applicantsā€.


ā€˜Affirmative Actionā€™ For Wealthy, White Students: Why Collegesā€™ Legacy Admissions Must End Now​

In 1963, Duke University admitted its first five Black undergraduates.

When I walked onto campus as a freshman 29 years later, most of my Black classmates and I were still the first in our families to attend the prestigious university. Weā€”like many lower-income students across racial and ethnic backgrounds and first-generation college studentsā€”could not benefit from the legacy preference that was extended to our white, wealthier peersā€”a privilege bestowed upon applicants whose parents or grandparents are alum of the school.

While the United States Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissionsā€”essentially ā€œaffirmative actionā€ for wealthy and white studentsā€”remain untouched.

Itā€™s time to demand colleges and universities end the unfair, unjust, and unearned privilege of legacy admissions that has excluded students of color and low-income students for decades.

Among the top 30 universities, legacy students have a 45% greater chance of being admitted than non-legacy students and fill between 10% and 25% of all available slots in an incoming class

IMG_3475.jpeg
 
Poor OP, so oppressed.


View attachment 792814


I mean seriously, everyone knows that white kids have a much better chance of getting into a nice college if they lie about their race or identify as some oppressed group like trans or homo.
The facts here show that unqualified whites are being admitted due to legacy. They don't have to lie about anything.
 
Who the hell do you think funds the multibillion dollar endowments colleges, especially ivy league schools, enjoy? Yep, the alumni, and do you seriously think the alumni send all that money for the grins and giggles of it? If they can't get their kids in, what's the point, they can get tax deductions anywhere? Can you say quid pro quo?

.
 
A prime example of the length and consistency of a big lie is the distortion of Affirmative Action. Whites have been given what the right complains about blacks getting since the beginning of this country. The discomfort some whites have in recognizing how they benefit from race-based law and policy is evident in any discussion a person of color has with a person who opposes equal rights legislation. Do they not understand how long whites were hired, promoted, admitted into colleges, and even allowed citizenship rights only because of the color of their skin? Do they not question the qualifications of white legacy students?

While Harvard is currently gearing up for a lawsuit around affirmative action and discriminatory admissions policies against Asian Americans, the real vector for race-based discrimination goes on unchallenged: white privilege. While white privilege operates at every level of society, the case against affirmative action cleverly hides how white privilege influences college admissions specifically. This article will answer the question what is white privilege, and will explain how it is pertinent within the discussion of affirmative action and college admissions. To conclude the article, a discussion of how our understanding of white privilege can be rectified in concrete ways to help end racial discrimination in college admissions. The central argument of this article is that white privilege affects admissions in three crucial ways: the importance placed on legacy admissions and connections, affluence-restricted athletics, and wealth.

Before we can analyze how white privilege affects admissions, it is important to examine what white privilege means. Francis E. Kendall, author of Understanding White Privilege, explains white privilege as ā€œhaving greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] doā€. There are two main aspects of white privilege that have been identified over the last 50 years: 1) legal and systemic advantages, or overt white privilege 2) subconscious, psychological prejudice. As Cory Collins writes in his article ā€œWhat is White Privilege, Really?ā€, ā€œwhite privilege is both unconsciously enjoyed and consciously perpetuated. It is both on the surface and deeply embedded into American lifeā€. This dual thrust of white privilege is critical to understanding how white privilege operates both visibly and behind the scenes. While there are some overt policies that can be directly critiqued as favoring whites, the subtle ways that white privilege operates can be much harder to identify. Within the realm of college admissions, both forms of white privilege operate in equal measure.

The first way that white privilege impacts admissions is through overt admissions preference through legacy admissions. To contextualize, legacy admissions are defined as ā€œthe boost that most private colleges and universities give to the children of alumniā€. The the list of schools that place weight on legacy status include: Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Cornell, Georgetown, the University of Southern California and the University of Virginia. These students who are eligible for legacy consideration are called ā€œlegaciesā€, and they are ā€œadmitted at twice the rate of other applicants at some universities, and average SAT scores for legacies are, in some cases, [are] lower than the average scores of their peersā€.



While legacy admissions are not overtly racialized, Richard D. Kahlenberg explains that these advantages overwhelming benefit white students: ā€œlegacy preferences disproportionately benefit white students to the detriment of AsianAmerican, African-American, and Hispanic studentsā€¦ only 7.6% of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8% of all studentsā€. To drive this point home even further, while ā€œAsian Americans composed 15.7% of all Harvard applicant [they only represented] 3.5% of alumni childrenā€. While legacy admissions could benefit any student who has family that attended the university, research shows that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white students. As a result, they form one arm of white privilegeā€™s impact on admissions. In concurrence with legacy admission, elite private universities also place a large amount of weight on the connections of a student and there family. For example, ā€œat the University of Texas at Austin, an investigation found that recommendations from state legislators and other influential people helped underqualified students gain acceptance to the schoolā€. These preferences thus elevate ā€œpredominantly white, affluent applicantsā€.


ā€˜Affirmative Actionā€™ For Wealthy, White Students: Why Collegesā€™ Legacy Admissions Must End Now​

In 1963, Duke University admitted its first five Black undergraduates.

When I walked onto campus as a freshman 29 years later, most of my Black classmates and I were still the first in our families to attend the prestigious university. Weā€”like many lower-income students across racial and ethnic backgrounds and first-generation college studentsā€”could not benefit from the legacy preference that was extended to our white, wealthier peersā€”a privilege bestowed upon applicants whose parents or grandparents are alum of the school.

While the United States Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissionsā€”essentially ā€œaffirmative actionā€ for wealthy and white studentsā€”remain untouched.

Itā€™s time to demand colleges and universities end the unfair, unjust, and unearned privilege of legacy admissions that has excluded students of color and low-income students for decades.

Among the top 30 universities, legacy students have a 45% greater chance of being admitted than non-legacy students and fill between 10% and 25% of all available slots in an incoming class

Okay, but it goes back to that fundamental question about whether equality means everybody gets three strikes or now blacks must get 4 and whites get 2. I personally think that free undergrad at any public college or university would resolve much of this affirmative action issue since about half of the top 30 universities are private universities and that is where you will see this legacy stuff more pronounced.
 
Who the hell do you think funds the multibillion dollar endowments colleges, especially ivy league schools, enjoy? Yep, the alumni, and do you seriously think the alumni send all that money for the grins and giggles of it? If they can't get their kids in, what's the point, they can get tax deductions anywhere? Can you say quid pro quo?

.
You're making the OP's point. Those kids are not getting in due to "merit" they're getting in because their parents are wealthy mega Donar alumni.
 
You're making the OP's point. Those kids are not getting in due to "merit" they're getting in because their parents are wealthy mega Donar alumni.
Yes, itā€™s a business decision. If donors didnā€™t give big bucks to get their kiddo in, then the schools would have to raise the already sky high tuition substantially, and students from mere middle-class backgrounds (INCLUDING the blacks who get in because of skin color) wouldnā€™t be able to attend at all.
 
Who the hell do you think funds the multibillion dollar endowments colleges, especially ivy league schools, enjoy? Yep, the alumni, and do you seriously think the alumni send all that money for the grins and giggles of it? If they can't get their kids in, what's the point, they can get tax deductions anywhere? Can you say quid pro quo?

.
Yes, one is a business decision - and perfectly legal since it doesnā€™t discriminate according to skin color. The kids of black alumnae who donate get the same advantage.

But using skin color as a factor in admissions IS racist, and I expect the SCOTUS to announce their decision soon that colleges cannot adjust admissions procedures for the purpose of limiting one race and benefitting another.
 
Yes, itā€™s a business decision. If donors didnā€™t give big bucks to get their kiddo in, then the schools would have to raise the already sky high tuition substantially, and students from mere middle-class backgrounds (INCLUDING the blacks who get in because of skin color) wouldnā€™t be able to attend at all.

So you are okay with affirmative action letting less qualified people in as long as it benefits the affluent?

Interesting. But not surprising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top