Admissions discrimination - now straight people get screwed over too!

[athelas]

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/10/23/news/16307.shtml

Two weeks ago, Middlebury College took this process one step further, implementing a policy through which students who identify themselves as gay will receive the same benefits in the admissions process as ethnic minorities, athletes and legacies.

While no college has yet matched Middlebury's policy, several, such as Claremont McKenna and Loyola University in New Orleans, are seriously considering it.

Does anyone really believe that this is anything more than a cynical move by the leftist college establishment to score more points with their core constituencies? It makes some sense to say that poor applicants may be better qualified than their test scores indicate (although basing it on race is a whole other debate). This unfair bonus for another of the left's favorite groups serves no education purpose, and amounts to mere posturing, further screwing up the already messed up admissions not-really-a-quota-smile-wink-nod system.

And since this is the Pit...fuck 'em.

[MsRobyn]

I wonder how long it'll take for this policy to be abused by white high-school students and their parents looking for any edge they can get.

Robin

[Snooooopy]

I wonder how long it'll take for this policy to be abused by white high-school students and their parents looking for any edge they can get.

Robin

And what kind of policies will the college take to combat such abuse?

"All right, Bobby, tongue-kiss this dude and you're in! I want to see some PASSION, dammit!"

[Dead Badger]

Ah, good old The Leftist College Establishment. Why, with one implementation and two entire colleges "considering it" in the tiny education market of the United States, this is indeed a shocking indictment of the Left's clutching grasp on the liberal arts community. Why, do you realise that this hideous move affects a student community numbering two thousand!? Shame on you, The Leftist College Establishment, for compromising our nation so!

Wait, what?

[John Mace]

This is a pretty silly policy, but hey, it's a private school so they should be able to do what they want. I'd be very suprised if it became wide-spread among colleges-- donors probably wouldn't be too thrilled about it.

[cckerberos]

I wonder how long it'll take for this policy to be abused by white high-school students and their parents looking for any edge they can get.

Robin
Those were my first thoughts as well. I can't imagine how this policy would be feasible; anyone can claim to be homosexual.

A Princeton official says:
"There is still such a negative association with being an LGBT student that I don't see high school students saying they were gay or lesbian just to give themselves an advantage," she said.but I just don't agree.

[Revenant Threshold]

What does "legacies" mean in this situation? Is it similar to a scholarship or a bursary?

[MsRobyn]

The three colleges considering this are insanely competitive. I can see applicants checking the little box marked "gay" on the application form, because it's not like potential romantic partners read those, or anyone but the admissions office, for that matter.

And, yes, I do think it'll be abused. There's something about the college admissions process that encourages moral and ethical bankruptcy.

Robin

[hawksgirl]

The three colleges considering this are insanely competitive. I can see applicants checking the little box marked "gay" on the application form, because it's not like potential romantic partners read those, or anyone but the admissions office, for that matter.

And, yes, I do think it'll be abused. There's something about the college admissions process that encourages moral and ethical bankruptcy.

Robin
But if a ton of kids are doing this, won't only a limited number (claiming gay) still get in? I may not understand the admissions process, but it seems like if it were to be amzingly abused, it would become counter-productive to lie about it.

[John Mace]

What does "legacies" mean in this situation? Is it similar to a scholarship or a bursary?
You have a parent who went there. It's how Bush probably got into Yale. You don't get a scholarship, just a one-up in the admissions process.

[What Exit?]

athelas, I think I have to agree with you on this one. I am not aware that gays suffer from any educational disadvantages. Totally unscientific, but the gays I have met and known are smarter than average and better educated. Seems like Middlebury College either need to fess up and call it a quota or be called out for Bullshit on this policy.

Jim

[John Mace]

Does anyone really believe that this is anything more than a cynical move by the leftist college establishment to score more points with their core constituencies?
BTW, that doesn't make much sense. What is the constintuency of a "college establishment"? Sounds like you buy into the "gay agenda" meme that gets floated whenever these types of things surface.

[Revenant Threshold]

You have a parent who went there. It's how Bush probably got into Yale. You don't get a scholarship, just a one-up in the admissions process. Thanks. Something else to not agree with on the American school system. :p

Anyway, I don't see the point of this. Way to easy to abuse - this in particular - "In terms of the admissions process, we give students every consideration if they have a diverse background including students who are gay, or who may be involved in LGBT groups in their high schools, communities or national organizations." - makes it sound like you're more likely to get in if you just worked with a pro-LGBT organisation, which is nuts. I wouldn't have thought there was such a big problem around gay people getting into this college for them to amend their application process this way.

[DiosaBellissima]

Anyway, I don't see the point of this. Way to easy to abuse - this in particular - - makes it sound like you're more likely to get in if you just worked with a pro-LGBT organisation, which is nuts. I wouldn't have thought there was such a big problem around gay people getting into this college for them to amend their application process this way.

And see, on a fundamental level I can see giving that type of community service some sort of recognition. I mean, it is certainly a worthy thing for a teenager to spend their spare time working with. That said, it's no more worthy than volunteering at the SPCA, running a book drive for the library, or working on the debate team.

Then again, I'm pretty much against AA in our current system. I think that AA certainly had its time and place, but that time has passed and that place is getting beaten down. As I see it, AA does nothing but harm our present system and those it is trying to protect. I went to a mostly black high school and I remember many of my friends saying something along the lines of, "I don't want AA to get me into college. I want to know that I was good enough on my own- without the help of the color of my skin." Anecdotal, sure, but it's fair.

[mhendo]

I'm not sure the situation described in the OP is a particularly good thing, but i'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

In fact, i'll lose no sleep over any type of affirmative action as long as religious organizations continue to be allowed to discriminate in their acceptance and hiring procedures for what are essentially secular positions.

It is reasonable to expect an applicant for the clergy, or for some specifically religious counseling or advising position, to adhere to the tenets of the religion in question. It is not reasonable to expect the same thing from a receptionist or an accountant. I can't, to my knowledge, set up a specifically atheist organization and give preference to atheists over Christians and Jews and Muslims in my hiring procedures, even if i express a genuine concern that the atheist principles and aims of my organization need to be implemented by people who don't believe in a supreme being.

I fully agree with the principle of freedom of religion, but i think we've allowed religions to dictate the terms of what is acceptable, and the result is that their discretion is so broad as to effectively allow them to discriminate even in areas where the vast majority of the duties are secular.

Fix that problem, then come back and we'll chat about affirmative action.

It's also amazing that the OP's quotation actually mentions the subject of legacies, and yet the OP can't seem to get very worked up over that particular system of preferential treatment.

[Revenant Threshold]

And see, on a fundamental level I can see giving that type of community service some sort of recognition. I mean, it is certainly a worthy thing for a teenager to spend their spare time working with. That said, it's no more worthy than volunteering at the SPCA, running a book drive for the library, or working on the debate team. Sure, I could get behind that. Community service as a reason for preferential treatment. But not in a case like this, though; I don't think you could reward one method of service but not others. In general it's a good idea though, and certainly more deserving of preferential treatment than just having a parent who went to that college.

[John Mace]

I think much of AA in the university system now is based more on promoting "diversity" in the student body than on trying compensate for discrimintation. And I suspect that is the primary reason behind this move. I just can't see this catching on, though. I wouldn't be surprised if heads roll somewhere because someone thought this was a good thing to do.

[mhendo]

...certainly more deserving of preferential treatment than just having a parent who went to that college.Thing is, though, legacies aren't about "deserving" or "fair," they're about money.

If a school stops giving preferential treatment to the kids of alumni, they might find that the supply of alumni donations (massive sources of income for many schools) begin to dry up.

As usual, when money is a key motivator, questions of what is just and right tend to be pushed aside.

[Loopydude]

It's nice to hear these schools described as "insanely competitive", to be sure. I guess I would have thought "highly" was accurate enough, but at any rate, it seems unlikely students would be so desperate as to fake homosexuality to get into a NESCAC school, or equivalent. Harvard or Yale? Possibly.

[John Mace]

It's nice to hear these schools described as "insanely competitive", to be sure. I guess I would have thought "highly" was accurate enough, but at any rate, it seems unlikely students would be so desperate as to fake homosexuality to get into a NESCAC school, or equivalent. Harvard or Yale? Possibly.
I don't know how old you are, but if you're like me and went to college over 20 years ago, you might not be familair with how much more competitive the process is. Or, rather, how many HS kids pull out all the stops to get into a good school. Middlebury may be a NESCAC school, but it's still a top-rated academic institution. US News and World report ranked it as the 5th best liberal arts college in the country.

[Loopydude]

I've seen the esteem of all the NESCAC schools rise since my graduation, much to my satisfaction, and I'll leave it at that. I graduated 14 years ago, which was long enough to put me out of touch, but I have a couple relatives who are old enough to be thinking about these things presently, and it still seems like the Ivies are the true insanity-inducers. I guess I'm just a little taken-aback the insanity isn't limited to them.

[Damuri Ajashi]

And see, on a fundamental level I can see giving that type of community service some sort of recognition. I mean, it is certainly a worthy thing for a teenager to spend their spare time working with. That said, it's no more worthy than volunteering at the SPCA, running a book drive for the library, or working on the debate team.

Then again, I'm pretty much against AA in our current system. I think that AA certainly had its time and place, but that time has passed and that place is getting beaten down. As I see it, AA does nothing but harm our present system and those it is trying to protect. I went to a mostly black high school and I remember many of my friends saying something along the lines of, "I don't want AA to get me into college. I want to know that I was good enough on my own- without the help of the color of my skin." Anecdotal, sure, but it's fair.

I can agree that affirmative action for gays is bullshit but why do people continue to think that we have put racism behind us. Racism was going strong until at least 1965 and while we don't hang the nigger from the tree anymore, most baby boomers grew up in fairly racist households and many people today have to make a conscious effort to suppress racist inclinations. Not everyone succeeds. Much of the poverty and attitude we see (particularly in the black community) is the cultural result of centuries of slavery followed by a century of segregation and overt discrimination.

there are two ways of thinking about AA, you can say "We will now let you play in the game but you are going to have to start at the bottom and work your way up. There may be all sorts of historical factors you have to overcome as well as latent and structural racism but we will now eliminate any impenetrable barriers that have existed to yor success and progress, the best of you will be able to succeed and in a few generations you will have made up much of that lost ground"

Or you can say "We will now let you play in the game and in light of our 500 year head start and the continued racism that exists in society today, we think levelling the playing field means that we have to affirmatively provide and encourage the opportunities that will allow you to catch up in a reasonable period of time and will eliminaate some of the structural remnants of racism.

A lot of people think it is enough to say we won't put roadblocks in your way, I think that we have to do more than stop beating them anytime they try to move forward.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I think this is a great idea. Gays and lesbians are really underrepresented in the college communi--

Hmm.

Wait. Why is this a good idea again? I thought the point of affirmative action programs was to enhance the diversity of the campus. In my experience (admittedly limited to Evergreen and UNCA, two pretty freakin' liberal campuses) (campi?), non-straights were overrepresented compared to the population at large, not underrepresented.

There may be other good justifications for this rule: for example, if there are studies showing that the emotional strains of being a gay adolescent negatively impact a kid's academic performance in high school and that this impact is fleeting, not lasting through the college years, I can see where this would be a smart move. However, on its face, it looks silly.

Not as silly, of course, as they hyperbolic conclusions drawn by the OP--but then, that's setting the bar very high.

Daniel

[Bryan Ekers]

"I'm not gay, but I'm willing to learn."

[Li'l Pluck]

I can agree that affirmative action for gays is bullshit but why do people continue to think that we have put racism behind us. Racism was going strong until at least 1965 and while we don't hang the nigger from the tree anymore, most baby boomers grew up in fairly racist households and many people today have to make a conscious effort to suppress racist inclinations. Not everyone succeeds. Much of the poverty and attitude we see (particularly in the black community) is the cultural result of centuries of slavery followed by a century of segregation and overt discrimination.

there are two ways of thinking about AA, you can say "We will now let you play in the game but you are going to have to start at the bottom and work your way up. There may be all sorts of historical factors you have to overcome as well as latent and structural racism but we will now eliminate any impenetrable barriers that have existed to yor success and progress, the best of you will be able to succeed and in a few generations you will have made up much of that lost ground"

Or you can say "We will now let you play in the game and in light of our 500 year head start and the continued racism that exists in society today, we think levelling the playing field means that we have to affirmatively provide and encourage the opportunities that will allow you to catch up in a reasonable period of time and will eliminaate some of the structural remnants of racism.

A lot of people think it is enough to say we won't put roadblocks in your way, I think that we have to do more than stop beating them anytime they try to move forward.

Hmmm...this is interesting. Let me see if I can organize and share my thoughts in a coherent manner.

Firstly, I often find myself wondering just what, exactly, is meant by "affirmative action," both in meaning and in practice. I mean, is it a quota system (we have to have "x" amount of this, "x" amount of that, etc.)? If so, I'll admit that that makes me uncomfortable, but it miiiight serve some purpose.* If, OTOH, it's just one of those "let's give them just a little more consideration with the aim of diversifying the class/workforce/whatever, then I can't get all worked up about it. (BTW, so the fuck what if schools and corporations want to diversify their bodies? It's not like people are going to die if they have to go to school/work with people who are different from them in terms of ethnicity and sexual orientation. And true, it might not amount to a hill of beans in terms of people's personal lives (though I wish it would, for the better), but that's why it's called a personal life--you get to be as racist and homophobic and anti-whateverelse on your own time.) And I think it would be helpful if, when people say that they're either for or against affirmative action, they'd say what they think it is. I say this because I suspect that affirmative action doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.

That being said, while I'm somewhat wary, I don't know if I'm ready to call bullshit on the plan mentioned in the OP. I'm a 36-year-old gay man, and coming to terms with my sexuality (to say nothing of coming out) was extraordinarily painful and difficult for me. And while I am led to understand that coming out today is easier than it was back then, and that some cultural attitudes WRT homosexuality have been relaxed, I do know that it's not all that easy today across the board. We don't need to look far and wide to see that this is true, right? So, yeah, I don't know. Like MsRobyn, though, I also wonder how long it'll take for ever-burdened white folks (yep, 'cause nobody knows the troubles they've seen!), to take advantage of this by claiming to be gay when they, in fact, are not. True, it might indeed sound far-fetched, but I don't know that I don't see something like this happening.

As for col_10022's remarks: I'm also a black guy, and while I, like all of the black people in my circle, would loathe to be granted a job or admitted into college based solely on the color of my skin, I also know that I have been denied jobs and (I strongly suspect) housing and have most indubitably been harrassed by cops for that very reason, so I tend to be a supporter of affirmative action. (And my habitus, BTW, tends clearly towards middle-class, so, in my experience, it hasn't been a ghetto/not ghetto thing.)

And yeah, if folks would just let me play the game and not let their racism get in my fucking way, then we'd be okay, and we'd never have to have a conversation about affirmative action. The thing is, though, as col_10022 pointed out, I just don't trust most white folks (who still control much of what goes in America) to get out of my way,* so affirmative action, in some form, it has to be.

I don't know if I've been coherent here, but that's my two cents.

Oh, and Bryan Ekers? Give us a pick, woncha? If you're willing to learn, I might be willing to teach. :D

*And any white person out there who really knows other white people and how many of the seemingly "normal" ones really think WRT race can't convince me that my feelings aren't grounded in reality.

[Dead Badger]

I'm a 36-year-old gay man, and coming to terms with my sexuality (to say nothing of coming out) was extraordinarily painful and difficult for me. And while I am led to understand that coming out today is easier than it was back then, and that some cultural attitudes WRT homosexuality have been relaxed, I do know that it's not all that easy today across the board.I don't doubt what you say, but would you really claim that the difficulty of coming to terms with your sexuality negatively affected your academic performance to the point where apparently-cleverer people should be rejected from a University in favour of you? Affirmative Action is supposed to be about redressing the balance after discrimination, not about showing favouritism to people who've had a hard personal life. For example, should we also be favouring students whose parents divorced while they were growing up, or have suffered similar trauma?

Undoubtedly there is still prejudice against gays, but unless it can be demonstrated that this manifests itself as bias in university admissions, then AA is not the way to redress it. It's not obvious to me that there's any way to tell in an application form or at interview whether a candidate is gay (hence the skepticism regarding the practicality of this proposal), so I hardly think we can just assume that gays have been discriminated against in this area.

[John Mace]

Affirmative Action is supposed to be about redressing the balance after discrimination...
Not anymore, and especially not in educational institutions. Read the court's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger).

In the court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

[Dead Badger]

Hmm, interesting. But that would surely still require demonstrating that gays are underrepresented at university level, be it by discrimination or otherwise, and this seems far from obvious. Unless "diverse" now entails having a population out of proportion with the general population, that is. Perhaps we should start shipping in Guatemalans. Really stupid ones.

[mhendo]

Not anymore, and especially not in educational institutions. Read the court's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger).While it's true that the decision you cite does offer diversity as a lawful and reasonable goal for affirmative action, it doesn't necessarily follow that all affirmative action policies are driven by the desire for a diverse student body.

It could be that there are still plenty of affirmative action programs, inside and outside of education, where redressing the balance of historical or current discrimination is still a priority. Whether the discrimination is actually still a problem is something that people can argue about, but i know quite a few who agree with Dead Badger, that the prime goal of affirmative action is (or should be) to counterbalance discrimination.

[Li'l Pluck]

I don't doubt what you say, but would you really claim that the difficulty of coming to terms with your sexuality negatively affected your academic performance to the point where apparently-cleverer people should be rejected from a University in favour of you? Affirmative Action is supposed to be about redressing the balance after discrimination, not about showing favouritism to people who've had a hard personal life. For example, should we also be favouring students whose parents divorced while they were growing up, or have suffered similar trauma?

Undoubtedly there is still prejudice against gays, but unless it can be demonstrated that this manifests itself as bias in university admissions, then AA is not the way to redress it. It's not obvious to me that there's any way to tell in an application form or at interview whether a candidate is gay (hence the skepticism regarding the practicality of this proposal), so I hardly think we can just assume that gays have been discriminated against in this area.

Well, that wasn't what I was directly claiming in my previous post (I apologize if I wasn't clear in this regard), but now that you ask...yes, in my case, absolutely.

I went to college 18 years ago right after high school, and by all indications (always carried an "A" average), I should've done well. Unfortunately, during this time, I was forced, after years of denying what I knew to be true, to confront my homosexuality, not just socially, but particularly in the context of the religious beliefs that my conservative Southern family had relentlessly drilled into me (beliefs which I've long, thank Og, since scuttled), and instead of being able to concentrate on schoolwork, I sank rapidly into suicidal depression, something that caused a concerned friend (for whom I'll remain unendingly grateful) to take me to the school psychologist, and which culminated in my having to leave college before I'd completed even my first year. My GPA at the time? 0.0. Yep, that's zero-point-zero.

Granted, it's easier today for gay youngsters to come out, but as I've said, that's not true for each individual. In fact, I am certain that, despite the fact that I'm out to my family (for the most part, they don't like it, but I've let them know that they can just go and fuck themselves) a teenager in my family who is also gay would have just as difficult a time in coming out. And so it is with many other gay and lesbian youths.

And yes, it is definitely possible--no, scratch that--it has indeed happened that gay and lesbian young people have experienced enough harrassment from their junior high and senior high classmates to make their lives a living hell and to negatively affect their academic performance. (Sorry, I don't have time right now to look up cites, but it's not difficult to find stories like this in the gay press.) I mean, really, if you're wondering every day how many times you're going to be terrorized, either verbally or physically, and you know (or you believe, and often with good reason) that no one--not your parents, not the school administrators, not the teachers, not other students--is going to help you, and you're reminded by not only your enemies, but also your so-called friends (and I'm talking about you, Bill Clinton, et al.) that you're a second-class citizen, how the hell can you concentrate on anything else? (I was in so much denial that I was able to perform well in high school, but as I said, the dam did eventually break.)

So, yeah, I can definitely see how gay and lesbian young people wouldn't be able to perform up to academic standards due to the heterosexism/homophobia that many of them still have to contend with on a daily basis.

And I think you're right in that affirmative action shouldn't be used as a means of addressing applicants' difficult personal lives, because people experience bad shit for all kinds of reasons. But affirmative action, AFAIK, isn't necessarily used to address shit that happens on a micro level, but on a macro level. I don't know if homophobia manifests itself in university admissions (and wasn't claiming as much), but I don't think that this particular manifestation was the point of the OP anyway, right? IOW, I didn't get the sense from the OP that the university in question took the step it did because gays were being discriminated against in admissions, but because homophobia might have negatively affected applicants' pre-collegiate academic performance, and that this occurs on a macro level instead of being limited to just a few individuals.

Anyway, I hope this helps explain my position.

[John Mace]

Hmm, interesting. But that would surely still require demonstrating that gays are underrepresented at university level, be it by discrimination or otherwise, and this seems far from obvious. Unless "diverse" now entails having a population out of proportion with the general population, that is. Perhaps we should start shipping in Guatemalans. Really stupid ones.
I don't agree with that decision, just pointing out what it said. And I agree that I'd be surprsied if gays were underrepresented at liberal arts colleges.

[Dead Badger]

I don't agree with that decision, just pointing out what it said. And I agree that I'd be surprsied if gays were underrepresented at liberal arts colleges.Oh, I know you don't; I was just thinking aloud. Truthfully, about half the threads around here I think about commenting in, I go in and find you've already said more or less what I would've said. Which just proves that you've got far too much time on your hands and should leave some of the easy pickings for us lazy folk :)

L'il Pluck, it's 2am here and I was at the office 'til 11.30 on a bleeding Saturday night, so I hope you'll forgive me if I reply to your interesting post tomorrow.

Preview: Holy crap! It's 1am again! Goddamn daylight saving!

[t-bonham@scc.net]

athelas, I think I have to agree with you on this one. I am not aware that gays suffer from any educational disadvantages.I would disagree, based on my own (anecdotal) experiences.

For several years, I served on a selection committee for a couple dozen scholarships offered to Minnesota GLBT or Friends students. From seeing their academic transcripts, it was clear that many of the applicants were high-grade students until about the age where they came out, and then their academic grades took a precipitous drop. From reading their essays, this drop was indeed related to their coming out; either mental anguish about their sexuality distracting them from schoolwork, or in-school harassment so bad that they lost interest and often began skipping classes frequently. It was often mentioned in their recommendation letters, also -- references to how well they had withstood up 'pressure' or 'troubles' at school.

This pattern was so common it soon became obvious to all of the reviewers. Because of this, it was even included in the specifications that academic achievement was NOT a primary criterion in selecting the winners.

[MsRobyn]

I have a question for Li'l Pluck. Please take this in the spirit in which it's intended.

How would you address the issue of possible abuse of this new "preference" by non-GLBT students looking for any advantage?

Robin

[Clothahump]

[url]
Does anyone really believe that this is anything more than a cynical move by the leftist college establishment to score more points with their core constituencies?
...snip...
And since this is the Pit...fuck 'em.

No, it's just another example of how affirmative action is just another word for discrimination, no matter which way it is applied.

[What Exit?]

I would disagree, based on my own (anecdotal) experiences.

For several years, I served on a selection committee for a couple dozen scholarships offered to Minnesota GLBT or Friends students. From seeing their academic transcripts, it was clear that many of the applicants were high-grade students until about the age where they came out, and then their academic grades took a precipitous drop. From reading their essays, this drop was indeed related to their coming out; either mental anguish about their sexuality distracting them from schoolwork, or in-school harassment so bad that they lost interest and often began skipping classes frequently. It was often mentioned in their recommendation letters, also -- references to how well they had withstood up 'pressure' or 'troubles' at school.

This pattern was so common it soon became obvious to all of the reviewers. Because of this, it was even included in the specifications that academic achievement was NOT a primary criterion in selecting the winners.
Could this be a case of location, location, location. Is it easier for Gay students to come out in the NY Metro area then Minnesota maybe? I won't claim to hang out with a lot of gay people, but on the other hand, by BIL and his friends are well educated. One of my best friends from HS did great academically and my more casual acquaintances all seem to do above average. But this is localized to this area of the country. I have to defer to your experience as mine is a small sampling of personal experience and yours is job related in field. I just want to explore the possibility that maybe it is easier in my location. BTW, I believe Athelas is going to school in Princeton. So his experience is possibly similar to mine.

Jim

[Loopydude]

I had two friends come out before I graduated. I actually wound up becoming the Token Straight Guy often durinng the GLB club meetings at school my Sr. year, I think because my g.f. and I were so astonished by one of our friend's being gay we had to get to the bottom of it somehow. Chicks just loved him too much! I mean, the irony!

One of those friends (the one who probably broke a hundred female hearts the day he came out) totally flourished. He always was self-confident and charismatic, but all his positive attributes just multiplied once he got a boyfriend and gave up the straight act.

The other friend's experience was almost the opposite. She had a very religious family, who were devastated, and very homophobic high school friends who she lost almost the minute she exited the closet. She went the total bull-dyke fashion route abrubtly, grew angry and confrontational, and deeply depressed. I think her in-your-face radical-lesbian schtick was an obvious defensive reaction to near instant alienation from her past, but the effect was to also alienate many of the friends she had in college, both gay and straight, who couldn't take her incessant ranting in social situations, interspersed with bouts of drunken sobbing among smaller gatherings of confidants. It was a tragic thing to watch this academically-excellent swimming champ turn into a binge-drinking basket case. My guess is if she came out in high school, not only would she not have gotten into the college she did, she might have either accidentally or deliberately killed herself before she got accepted anywhere.

So how do I characterize the youthful gay experience in the context of affirmative action? If I take the example of one friend, the good life began when he came out. The other, pure Hell. If most wound up like the former, I'd say it doesn't make sense. If the experience is closer to that of the latter, though, I'd support at least some kind of compensatory mechanism, to make sure bright kids who society has treated most unjustly don't have those injustices compounded at the collegiate level.

[Li'l Pluck]

I have a question for Li'l Pluck. Please take this in the spirit in which it's intended.

How would you address the issue of possible abuse of this new "preference" by non-GLBT students looking for any advantage?

Robin

"In the spirit in which it's intended"? Daaaaamn, you think I'm gonna pick a fight with you?! :)

And, further damn, you're the first one who mentioned this possibility, and you're asking me for an answer? I do declare, the temerity! :D

Well, the short answer is, I don't know. I mean, despite the, uh, interesting advice offered by Snooooopy, it's not really something that you can test for. Well, not ethically and legally, I don't think.

I will repeat what I said (and, to some degree, alluded to) in my previous posts, though, and that is this: Though I do think it's easier, in 2006, for gay teenagers to come out/come to terms with their sexuality, and while in some ways homosexuality is the new "black" (and I'm not just speaking fashion-wise, BTW), I think that, for the most part, there's still enough of a stigma attached to being gay, especially outside of large metropolitan areas like NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, etc., that those who might be tempted to engage in such deception for the sake of a leg up might be dissuaded from doing so.

And where stigma fails? Well, I suppose that one could witch-hunt them in an attempt to find out what campus clubs they belong to, who they hang out with, who they're fucking, etc., but again, that would likely be unethical and illegal (if they're under 18, and maybe if they're older), to say nothing of time-consuming and potentially creepy. Now, if one has evidence to suggest that a prospective student is lying/an already-admitted student has lied, then I suppose there would have to be some kind of investigation to determine what, exactly, is what. But what that would look like, I don't know.

What it boils down to for me, then, is that you'd just have to trust that a student who identifies as gay and gets something of a leg up because of that is, much more often than not, telling the truth.

As an aside...

Dead Badger thinks my post is interesting? Wow, I'm definitely walking on sunshine now! No, really, thanks, and I'll await your post. :D

And, What Exit?? I can't answer for t-bonham, but I do believe that location has a great deal to do with the ease of coming out. It should be noted, however, that no matter where one is, teenagers (hell, people, period!) can be so cruel that they'll latch onto any kind of difference and use it to harrass someone. Obviously, the degree to which this happens can depend on where one is, but being in the NY metro area, for instance, doesn't preclude this kind of stuff from happening.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I would disagree, based on my own (anecdotal) experiences.
Those experiences are interesting. Still I have trouble getting past my own experiences, which were that I knew a lot more GLBT folks in college than elsewhere, suggesting that whatever effect being a gay adolescent had on kids' academic performance, it wasn't hurting their chances of getting into college.

Of course, I may be switching cause and effect: college may be such a relatively welcoming place for GLBT kids that they try disproportionately to get there, in which case their overrepresentation is to be expected; they might, when adjusted for desire to attend college, still be underrepresented. And, of course, my anecdotal experiences aren't data: it could barely be possible that Evergreen is not a good baseline for considering this question.

Daniel

[monstro]

I didn't see a lot of gay students at the engineering school I attended during the 90s. Maybe they were all in the closet?

[Dangerosa]

Could this be a case of location, location, location. Is it easier for Gay students to come out in the NY Metro area then Minnesota maybe?

Minnesota? Where we have more interracial marriages per capita? A vibrant GLBT community? More interracial adoptions per capita? (At least all that was true until the early 1980s when other places started catching up). Maybe off in the farmland (similar to what I imagine upstate NY to be) but the Twin Cities is fairly socially progressive (we've gotten far more conservative in the past ten years though - along with the rest of the country). We've had programs for gay teens since the 1980s.

I helped run a GLBT film festival in 1986 or 1987 (can't remember the year we started that - I think its still running). And I'm not even gay.

When I went to college at the University of Iowa in 1984, they supposedly had the largest GLBT student population per capita in the country.

The heartland is not always what people think it is.

I think being a gay teen is probably hard anywhere you do it. Granted, it may be more difficult to come out in Orem, Utah - but I don't think its easy if you grow up in San Francisco.

[What Exit?]

Minnesota? Where we have more interracial marriages per capita? A vibrant GLBT community? More interracial adoptions per capita? (At least all that was true until the early 1980s when other places started catching up). Maybe off in the farmland (similar to what I imagine upstate NY to be) but the Twin Cities is fairly socially progressive (we've gotten far more conservative in the past ten years though - along with the rest of the country). We've had programs for gay teens since the 1980s.

The heartland is not always what people think it is...
Just for the record, my post was not sarcasm, it was an honest inquiry. I did not know enough and so I asked. In fact, I would not have considered Minnesota the heartland. I think of Iowa, Kansas and etc. when someone says heartland.

Jim

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Could this be a case of location, location, location. Is it easier for Gay students to come out in the NY Metro area then Minnesota maybe? Well, I doubt it. From what I have seen, it is more dependent on the attitudes of family & friends than that of the general population of the area.

Also, the NYC Public Schools have seen the need to create a special high school (Harvey Milk School) for GLBT kids who are unable to continue attending their previous high school because of harassment. So I wouldn't say the NY Metro area schools are quite as accepting as you seem to think.

[Rigamarole]

First, we had "Gay-for-pay", as created by the porn industry.

Now, it will be "Gay-for-A's".

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

I came out during my last couple of years in college. It was not an easy time for me, and my studies were certainly impacted. I was basically living three lives, and it certainly took a toll. I was often mentally exhausted.

In one direction, I was expending a significant effort to continuously maintain my grip on my internal denial and supression. In another direction, I was laboring to present and project the expected facade, basically trying to mimick the behavior of my straight friends. And in the third direction, arguably the most draining, I was doing everything I could to convince myself that I wouldn't have to surpress anything, or labor at the facade, if I just tried hard enough to be straight until I got it right.

Somewhere in there I was supposed to focus on Biochemistry and other Pre-Vet requirements.

That being said, in my opinion college admissions is not the situation in which to attempt to level the proverbial playing field. I appreciate the gesture, but it is an ill-concieved bandaid that will do little if anything to help solve the underlying issues.

[What Exit?]

Well, I doubt it. From what I have seen, it is more dependent on the attitudes of family & friends than that of the general population of the area.

Also, the NYC Public Schools have seen the need to create a special high school (Harvey Milk School) for GLBT kids who are unable to continue attending their previous high school because of harassment. So I wouldn't say the NY Metro area schools are quite as accepting as you seem to think.
Thank you, it was just a question, it sounds my limited experiences have varied heavily from the normal. Maybe I never gave my High School enough credit. We also managed to have a student body that was around 30% black without ever having racial issues. By dumb luck, maybe I was sheltered from the realities of normal High School existence. I never understood all the complaints about how bad High School was by so many people.
I guess while my school was sub-par academically, it was well above the curve in "Live and let live" and "Can't we all just get along."

Jim

[Fiveyearlurker]

While I understand the concept that it is, on average, likely more difficult for gay teenagers to succeed in high school than their straight counterparts, couldn't this be said of a lot of groups? I mean the overweight, those with acne, unattractive kids. All of these groups have a difficult time in high school to some extent (and not that I'm comparing it to being gay).

Is it half as hard to be overweight as to be gay, and a quarter as hard as to be unattractive? Do we give half a point to the overweight kid?

At the risk of fsounding cruel, at some point, there has to be a "life isn't always fair" answer when attempts to level the playing field are impossible.

[What Exit?]

...snip...
Is it half as hard to be overweight as to be gay, and a quarter as hard as to be unattractive? Do we give half a point to the overweight kid?

At the risk of fsounding cruel, at some point, there has to be a "life isn't always fair" answer when attempts to level the playing field are impossible.
Someone is going to be tempted to post, "but the fat kid could lose weight".
This is mostly bullshit and if it was so easy, the fat kid being teased would lose the weight. I am guilty of teasing one of the fat kids in High School. It was a dumb, stupid, shitty thing to do, (known as being a Teen). It was also Ironic as I ended up being fat and I am now struggling to correct this problem and I now understand that it is very hard to just lose the weight. I cannot imagine trying to do it as a 16 year old.
Maybe we should make allowances for braces? Girls that wear braces go through trauma. What about eyeglass wearers?
Not one of these is valid comparison. Gays have been beaten, jailed, and harassed, disowned by their families and otherwise put upon in ways that other disadvantaged kids and college kids have not. I do not like the policy described in the Op, but as several people pointed out, it may have some validity.

Jim

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

We're worried about abuse? Right, because the average 17-year old feels NO stigma about being labelled gay, and so they'll just line up to say they are homeosexual.

I would not cry too hard about discrimination of the poor straight kids, either. The ultimate effect of this advantage may make a difference for the small group of capable, ambitious gay students who need this boost, but it will have almost no effect on the likelihood of admission of anyone else. Unless, of course, sociologists and psychologists have vastly underrated the number of homosexuals in the college-bound population, or if this policy makes a staggering number of gays suddenly apply. If Middlebury has 20 or 50 more gay students a year, how much tougher will it really make it for the other 5100 students who have applied for a spot in the class?

I'm not sure I agree with this policy--I would need to hear more about why they think there is a need for it--but I think some of the fears expressed here aren't really that well-grounded.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'm not sure I agree with this policy--I would need to hear more about why they think there is a need for it--but I think some of the fears expressed here aren't really that well-grounded.
Agreed. The big issue for me is whether gay students are underrepresented at this specific school. If so, I don't much care about anything else: the desire to have a diverse campus is sufficient to justify this policy, IMO> If not, there needs to be a really strong alternate reason for the policy, one that I'm not currently seeing.

Daniel

[appleciders]

If Middlebury has 20 or 50 more gay students a year, how much tougher will it really make it for the other 5100 students who have applied for a spot in the class?

You may be right statistically (or maybe not, I haven't actually checked the math) but ethically, I think even just a little discrimination is wrong.

And as to the fear that straight students would check the "gay" box, I'd say that speaking as a straight college freshman at a competitive school, I would have been sorely tempted to do just that to get an edge last spring. Come to that, I'd be more afraid of being labelled as someone who had no moral qualms about lying to get into college than being labelled gay. But no one, not even my parents, would have known if I'd checked that box on my application, and I suspect that a lot of pressured teens would succumb to that temptation.

[MsRobyn]

We're worried about abuse? Right, because the average 17-year old feels NO stigma about being labelled gay, and so they'll just line up to say they are homeosexual.

I would not cry too hard about discrimination of the poor straight kids, either. The ultimate effect of this advantage may make a difference for the small group of capable, ambitious gay students who need this boost, but it will have almost no effect on the likelihood of admission of anyone else. Unless, of course, sociologists and psychologists have vastly underrated the number of homosexuals in the college-bound population, or if this policy makes a staggering number of gays suddenly apply. If Middlebury has 20 or 50 more gay students a year, how much tougher will it really make it for the other 5100 students who have applied for a spot in the class?

I'm not sure I agree with this policy--I would need to hear more about why they think there is a need for it--but I think some of the fears expressed here aren't really that well-grounded.

It's only a stigma if other people know how you answered. Face it. Most admissions applications don't leave the admissions office. I find it hard to believe that straight kids (or their parents) wouldn't rationalize checking that box if it meant getting into Middlebury instead of State U.

Robin

[Loopydude]

I must say, despite all this glowing praise for the "Small Ivies" (to use a term I always found insufferably pretentious), I find it simply incredible that fraud, of all things, should be a fear worthy of serious consideration when weighing the merits of such a program of affirmative action. I myself am far from sold on the idea that this is the best way to assist kids with the iniquities society heaps on them unjustly because of their orientation. But really, the thought that thousands of kids are going to check off the "gay" box just to get in just strikes me as ludicrous on the face of it. I'm sorry, but I think high school kids generally are sufficiently insecure to forgo that option. And how could they seriously go into their interviews and lie their way through their "gay experience" and expect such claims to hold up to scrutiny if an independent account of their lives shows such claims to be false? Surely the schools thinking of implementing this program must have thought about the potential, however remote, for abuse, as with any other qualifier, and devised reasonable ways to counteract it. Of all the things to worry about, this just strikes me as absurd, ranking up there with the current obsession over the virtually nonexistent problem of "voter fraud".

[Damuri Ajashi]

I just don't trust most white folks (who still control much of what goes in America) to get out of my way,* so affirmative action, in some form, it has to be.*And any white person out there who really knows other white people and how many of the seemingly "normal" ones really think WRT race can't convince me that my feelings aren't grounded in reality.

I'm Asian, I've been in more than a few situations where for some reason, white clients and colleagues have felt comfortable expressing racist attitudes (stereotyping blacks and hispanics mostly) around me without realizing that it just makes me think that they make Asian jokes when I am not around. I don't think these guys go around looking for ways to keep the black man down but I am going to use an anlogy to show the sort of dynamic that CAN occur.

I used to work in a firm where most of the lawyers had ivy league law degrees but several came from second tier law school but generally kicked butt there. When the Harvard grad fucks up, the sentiment is that "everyone is human and while we strive for perfection, we all make mistakes." When the guy from Brooklyn law school fucks up, the sentiment is "why the fuck do we even hire these guys from Brooklyn." While the contrast in attitudes is not as big for race, it is there.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Not anymore, and especially not in educational institutions. Read the court's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger).

There are governemnt set asides in appropriations bills for minority business owners.

I think that we are still allowing non-quota preferences to minorities even if diversity is not the reason for the preference.

That particular case was made by a girl who could not have gotten into U Mich even is there were no preferences, her LSATs were just too low. It would be like getting a 1200 on the SATs and suing because a minority student with lower scores got in. There were about 1000 white applicants better qualified for admission.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

You may be right statistically (or maybe not, I haven't actually checked the math) but ethically, I think even just a little discrimination is wrong.


The math is easy to check.

Middlebury had 5254 Apps for Fall 2005, and 1241 of them were offered admission.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that gay students made up 10% of the applicant pool (525 of them) and were accepted at the same rate (124 of them admitted). Both straight and gay students are accepted at about 24%.

Consider the effect of the policy if they'd used it on this pool. Let's assume they favor gay students to an extreme degree--so that they have double the chance of admission. That is, Middlebury takes 48% of the gay apps, instead of 24%. That means that 248 get acceptances. That leaves fewer acceptances for straights--instead of accepting 1117 of them (1241-124 gays) Middlebury can accept just 993 of them (1241-248 gays). That drops the acceptance rate for straights down to 21%. So to sum up, in this examples straight applicants would see their likelihood of admission drop by 3 percentage points when you double the acceptance rate for gays.

Obviously the numbers may differ--they may attract many more gay apps, for example. On the other hand, they may not favor them so heavily. But the point remains--any time a group makes up a relatively small part of the applicant pool, advantages offered to that group have a much greater effect on them than on those in the majority.

I understand people's sense of fair play being bothered by this. There's a lot about admissions that is not fair, and the level playing field is a pretty elusive goal at any school with any selectivity. I would hope that if the smallest bit of "discrimination" feels ethically wrong to you, you would also save some of your ire for policies that provide advantages to legacies, athletes, people from North Dakota, and so on.

[Li'l Pluck]

I'm Asian, I've been in more than a few situations where for some reason, white clients and colleagues have felt comfortable expressing racist attitudes (stereotyping blacks and hispanics mostly) around me without realizing that it just makes me think that they make Asian jokes when I am not around. I don't think these guys go around looking for ways to keep the black man down but I am going to use an anlogy to show the sort of dynamic that CAN occur.

I used to work in a firm where most of the lawyers had ivy league law degrees but several came from second tier law school but generally kicked butt there. When the Harvard grad fucks up, the sentiment is that "everyone is human and while we strive for perfection, we all make mistakes." When the guy from Brooklyn law school fucks up, the sentiment is "why the fuck do we even hire these guys from Brooklyn." While the contrast in attitudes is not as big for race, it is there.

Ah, yes, I remember you sharing this anecdote some time back in another thread.

About the fact that these people have been comfortable expressing racist attitudes in your presence: I'm sure you're familiar with the whole "model minority" thing, so I won't rehash it here, but I do have a couple of ideas as to what might be going in the kinds of situations you describe. (Actually, you probably know where I'm about to go with this, but I'll share it, nonetheless, for the sake of the uninitiated.)

The late Richard Pryor used to tell a "joke" wherein (and I'm paraphrasing here, so any Doper who knows it better is welcome to correct me) he stated that the only criterion for people emigrating from other countries to America was the ability to say the word "nigger." And this is what I think is going on here.

You see, these folks know (or, rather, believe) that immigrants' desire to fit in equals a desire to be just like white people, and all that comes with that, including, in "x" amount of cases, racism towards people who aren't white. Now, I won't deny that this is, in fact, true of "x" number of immigrants, but I certainly don't think it's true across the board. Also, people do bring their own homegrown ideas with them when they come here, and not all of those ideas are good ones with regard to race, irrespective of any cues they might pick up from American society. So, it seems to me, then, that it's not a stretch for the people you mention to imagine that you're just like them (within certain limits, of course) and, therefore, harbor as much animosity towards blacks and Hispanics as they do.

The other thing is that these folks are likely aware of the very real tensions that exist between communities of color in this country. I don't think, for instance, that one has to be from the ghetto to be aware of the tensions that exist between the black residents and the Asians who set up shop in those areas. Furthermore, these people could very well have come into contact with Asians who, unfortunately, seeking to curry favor with whites, has related tales of woe or expressed a shared disdain for blacks and Hispanics. And, of course, these folks extrapolate from that that you, as an Asian, despise blacks and Hispanics as much as they do.

At any rate, I know that it has to be an extremely uncomfortable position for you. Since I exist within several communities, I get to hear all kinds of uncool shit from time to time. Of course, since I am identifiably black to the naked eye, no one says anything racist towards blacks in my presence, but I've had people say shit about Jews and gays in cases where the offenders have just met me and weren't aware that I belong also to those communities. Yep, never bored.

And though I'm not in these people's heads (the ones that you mention), I can pretty much assure you that, for the most part, if they're saying uncool shit about blacks and Hispanics in your presence, then they're saying uncool shit about Asians when you're not around.

While I might not believe that people like the ones in your anecdote wake up every day and consciously say to themselves, "Let's see, how can I keep the black man down today?" I do think that, if they harbor a disdain for people of color, then that disdain will manifest itself wherever it can. Hell, I wouldn't want any of these people to have the power to hire or fire me.