I think the Harvard Jewish quota was a racist policy and Ibram Kendi’s definitions are bad ones that do not match what most people understand as racism.
Here’s Ibram Kendi’s own stance on college admissions:
And I’ll note that from your own source, it appears there never WAS a quota - it was considered briefly, and then they put together a panel that seemed pretty “woke” to me. They rejected a quota but instead studied why the percentage of Jews was growing so much, and determined it was because local kids going to high end schools, many of whom but not all were Jewish, were being heavily prepared for the entrance exam. They decided this was undesirable because a wider array of students would be better (again, pretty woke) and so started taking in the top students from around the country.
Was Harvard’s policy of basing admittance on an entrance exam that heavily favored local kids who were heavily white and Jewish “problematic”? (Let’s avoid the baggage of the term “racist”). Was it a good thing for the school that it was full of people from right nearby who all had similar upbringing and beliefs? Was it good for those students to remain isolated like that, or would they have benefited more from expanding their horizons?
Okay, since you went first.
I’ll agree that it was a racist policy, but it was the early 20th century. I’m not sure that there were any policies at the time that were not racist. They not only limited the number of Jewish people that they would admit, they also limited the number of black people that they would admit to 0.
And I think that you have a very poor understanding of Kendi’s definition of anti-racism.
Thank you for answering.
That makes the motivation even clearer. I say it was a racist policy because it was motivated by antisemitism, and did indeed have a detrimental effect on Jews as a group.
I’m going by the definitions in the article LHoD linked to.
They’re pretty straightforward. What do you think I’ve got wrong?
Are you saying a quota WAS instituted? By my reading it wasn’t:
So there was no quota – instead they got rid of the entrance exam and took the top students from each geographic region instead.
If you think that Kendi would agree with Harvard’s considered (not implemented) Jewish quota as an anti-racist policy, then you have it very, very wrong.
I’m not inside your head, so I can’t tell you exactly where you went wrong, but between that article to your conclusions, you took an offramp somewhere.
This is why I’m not particularly interested in engaging here. She’s not seeking to understand, she’s seeking to prop up her preconceived notion that anti-racists are dummies. To do that, she’s coming up with a ridiculous interpretation of one author and demanding that other people defend her ridiculous interpretation of anti-racism.
When someone is so uncharitable in their reading of others, engagement with them is not productive.
From the cite:
There is no way a person can in good faith interpret an attempt to keep white Christians as the majority at Harvard as an attempt to increase racial equity. This is not a question raised in good faith.
I think one of the problems is that we turned racist into cartoon characters over the years. The image of a racist was someone who was uneducated, often with a southern accent, likely lives in a rural area, and is politically conservative. When you have a particular image in your mind of what a racist is it’s very easy to tell yourself, “no, that’s not me.”
Well, maybe you’re right. The policy didn’t lead to racial equity because black students were still banned. But the point I am trying to make is that racial inequity is not always due to racism. Jewish students were drastically over represented at Harvard despite, not because of, the prevailing antisemitism. Yet by a plain reading of Kendi’s theory, this is racism and allowing it to continue is racist policy.
To me that seems grotesque and a clear sign that Kendi’s definitions are wrong. We should not be trying to enforce racial equity, any more than we should be trying to enforce individual equity. People are different, are interested in different things, and have different priorities. So too with different cultures. Some might say that’s a strength. We need to eliminate racial prejudice and actual racist policies as far as possible and ensure everyone has the opportunity to excel, and that everyone has a decent life; we don’t need everyone to have an identical outcome.
To anyone who has read his book, is this review accurate?
Because the description of a constitutional amendment and Department of Anti-racism sounds pretty crazy. Not so much the concepts themselves but his idea of what they would attempt to enforce.
I don’t want to just judge from a review though, which is why I’d like to know if it’s a fair description.
That’s unfair. I read the essay, and I think the premises are wrong and lead to some very disturbing conclusions. I’m trying to illustrate that. And I’ve given some examples where racial inequity was not due to racism, contrary to what Kendi says. Do you think I’m wrong about those examples? Or that it doesn’t matter if his theory is based on wrong assumptions? Cause I think it does.
I think that Kendi is looking at this issue through the wrong end of the telescope. Undoubtedly there are inequities in society when it comes to racial and socio-economic issues. But I don’t think that disadvantaging high achievers from entry into prestigious institutions is an effective way to strike a correct balance in achieving ethno-social representation in a given school - if that should indeed be the goal. Perhaps too much emphasis is put on entry exam scores (ACT, SAT, etc…), but that’s a different problem. Now, I think Kendi would agree that the way to cure this issue is to start at the beginning of a student’s life, not at it’s apex. So resources and efforts must be focused on making sure poor communities get the kind of funding that improves educational outcomes for students from a very young age, including early childhood care, nutrition, after school programs, the lot. Doing so will not be immediately rewarding but I think will yield the desired results and avoid unintended harm to qualified students entry now.
Or that your “plain reading” is grotesquely wrong.
Have you even considered the possibility?
I think that you have chosen your conclusions, and worked your way backwards from there.
With that, I really don’t see any productive value to engaging you any further on this.
Yeah–this is my take, and I suspect you’re right that this isn’t where Kendi puts the emphasis. We know that racist social policy is harmful and creates trauma–the Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale (ACES) is a common measure of these traumas and others. And we know that childhood trauma can have a huge negative effect on academic success. But we sometimes end up not making the next step, realizing that a lot of the racial disparities we see in schools are due to what’s happening outside of schools, and that if we’re going to fix these disparities, we can’t do so by simply having a better curriculum. Curricular improvements etc. are a necessary but not sufficient fix.
Kendi’s perspective is robust and important, but it’s not ex cathedra. The work of dismantling racism requires folks to be in good-faith conversation, even when there’s disagreements.
The problem is, is that to start at the beginning of a student’s life is to start with the parents.
If the parents are never given any breaks or ways out of the cycle of poverty that they were born into, then they will not be of great use for doing the same for their children.
You are looking at a housefire, and saying that the cure is better electrical codes.
If we are to continue using analogies, I would argue that the house is not on fire. It’s not up to code and it’s a fire hazard and we should do everything we can to help the family, parents and children, to reduce the risk of it catching fire and thus leaving them homeless in the future.
Analogies aside, reality is such that we cannot go back in time and give the parents the kind of education and advantages they never had. But we must not miss the opportunity to do so for their children. As is often said, let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
In the article quoted by @Babale, Kendi appears to put emphasis precisely where it doesn’t belong. He argues that the courts got it wrong when they dismantled Affirmative Action programs in schools. He goes on to make another poor analogy to Roe v. Wade and says society must put as much emphasis on AA as it does on abortion rights. These are different problems that require different solutions and conflating them shows a lack of rigor in his argument.
You didn’t say so, but I just want to be clear that I quoted the article because some seemed to think the only way to discuss Kendi and college admissions was to discuss a proposed policy from a century ago that was apparently never implemented (I’m still waiting on your clarification @DemonTree) so I figured his own words might help.
That’s fair enough. I’m just taking Kendi’s argument about AA at face value and in his own words, without the aditional context about whether or not Harvard successfully followed through with anti-semitic policies.