I have noticed on many many instances that asians are not considered minority in terms of perferred racial treatment. For instance, minority scholarships will often contain the words “open to blacks, hispanic, and native american”.
Why is it that many colleges/institutions ignore asians as part of being “minority”.
This link is just one of many instances where asians are not defined by a college as being under priviledged and thus does not deserve special treatment as blacks and hispanics normally get.
One would think, asians are excluded as minority in the admissions process because they traditionally have “high scores” equal to or if not better than the white students so thus special treatment isn’t needed. But if that is the case, then the whole argument stating that the minority admissions process is to ensure diversity in schools and the workplace is flawed. If it is to ensure diversity, then asians should be part of the list, but they, in essence ignore asians, which means they believe blacks and hispanics are “non-intelligent” and need the help and simply use the term “diversity” as a euphemism.
I think if this is the case, they should revaluate the argument “promote diversity” to “promote people we think are not so smart”…of course they don’t do that and I could and am probably wrong…
So then, why are asians left out as being “minority” in most college and hiring institutions as well as scholarships and benefits?
I am going to guess that the critical difference in the minds of the persons creating these guidelines is that while asians are a minority they are not an “oppressed minority”.
I say this in quotes because I’m not qualified to decide who is an oppressed minority, and I really wouldn’t want to see that debate anywhere besides “Great Debates” or “The Pit”.
I think that IS the idea. Women aren’t a minority either, after all. If the idea is that the scholarships and programs are helping disadvantaged groups- well, that’s something Asians aren’t so much these days.
It’s not admitting stupid people, and your assumption is incorrect.
Actually, the wording used in these policies is usually “underrepresented minority”, rather than “opressed”. This allows for a purely mechanical classifications of various races, since it is easy to tell whether a given group is present in a lower ratio than would be expected (or desired). If Asians are not included in this class, the presumption is that they must not be underrepresented. No speculation into anyone’s beliefs about various races is necessary.
Right. And I meant to add that since not all colleges/organizations/whatever exclude Asians in this way, it’s probably pointless to make some of the assumptions in the OP.
But the term used to answer the question on why race is used in determining admissions, is simply “to ensure racial and cultural diversity” which has nothing to do with “opressed” or helping out traditionally disadvantaged people.
If the Asians have such high test scores they are going to get in anyway, right? So as far as promoting diversity goes, you’re going to get all the Asians you need without favouring them on the grounds of race in the admissions process. So if your objective is to promote diversity you don’t need to favour Asians in the admissions process. So you don’t.
Although many Asian groups have done quite well in the US (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese), I wonder where Filipinos fall in the socio-economic scale.
I think many people may not agree that Israel is in Asia. The definition of Asia shifts, as do all other such terms.
Minority status is in the eye of the program. Some doctoral programs are likely having a harder time getting males. I wouldn’t be surprised if they might eventually, if not already, have affirmative action for these programs that include males. I know some government offices have actually done this, at least a head at US GAO told me this once.
Were you not aware that Israel is in Asia?!?!