Will White Privilege End Affirmative Action?

[katsteve2012]

The reason the numerical presence of blacks is so low is that so few are qualified for admittance under “white and Asian” standards, and the leftists in admissions lowered the “black” standards until enough of them - as determined by Harvard would be enough - got in. That is how it works.

And I never said that not a single black would has ever been qualified for Harvard. Tell me - where did I say that? NO, you made that up because, I‘m guessing, you are a Democrat who can’t resist calling people racist when they object to discrimination against groups other than blacks.

To the contrary, I have said, and this is from stats, that about two out of every three students - not specifically Harvard, from prestigious, highly competitive programs in general - would not be there if they had to qualify based on “white” standards. So it’s not that NO black kids would be at Harvard, but rather than 11% of the body they are now, only about 4% would be black. The left seems that unacceptable, and rather than have the other 7% go to a lesser-ranked but still good college for which they qualify, they adjust the standards down for them.

As far as legacy admissions, I already said I’m fine with abolishing that as well, since I believe admission should be based on merit alone.

No one called you a racist. If I was going to do so, I would have been direct and said it, without wasting another word.

I'm not discussing anything political here, so the "left versus right" thing has nothing to do with this as far as I'm concerned. Besides, this is the Race Relations forum, not Politics.

I stated only what you "appear" to think, which is only my perception, and does not make it reality.



All that I'm stating, which is a fact, is that legacy admissions have a FAR greater impact on Asian admission rates at Harvard than the small percentage of black students or Latino students
(since you didn't mention them).

 

[Lisa558]

No one called you a racist. If I was going to do so, I would have been direct and said it, without wasting another word.

I'm not discussing anything political here, so the "left versus right" thing has nothing to do with this as far as I'm concerned. Besides, this is the Race Relations forum, not Politics.

I stated only what you "appear" to think, which is only my perception, and does not make it reality.



All that I'm stating, which is a fact, is that legacy admissions have a FAR greater impact on Asian admission rates at Harvard than the small percentage of black students or Latino students
(since you didn't mention them).

Telling someone she “appears” to think that not a single black has ever or will ever be qualified for Harvard (sans the AA policies) is saying she “appears” to be racist. Still a slap in the face.

You honestly don’t understand how it works - and I do. I’ve worked in Higher Ed admissions for a competitive program (not Harvard) and they play with the admissions standards for blacks - and Latinos, too - until they reach their target percentage, which is usually their percentage in the general population. The challenge lies in that if they lower the standards TOO low, to get the 14%, then they risk admitting in black students (Latinos too) who will fail miserably. So they settle on a balance.

And I live in the real world. These college are NOT going to stop legacy admissions because they want the rich parents to keep forking over. That also is how it works.

But is is quite telling that Harvard was having so hard time justifying rejecting bright, high-achieving Asians that they has to devise a biased “personality” test with questions that they could score Asians low on.

And finally, would it really be the end of the world if the 2/3rds of black students who got into Harvard due to skin color were rejected, and had to go to a less prestigious but still excellent school? What’s wrong with Tulane, NYU, BU, Georgetown, Duke, UVA, etc., etc.? Or even Florida State, Rutgers, University of Maryland, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech?

 

[katsteve2012]

Telling someone she “appears” to think that not a single black has ever or will ever be qualified for Harvard (sans the AA policies) is saying she “appears” to be racist. Still a slap in the face.

You honestly don’t understand how it works - and I do. I’ve worked in Higher Ed admissions for a competitive program (not Harvard) and they play with the admissions standards for blacks - and Latinos, too - until they reach their target percentage, which is usually their percentage in the general population. The challenge lies in that if they lower the standards TOO low, to get the 14%, then they risk admitting in black students (Latinos too) who will fail miserably. So they settle on a balance.

And I live in the real world. These college are NOT going to stop legacy admissions because they want the rich parents to keep forking over. That also is how it works.

But is is quite telling that Harvard was having so hard time justifying rejecting bright, high-achieving Asians that they has to devise a biased “personality” test with questions that they could score Asians low on.

And finally, would it really be the end of the world if the 2/3rds of black students who got into Harvard due to skin color were rejected, and had to go to a less prestigious but still excellent school? What’s wrong with Tulane, NYU, BU, Georgetown, Duke, UVA, etc., etc.? Or even Florida State, Rutgers, University of Maryland, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech?

Nope. If you feel that what I stated was a slap in the face, or that I was implying that you're a "racist", perhaps you are hypersensitive to that particular word, for your own reasons.

As I stated before, and for the last time, if I thought you were a racist, I would have been direct and said so.

That being said, what about Latino students? What are they receiving at the expense of Asian students?

There is a very similar percentage of them to the percentage of black students at Harvard.

As far as anything being "wrong" with other schools, personally, if another black student NEVER attended Harvard again, I would not care.

I would actually prefer to see a lot more black students attend HBCUS when possible.

Finally, I have never worked in school admissions, however I put myself, a daughter and a son through college, and have also contributed the majority of the monetary resources to put my grandchildren through college,

And in every case I helped them prepare for their entrance exams, and was a big part of their decision making process on where they applied to,
so I have some understanding of how admissions work.

Just like any other "system" in a capitalistic society, wealth will always have its advatages and improve one's chances of access.

That's nothing new.

 

[Lisa558]

Nope. If you feel that what I stated was a slap in the face, or that I was implying that you're a "racist", perhaps you are hypersensitive to that particular word, for your own reasons.

As I stated before, and for the last time, if I thought you were a racist, I would have been direct and said so.

That being said, what about Latino students? What are they receiving at the expense of Asian students?

There is a very similar percentage of them to the percentage of black students at Harvard.

As far as anything being "wrong" with other schools, personally, if another black student NEVER attended Harvard again, I would not care.

I would actually prefer to see a lot more black students attend HBCUS when possible.

Finally, I have never worked in school admissions, however I put myself, a daughter and a son through college, and have also contributed the majority of the monetary resources to put my grandchildren through college,

And in every case I helped them prepare for their entrance exams, and was a big part of their decision making process on where they applied to,
so I have some understanding of how admissions work.

Just like any other "system" in a capitalistic society, wealth will always have its advatages and improve one's chances of access.

That's nothing new.

If I’ve become hypersensitive to that word, it’s because leftists have trotted it out and screeched it at everyone who objects to a liberal policy. I’ve had it slung in my face dozens of times - only in forums, since everyone who knows me knows it isn’t true - and thus I am overly defensive, I suppose. That is what happens when leftists continually make false accusations at those who dissent from liberalism.

As far as Latino students, it’s the same issue: they are admitted under lesser standards, to the expense of Asian students.

Unless I recall incorrectly - I’m retired now, so not keeping up with the admissions world as I once did - affirmative action will be taken up by the SCOTUS this term. If they stick with the Constitution, it will be ruled illegal. It clearly violates the equal protection clause and makes decisions based on race.

As far as legacy admissions, a student rejected in favor of a legacy would have to first sue the school, and lose, before it can work its way up to the SCOTUS. I’d welcome a case like that, so perhaps one day. As I told you, I had the distinct “pleasure“ working with a multi-generational Harvard grad - and he was as arrogant as he was mediocre. Left to his own devices, he would have rightly fit in at Colorado State or University of Kanas - something along those lines.

 

[katsteve2012]

If I’ve become hypersensitive to that word, it’s because leftists have trotted it out and screeched it at everyone who objects to a liberal policy. I’ve had it slung in my face dozens of times - only in forums, since everyone who knows me knows it isn’t true - and thus I am overly defensive, I suppose. That is what happens when leftists continually make false accusations at those who dissent from liberalism.

As far as Latino students, it’s the same issue: they are admitted under lesser standards, to the expense of Asian students.

Unless I recall incorrectly - I’m retired now, so not keeping up with the admissions world as I once did - affirmative action will be taken up by the SCOTUS this term. If they stick with the Constitution, it will be ruled illegal. It clearly violates the equal protection clause and makes decisions based on race.

As far as legacy admissions, a student rejected in favor of a legacy would have to first sue the school, and lose, before it can work its way up to the SCOTUS. I’d welcome a case like that, so perhaps one day. As I told you, I had the distinct “pleasure“ working with a multi-generational Harvard grad - and he was as arrogant as he was mediocre. Left to his own devices, he would have rightly fit in at Colorado State or University of Kanas - something along those lines.

Speaking for myself, I've been on internet talk forums since they came into existence, and I've observed people on both sides politically, throw out the term "racist" ad nauseum, so I don't think that any particular side has a monopoly on their usage of that term, which is again just my opinion.

The case for affirmative action was due to be heard in the supreme court on February 9th. As of yet, I've heard no updates. Time will tell the outcome.

 

[IM2]

The real truth is that we need the best. Not the bullshitting best. It is easy for you to type what you did. We have been hiring by your words for many decades. Many good people. Many not so good but hired by diversity laws. Opportunity is there. The ability may be different. The Americas will at some point have wars on their soil as common as Europe and Asia over the centuries. And with Africa there is very little knowledge because they never recorded themselves.

Incorrect. You simply have not read works by African scholars.

 

[IM2]

If I’ve become hypersensitive to that word, it’s because leftists have trotted it out and screeched it at everyone who objects to a liberal policy. I’ve had it slung in my face dozens of times - only in forums, since everyone who knows me knows it isn’t true - and thus I am overly defensive, I suppose. That is what happens when leftists continually make false accusations at those who dissent from liberalism.

As far as Latino students, it’s the same issue: they are admitted under lesser standards, to the expense of Asian students.

Unless I recall incorrectly - I’m retired now, so not keeping up with the admissions world as I once did - affirmative action will be taken up by the SCOTUS this term. If they stick with the Constitution, it will be ruled illegal. It clearly violates the equal protection clause and makes decisions based on race.

As far as legacy admissions, a student rejected in favor of a legacy would have to first sue the school, and lose, before it can work its way up to the SCOTUS. I’d welcome a case like that, so perhaps one day. As I told you, I had the distinct “pleasure“ working with a multi-generational Harvard grad - and he was as arrogant as he was mediocre. Left to his own devices, he would have rightly fit in at Colorado State or University of Kanas - something along those lines.

Some people get called racist because that's what their opinions show them to be.

 

[IM2]

You have no idea how crazy and bigoted you are

the left is attacking whites the same way you accuse whites of being toward blacks

you have morphed into the thing that you hate

That is incorrect.

 

[IM2]

There are no white and Asian standards for admissions into Harvard. Asians get affirmative action protection just like every other historically disadvantaged groups. White legacy students don't have to meet any standard except birth to an alumni.

 

[LOIE]

There is nothing out there that refutes what Frederick Douglass said. I’ve searched.. even libtard sites won’t touch it .. lol

​

Did you perhaps see this​

The Confounding Truth About Frederick Douglass​

by Randall Kennedy December 2018 issue of The Atlantic


"His champions now span the ideological spectrum, but left and right miss the tensions in his views."


"But certain aspects of Douglass’s life would, if more widely known, cause problems for many of his contemporary admirers on the left, a point nicely made in Blight’s biography as well as in Waldo E. Martin Jr.’s The Mind of Frederick Douglass. A Republican intra-party contest in an 1888 congressional election in Virginia pitted John Mercer Langston, a progressive black jurist (who had served as the first dean of Howard University Law School), against R. W. Arnold, a white conservative sponsored by a white party boss (who was a former Confederate general). Douglass supported Arnold, and portrayed his decision as high-minded. “The question of color,” he said, “should be entirely subordinated to the greater questions of principles and party expediency.” In fact, what had mainly moved Douglass was personal animosity; he and Langston had long been bitter rivals. Langston was hardly a paragon, but neither was Douglass. Sometimes he could be a vain, selfish, opportunistic jerk, capable of subordinating political good to personal pique.


Douglass promised that he would never permit his desire for a government post to mute his anti-racism. He broke that promise. When Hayes nominated him to be D.C. marshal, the duties of the job were trimmed. Previously the marshal had introduced dignitaries on state occasions. Douglass was relieved of that responsibility. Racism was the obvious reason for the change, but Douglass disregarded the slight and raised no objection. Some observers derided him for his acquiescence. He seemed to think that the benefit to the public of seeing a black man occupy the post outweighed the benefit that might be derived from staging yet another protest. But especially as he aged, Douglass lapsed into the unattractive habit of conflating what would be good for him with what would be good for blacks, the nation, or humanity. In this instance, his detractors were correct: He had permitted himself to be gagged by the prospect of obtaining a sinecure."

Here's the link to the whole article, but the part I shared seems to address your remark, at least from this writer's research.

The Confounding Truth About Frederick Douglass

His champions now span the ideological spectrum, but left and right miss the tensions in his views.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[IM2]

​

Did you perhaps see this​

The Confounding Truth About Frederick Douglass​

by Randall Kennedy December 2018 issue of The Atlantic


"His champions now span the ideological spectrum, but left and right miss the tensions in his views."


"But certain aspects of Douglass’s life would, if more widely known, cause problems for many of his contemporary admirers on the left, a point nicely made in Blight’s biography as well as in Waldo E. Martin Jr.’s The Mind of Frederick Douglass. A Republican intra-party contest in an 1888 congressional election in Virginia pitted John Mercer Langston, a progressive black jurist (who had served as the first dean of Howard University Law School), against R. W. Arnold, a white conservative sponsored by a white party boss (who was a former Confederate general). Douglass supported Arnold, and portrayed his decision as high-minded. “The question of color,” he said, “should be entirely subordinated to the greater questions of principles and party expediency.” In fact, what had mainly moved Douglass was personal animosity; he and Langston had long been bitter rivals. Langston was hardly a paragon, but neither was Douglass. Sometimes he could be a vain, selfish, opportunistic jerk, capable of subordinating political good to personal pique.


Douglass promised that he would never permit his desire for a government post to mute his anti-racism. He broke that promise. When Hayes nominated him to be D.C. marshal, the duties of the job were trimmed. Previously the marshal had introduced dignitaries on state occasions. Douglass was relieved of that responsibility. Racism was the obvious reason for the change, but Douglass disregarded the slight and raised no objection. Some observers derided him for his acquiescence. He seemed to think that the benefit to the public of seeing a black man occupy the post outweighed the benefit that might be derived from staging yet another protest. But especially as he aged, Douglass lapsed into the unattractive habit of conflating what would be good for him with what would be good for blacks, the nation, or humanity. In this instance, his detractors were correct: He had permitted himself to be gagged by the prospect of obtaining a sinecure."

Here's the link to the whole article, but the part I shared seems to address your remark, at least from this writer's research.

The Confounding Truth About Frederick Douglass

His champions now span the ideological spectrum, but left and right miss the tensions in his views.

www.theatlantic.com

Frederick Douglass was not perfect and he did become an elitist as he got older. But todays white republican cannot take credit for Douglass because he spent most of his lie opposing racism with demands for equality.

 

[IM2]

Name: Catherine Ho, 19.
Education: Harvard College, class of 2021.
Photographed at Harvard in Cambridge, Mass.

“Harvard, and many other institutions of higher education throughout the country, could not accomplish its mission of educating citizens and citizen leaders of the world without a diverse student body. As a first-generation, low-income Vietnamese-American college student, I refuse to allow S.F.F.A. to paint Asian-Americans with a broad stroke. I refuse to be used as a tool to further divide communities of color.”​

 

[Brick Gold]

Only rich white people have privelege. All wealthy people have privelege. The rest if us take the shit and watch what privelege looks like while the priveleged watch us take the shit.

They sell the guns we bite the bullets and pray that someday they will allow us to afford to defend ourselves because man, I cant move that fast.

 

[22lcidw]

Incorrect. You simply have not read works by African scholars.

If there are, they are not as prevalent as Euro types. People lived in harsher climates around the world. They had to adapt and invent some comforts because of where they lived. Africans lived in a warmer environment and did not advance as a reason as fast as others. There are other cultures also in the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what? I think in my career, I've seen one woman of color in a position she really didn't merit because someone was trying to fill an affirmative action quota.

I've seen dozens of whites who had no business being where they were at because of the Old Boy Network, because they were drinking buddies with the boss, because a senior manager was their father, because they were sleeping with the regional director.

Like the Clintons and Bushes

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, I'd ask if you have any links. Because frankly, I'm finding this claim of "unattractive" Asians to be a bit questionable.

View attachment 600182

Secondly, diversity at Harvard is an important goal ONLY because of the outsized influence schools like Harvard play in our national politics and politics. It opens a series of opportunities that you simple aren't going to get going to a state university or an on-line college. This is why diversity is important, to give communities access to advancement.


Anybody being considered for Harvard is going to be fairly exceptional. So, um yeah, a black student who got a 3.5 GPA and a 1400 on his SAT coming from an inner city school impresses me a lot more than a white suburban kid who had tutors getting a 3.6 and a 1450 on his SAT, just by virtue of what that black kid had to overcome.

There is truth in that! The Federal Department of "Education" and Inner City schools have successfully turned most inner City schools into places where the intellectually curious go to flounder or die.

It takes a strong family commitment to make sure the kids will get the education they need to progress, succeed or just be sure which end is up.

The next sure to be Greatest ever US President will greet the Department of Education like Don Corleone's traitorous driver Pauile.

 

[JoeB131]

The real truth is that we need the best. Not the bullshitting best. It is easy for you to type what you did. We have been hiring by your words for many decades. Many good people. Many not so good but hired by diversity laws. Opportunity is there. The ability may be different. The Americas will at some point have wars on their soil as common as Europe and Asia over the centuries. And with Africa there is very little knowledge because they never recorded themselves.

Does your doctor know you are off your medications?

 

[JoeB131]

Like the Clintons and Bushes

Clinton was a pretty good president. Awful human being, but a good president.
Poppy Bush was a good president who just had some bad luck.
Dubya was a good man, but not a good president.

Trump, on the other hand, is an awful human being and was a terrible president. it will take years to repair the damage.

 

[JoeB131]

You have no idea how crazy and bigoted you are

the left is attacking whites the same way you accuse whites of being toward blacks

you have morphed into the thing that you hate

Go back and read what I wrote, and then think about it. Then get back to me without your whiny white grievance.

The ironic thing is that you are not being screwed over because people of color are getting more opportunities. You are getting screwed because the One Percent is too greedy and resents you having what you have.

 

[JoeB131]

Telling someone she “appears” to think that not a single black has ever or will ever be qualified for Harvard (sans the AA policies) is saying she “appears” to be racist. Still a slap in the face.

You honestly don’t understand how it works - and I do. I’ve worked in Higher Ed admissions for a competitive program (not Harvard) and they play with the admissions standards for blacks - and Latinos, too - until they reach their target percentage, which is usually their percentage in the general population. The challenge lies in that if they lower the standards TOO low, to get the 14%, then they risk admitting in black students (Latinos too) who will fail miserably. So they settle on a balance.

Well, that someone as racist and angry as you are is working in admissions is probably part of the problem.

And I live in the real world. These college are NOT going to stop legacy admissions because they want the rich parents to keep forking over. That also is how it works.

But is is quite telling that Harvard was having so hard time justifying rejecting bright, high-achieving Asians that they has to devise a biased “personality” test with questions that they could score Asians low on.

Well, at least you aren't trying to claim they were considered "Unattractive"... because you just looked silly doing that.

Do you have any examples of this supposedly "biased" personality test? My guess is that it's not as sinister as you want to make it out to be.

And finally, would it really be the end of the world if the 2/3rds of black students who got into Harvard due to skin color were rejected, and had to go to a less prestigious but still excellent school? What’s wrong with Tulane, NYU, BU, Georgetown, Duke, UVA, etc., etc.? Or even Florida State, Rutgers, University of Maryland, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech?

And you could ask the same questions of Asian or White or Jewish students. Would it be the end of the world to go to one of these other schools?

And the answer is...well, no... but you also won't get the advantages.

You can graduate from Yale and be a complete idiot...

(unrelated Geo. Dubya Bush picture)

or you can be a really bright person who graduates from UIC. The difference ends up being that Harvard and Yale gives an advantage in the political, economic and academic world that UIC does not. The fact that we rank these schools at all is probably part of the problem.

So if you are going to give an advantage to graduates of a certain school, then you really SHOULD set aside a certain number of opportunities for minorities that have been historically discriminated against.

And, yes, blacks have had centuries of oppression compared to Asians who are fresh off the plane.