And you know this was because of his Spanish sounding name because?
Were you on the admissions review panel?
Did you see the scores/evaluation on factors other than SAT and grades?
I only know what he told me himself. He said he
I only know what he told me himself. He felt uncomfortable being invited to events for Hispanic students despite never claiming he was Hispanic .
My point is that race and ethnicity-based based AA is a blunt instrument. Seeking diversity based on things such as whether a language other than English was spoken at home is a better criteria for preference than self-identified culture or surname. I hate to quote conservative sites, but this from reason.com is interesting:
“Neither Harvard nor UNC has explained why a white Catholic of Spanish descent, classified as Hispanic, gets an admissions preference for contributing to educational diversity, but a dark-skinned Muslim of Arab descent, an Egyptian Copt, a Hungarian Roma, a Bosnian refugee, a Scandinavian Laplander, a Siberian Tatar, or a Bobover Hasid—all classified as “white”—do not. Similarly, it is hard to see how diversity is better accomplished by admitting an additional “Hispanic” student of Mexican ancestry over an equally or better qualified student whose parents immigrated from Turkmenistan, who would be the only Turkman in the entire student body, because the Turkman is arbitrarily classified as “white.”…”
Fyi, i do alumni interviews for Harvard, and i talk every year with a member of the admissions committee, and I’ve interviewed a lot of applicants. I have an excellent understanding of what they claim the process is, and i have a decent idea of what they might be doing that they aren’t admitting to. And “admitting mediocre candidates with a Spanish surname” really isn’t on the list.
Also, they absolutely aren’t looking for the highest grades. They are looking for grades that are good enough, and some excellent characteristic.
Also, I’m pretty sure they would consider a Bosnian refuge or a Laplander to increase the diversity of the class.
In other words you have absolutely no evidence that his race or ethnicity was a factor in his admission.
What he actually knows is that the guy got invited to Hispanic student events. I got invited to Jewish student events that i wasn’t comfortable going to. I’m certain i wasn’t admitted to Harvard because I’m a Jew.
(I am a Jew, but the Jewish student groups were way more Orthodox-leaning than groups i wanted to hang out with. )
How could there be evidence any more than any particular asian student can say that he was the student that wasn’t admitted in an attempt to maintain diversity.
I’m not sure why my point about using better criteria for preference than race and ethnicity is so controversial.
Better than what? What you claim is happening without evidence?
Here is how Harvard describes its diversity on its admissions page. Nothing about Laplanders, or people with diverse views on hot topics such as abortion, trans rights, etc. Institutions want to report statistics that look good in order to continue to get government grants and avoid controversy.
Missing a link?
I find it plausible enough (there is also documented evidence) that instituting, or striking down, Affirmative Action has always been for the benefit of a certain privileged group that does not particularly care about, or care for, Asians, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Bosnians, Samoans or combinations of the above, but this is not really news.
Another vote this is pure nonsense.
If you define “opportunity” as “the opportunity to fill out an application” then yes, I’d expect equal outcomes along racial lines.
But if “opportunity” really means “opportunity to have grown up in a two-parent household with good to excellent schools and lots of enrichment and mental stimulation, many positive success role models, etc., etc., etc,” well then we get a different answer. Namely that our society offers nothing near equal opportunity by that more wholistic definition of “opportunity” = “opportunity to have been competing on an equal footing since birth”.
Now race may not be the ideal defining characteristic by which to judge this more holistic “opportunity”. Correlation is not causation, etc. But there is correlation.
The Economist has their take on this whole thing. In their view, first off we make all forms of legacy admissions illegal. The admission slots freed up by stopping that anti-meritocratic skullduggery would go a long way to providing enough places for folks of all backgrounds properly evaluated solely on individual attained merit.
Which still doesn’t fix the problem that, statistically speaking, unequal opportunity is guaranteeed to produces unequal outcomes. But at least we’re not trying to solve this problem with some huge fraction of our potential efforts reserved for preserving the long-standing unequal status quo, rather than overturning it.
I’m sorry, but what you have just described borders on the incoherent to me, as it seems to me I could read it as either (a) recognizing the 14th amendments shortcomings as it has been neutered by conservative justices for not considering the impact of racism as an explanation for why so many people in the US are unequal at birth with correlations along racial lines, or (b) an appeal to scientific racism.
…which are generally conflicting views in my experience. Assuming you are going with something closer to (a), then I believe you have just restated the problem as I see it.
As for The Economist, I have some thoughts on that proposition, which I may share if I have time to sift through a couple sources that might, if shared, help to clarify the reason for my position.
To clarify … My take is purely (a) with zero space for (b).
It’s only by applying very strong blinders to a big piece of the puzzle that one can, as the conservative justices are doing, claim otherwise. One can justify nearly any horror if one chooses a contorted enough POV and a small enough field of view.
Note I’m not suggesting you, @ASL_v2.0, are doing that. I am suggesting many RW commentators, judges, and justices are.
yeah, no shit. This is about helping white men.
They can’t. That’s why the suit is about averages and process.
Because you are mis-stating the criteria that you think should be improved upon.
I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with in ASL’s post - you seem to both be arguing the same point.
And I eventually came to grasp that, and did soften my reply somewhat as I did. One thing I would just emphasize–and perhaps this is something you would identify with in light of your reference to The Economist article–is that it is very frustrating to have to have this conversation at all. I don’t remember if it was on this board or another board (so forgive me if I’m repeating myself), but I hate that this tug of war over who gets into elite institutions like Harvard, or even just “pretty good” institutions like UNC, takes up so much space in civil rights discourse. I mean, as someone who has never been to Harvard, never applied to Harvard, never even had the slightest inclination to go there, I hate that I have at times found myself getting drawn into a debate that is, essentially, about who among the already relatively privileged gets to stay or become more privileged. That’s what is really at issue here for the vast majority of applicants (the ones with a realistic prospect of admission, anyway, with or without affirmative action) to a place like Harvard: if you find yourself fighting over a spot to Harvard, frankly, you’re probably going to do well enough regardless.
There are soooo many deeper, more foundational flaws in our society. This isn’t to say that I don’t support giving preference to underrepresented minorities in college admissions (I do support affirmative action, albeit I wish it could be on grounds of remedying past wrongs, not flimsy assertions of “diversity”), only that I wish the news media didn’t cover it so extensively relative to those deeper, more foundational flaws that affect far more, and in general far less privileged, people than the narrow set of individuals with a chance to get into Harvard or even their state’s flagship university.
@Miller two above …
Perhaps we’re talking about a triangle and ASL is talking about how sides A and B determine side C while I’m arguing that B and C determine A. We agree about the shape of the triangle, but not the why. Or something - its a pretty stretched metaphor.
Just now reading @ASL_v2.0 's post just above we’re in more agreement than I’d first thought.
And yes, having society arguing about Harvard admissions which are way, way, way downstream tiny-elite-minority symptoms of much deeper near-universal problems is flat nuts while society carefully insists on not seeing (much less addressing) much if any of the upstream iceberg.
There’s an elephant in our room and society is discussing which breed of flea fell from the elephant’s left front fetlock.
Well, it happened:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/29/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court
Whew. I’m so glad institutional racism is completely gone now.