Full time = full ride. Sorry.
Also, Disadvantaged Asians? Also hahaha. I had so many Asian friends in college, we once calculated they were at something like 300% disproportionate representation relative to overall population rate.
I was once part of a sting operation against a landlord. I walked into the rental office and asked about units. I was told they had some open.
A black co-worker of mine (preparing a lawsuit) walked in on the same day, and was told all the units were occupied.
You want to tell me where in the U.S. this does not happen?
Yep. FHA violations continue unabated to this day. Not with every landlord everywhere, but it’s far from uncommon.
As for the shopping thing, I’ve presented plenty of evidence that it is a common occurrence. It doesn’t happen every day for every black person in every store, but it’s common enough that it is something they legitimately have to be concerned about. Unlike for white people. Which is the point.
True. But poor white people have an easier time finding places that will take them (despite the law, people still refuse to show black people units) and a harder time getting mortgages or loans than white people of the same economic standing. This is a real problem, which helped lead to and maintain ghettoization.
And how often will your neighbors be dicks to you because you’re white?
You can’t figure out how being constantly considered suspect might influence your mental well-being? Really?
Because the media influences how we see the world in many subtle and unsubtle ways. If the only times you see people like you is as token stereotypes, shoehorned into specific roles, and then only rarely, how does that affect how you see yourself? Or how others see you? What you aspire to? I’m reminded of what Neil DeGrasse Tyson had to say on the subject:
“When I look at, throughout my life—I’ve known that I wanted to do astrophysics since I was nine years old, my first visit to the Hayden planetarium. . . . So I got to see how the world around me reacted to my expression of these ambitions. And all I can say is, the fact that I wanted to be a scientist and astrophysicist was, hands down, the path of most resistance through the forces of society.
“Any time I expressed this interest teachers would say, “Don’t you want to be an athlete?” I looked to become something that was outside the paradigms of expectation of the people in power. Fortunately, my depth of interest was so deep, and so fuel-enriched, that every one of these curveballs I was thrown, and fences built in front of me, and hills that I had to climb, I just reached for more fuel and I kept going.
[…]
So, my life experience tells me that when you don’t find blacks in the sciences, when you don’t find women in the sciences, I know that these forces are real, and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today.
The marginalization of black influences in American history is well established. You don’t understand the complaint here.
I think they’d feel a little less alienated, a little less othered.
Each of these individual things may seem small. Some of them are, some of them aren’t. But they add up.
Okay, so why are outcomes for African-Americans so dismal, generation after generation?
None that I’m aware of, but I didn’t ask every single friend I had what country they were from. The ones I was closest to were born in the US, Chinese-American and Indian-American primarily. But we had a ton of international students as well.
This is why I’m saying people are talking about the Michigan system without understanding it. If some poor Hmongese (?) kid had applied to Michigan, he would get diversity points up the wazoo. It was not a simple matter of ‘‘Asian? Sorry, not a minority.’’ ‘‘White? Sorry, not a minority.’’ The concept of diversity was applied very broadly.
I’m talking about Asian-Americans. And it’s just Hmong, not Hmongese. And I don’t think you get my point - only some subset of Asian-Americans would be disproportionately represented, and there is a subset that have yet to see that supposed benefit. So you can’t really say absolute Asian-American privilege exists for colleges.
Too often. I don’t care to quantify it, but it’s happened to me many times, and it’s a familiar enough experience among other people who look like me.
You’re missing an important distinction. It’s not about triviality or measuring obstacles, the way you’re attempting (this is a discussion of privilege). I’ve been followed though stores, both when I was young with less, and later in life, now older and better-off. The amount of work I did to get here (“success”) doesn’t trivialize the experience of being followed at either point in time, because it’s a matter dignity, not merely a measure of tallest obstacles. In a twisted way, that slap to your self-respect is an equalizer, which is why so many people can relate to it.
If you want to navigate the nuances of experiences like that, you have to understand them in context, as well as the fact that they exist among a combination of layers, issues and experiences. I was fortunate enough that each would often lead to discussions I’d later have with my parents -which to be clear- weren’t trivial conversations. Being followed in a store was only a few squares away from being followed by the police, aka The Talk. Many individuals don’t have the option of hand-waving these experiences away, much less mechanisms to offer them scope and perspective. It’s less trivial than you think it is, which is why this is a discussion of privilege.
I don’t think I would argue that absolute Asian-American privilege exists for colleges. I would argue that Asian-American disadvantage probably doesn’t exist, but if you are arguing that it does for some specific subset of Asian-Americans I’d be open to learning more.
Frankly I have always viewed affirmative action policies as a knee-jerk bandaid solution to a pervasive, deep problem that nobody really wants to deal with. I’ve worked in urban areas were the educational environment was… sub-par, to say the least, but nobody really wants to deal with the root causes of these disadvantages. It is costly and inconvenient. So let’s just stick a quota on college admissions and call it good.
There was no quota at U of M. I think they had one of the better ways of going about it, because they didn’t assume de-facto white person A had more privilege than person of color B. They at least looked at the entire background picture. Each applicant would have some allotment of diversity points. Points for being poor. Points for being a person of color. Points for having a disabled grandmother. One of the major aspects of the college admissions essay was to talk about your experience with some diverse thing, so if you had any unusual experiences to speak to, you’d put it in the admissions essay. So I was a poor (points) white (no points) female (points) with a ton of gay friends (points) and a legally emancipated minor (points.) The amount of diversity points alloted to me would be greater than say, a middle class suburban black kid. So some people got more points than others in these areas, but the points were a relatively small subset of the overall admissions score, which was largely based on things like grades, SAT scores, etc.
I just think, if you are explicitly going to argue against University of Michigan’s admission policy, you should demonstrate that you understand it better than adaher did.
To add: As I understand it, and I may be mistaken, being Asian was not considered grounds for points. I’m basing that on my Chinese-American friend’s assertion that ‘‘Asians don’t count as a minority because we’re overrepresented on campus.’’
However, that doesn’t mean an Asian applicant with a ton of other obstacles wouldn’t achieve more points than someone from a ‘‘traditional’’ minority group with fewer such obstacles. In this system, you would get more points for being poor and black than being poor and Asian, but a poor Asian would get as many points as a middle class black person. I think.
I’m not arguing that this system is flawless, only that it’s probably one of the more reasonable implementations of affirmative action, which is somewhat ironic considering it was U of M that some underperforming white girl decided to sue all the way to the Supreme Court. I can’t speak to admissions today, but at the time I applied, it was a very competitive school. Black or white, you weren’t gaining admission if you had mediocre grades. By the same token, if you were a white kid who completely kicked ass academically, there was a very low chance of being turned down in favor of an underperforming minority. That whole conceptualization is largely a myth based on ignorance about how admissions decisions are made.
There may be a slight advantage in what places you are shown but there is no place in America where blacks can’t live if they want to. That was the claim.
Who cares why they are dicks to you?
Kind of like how white people are weighed down by the burden of constantly being accused of having white privilege and that is why Asians are doing so much better than white people?
Tyson is such a hero because he overcame his teachers asking him if he wanted to be an athlete because he has black. Maybe his teachers were influenced by the fact he was the captain of the wrestling team. Maybe he was less influenced by the media than the example of his scientist mother and scientist father.
If role models are so important, how come there aren’t more black golfers in the PGA tour since Tiger Woods got famous, or Mexican golfers because of Trevino?
Indian Americans are the highest earning ethnic group in the US, is that all because of Ben Kingsley? Did the Cosby show result in a huge surge of black obsetricians?
Most history is a study of politics and black people were excluded from that for the first several hundred years of our country. So black people are in history less. So many schools shoehorn people like George Washington Carver into the curriculum.
Black teenagers already have the highest self esteem of any teenagers. Asian teenagers seem to do okay in math despite the dearth of asian names in word problem.
Life is pain, anyone who says differently is selling something. If having to deal with trivialities such as not having your race be represented in the media is all that happens, then that is a great life
If you look back at the history of the civil rights movement, it is amazing what black americans achieved so quickly despite the overwhelming obstacles they faced. In 1940 the black poverty rate was 87% and fell to 31% despite massive opposition and discrimination. Since then it has fallen about 5%. As the obstacles get smaller why has the progress been slower?
Part of the answer is the culture of victimization. From of psychological point of view having an internal locus of control is one of the most important things a person can have in order to be happy and successful. Yet black people are constantly being told that the system is rigged and nothing they can do will make a difference. Why study hard if your teachers are racist and the education system is designed to send you to prison. Why work hard at self improvement if every cop wants to kill you for no reason, you are excluded from the best housing, and no one will hire you because of your race. If you constantly call the game rigged, it should be no surprise that people refuse to play.
The relevant population is not the overall population but the number of qualified college applicants. At the time of the court case Michigan law school students who were underrepresented minorities got an extra 20 points toward admission out of 150 possible points.
You’re assuming everyone else who applied received zero points. As I’ve already explained, that’s not the case.
This is wrong:
https://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/archivedocs/uapolicy.html
So being a middle class suburban black kid gets you the maximum possible points.
The argument that there are more whites in poverty than blacks is inaccurate when you look at it as a demographic percentage. There are almost three times as many black people who live in poverty than whites, and nearly HALF of young black children:
So does being a poor white kid. Or a poor Asian kid. Adaher’s contention that socioeconomic status was not considered is still clearly wrong.
This isn’t how I remember it, but there’s a section about flagging applications “at the Provost’s discretion” which lists a number of circumstances that might warrant preference in admissions, including “unusual life circumstances.” That might be what I’m remembering.
It looks like I got 20 points for being poor and 10 for being from Michigan. I’m a bad case study for “underqualified” kids getting in, though, because with my academic performance alone, I was probably in the top 10% of applicants. I was going to college wherever I wanted to, poor or not.
In fact, smart poor kids have it made. All the scholarships and student aid were set aside for us. It’s the middle class “good students” who always seemed to get the shaft, because they had to declare their parents income on the FAFSA whether they were getting help or not.
Depends when he is talking about. When the original law suit was filed white and Asian applicants were compared against a different chart than Black and Hispanic applicants were. AFAIK under that there were no points specifically for socioeconomic status (there were some available for geography). U of M changed that a few years after the original lawsuit was filed to the 20 points system I quoted earlier. Even then, I’ve seen no indication that being a poor white kid gets you 20 points. Do you have any cite saying that?
Your cite says that:
Good question. You clearly don’t. But then again, you haven’t had to live with the stigma of racism your whole life, so I’m not sure why you would.