The model minority myth is foundational to the way many Americans see race in this country. The model minority myth postulates that Asians (broadly defined) are all doing wonderfully here in the US. Many people believe that Asians are more intelligent and have a better work ethic. People who believe in this myth cite stats showing a high level of education, high median family incomes, and a large number of Asian Americans in the most prestigious schools. In this post, I want to talk about just a few reasons why the model minority myth misrepresents the experiences of Asian Americans.
Not all of the statistics of Asian Americans paint a rosy picture. This is not to diminish the accomplishments of Asian Americans, but it is important to understand that statistics can be used selectively. By only citing the statistics where Asians do well, we miss the bigger picture. One of the biggest problems with how Asians are viewed is the tendency to lump all Asian ethnic groups together. When groups are subdivided a more complex portrait of Asian Americans emerges.
Asian Americans and Poverty
It may surprise many model minority proponents to know that Asian Americans have higher poverty rates than whites. Census poverty statistics for 2000 indicate that 9% of whites live in poverty, 24% of blacks live in poverty, 11% of native born (NB) Asian Americans live in poverty, and 13% of foreign born (FB) Asians live in poverty ((Sakamoto, Arthur and Yu Xie. 2006. “The Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans.” PP 54-67 in Pyong Min Gap (ed.) Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.)). The poverty rate for various sub-groups within the category Asian also varies. For example, Filipinos have lower poverty rates among both the native born (7%) and the foreign born (6%). Japanese Americans (NB=5%, FB=16%) have lower poverty rates than whites if the are native born and higher if they are foreign born. How do other groups fair:
- Chinese (NB=11, FB=14%)
- Koreans (NB=12%, FB=15%)
- Asian Indians (NB=10%, FB=10%)
- Vietnamese (NB=18%, FB=15%)
In their analysis Sakamoto and Xie (2006) create a category “Other Asians” which includes all groups not mentioned above such as Hmong, Laotian, Cambodians, Indonesians, and some others. Collectively, these groups have very high poverty rates NB=26% and FB=22%, which puts their poverty rates at the same level as African Americans. So the overall lesson here is that poverty is slightly higher for Asians than it is for whites, and poverty levels vary dramatically among Asian subgroups.
Asian Americans and High School Completion
While Asian Americans as a collective are overrepresented among the highly educated, many are also overrepresented in among those who do not complete high school. In 2000 87% of whites and 77% of blacks in the 25-64 year old range had completed high school. For Asians, however, the numbers are complex. Among the native born the overall number is 93% and among the foreign born it is 82% (Sakamoto and Xie 2006). Native born Asians tend to do better than whites and foreign born Asians tend to do worse. Once again there is great variation among the various Asian subgroups that follows a somewhat similar pattern to the one above–Japanese, Filipinos, Indians, and Koreans do relatively well (They are all 89% or higher for both foreign and native born.). Chinese (NB=96%, FB=80%) are in the middle, and Vietnamese (NB=74% and FB=65%) and “other” Asians (NB=81, FB=67%) do poorly.
Conclusion
I have not taken the time to examine labor force statistics or higher education statistics in this particular post, but they do have some some similar patterns. I think it is important to understand the complexities of the experiences of Asian Americans outside the model minority stereotype, while many Asians are doing fairly well economically, thanks to immigration policies that recruited highly skilled workers from the east. Others are not doing so well. Several Asian subgroups like Hmong, Laotians, or Vietnamese consistently have poverty and drop out rates that are on par with or higher than African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. These groups often came as refugees rather than skilled workers. Moreover, the poverty rates tend to be higher than whites for most Asian subgroups. There are no doubt an Asian American working class and an underclass, which we very rarely hear about. (This post will also connect with the second immigration series post.)
This is part of the reason I argued for affirmative action in higher education for Asian Americans. Beyond the fact that I think schools should promote diversity, I also think a good case can be made that many Asian American subgroups are underrepresented in higher education.
I also think a good case can be made that many Asian American subgroups are underrepresented in higher education.
Well, perhaps we should divide them up further and add more racial preferences. Because there’s nothing that builds a healthy society like dividing people into groups!
Rachel,
Thanks so much for highlighting some of the research dispelling the myth. I think another thing to consider is the histories of the different Asian ethnicities. Before the ’60s many of the Asian communities saw their struggle as part of the minority struggle, identified and supported the Civil Rights Movement. Why? Because they were just as ostracized.
However, in the ’60s the immigration laws where changed to allow folks from China, Korea and Asian Indians to come to the US. No one considers the fact that the vast majority of the folks who moved here from these countries were selectively highly educated and already well off (For example, a lot of the folks who came from China came from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Beijing whle the folks who came from India came from communities that had benefitted from Indias drive for free education). The result is that you have different sets of histories from within Asian ethnicities. Not to say that Asians did not face discrimination at all but the level of access to societal resources was very different than pre-1960. Additionally, I suspect (and I hope that the way I state it makes sense) that post 1960 Asian families have had to embrace the model minority myth not necessarily because of beliefs in “intrinsically successful values” but because of understanding that without education (in specific professional areas such as Business Admin, Engineering, Law and Medicine) they and their children will face life-stopping discrimination and will not be able to live a stable and comfortable life. I’ve noted many of these similarities between conversations I’ve had with my friends and I, who are members of minority groups (Asian Indian, Chinese, Korean and myself – the Nigerian). There’s more to this than I can write (or state clearly) right now, but I’ll come back to it later.
GREAT POST!!!!
Robert said, “Because there’s nothing that builds a healthy society like dividing people into groups! ”
I didn’t divide people into groups. They are already divided into groups. The typical Chinese immigrant doesn’t seem himself or herself as Asian; we impose that on them in this country. The social construct “Asian American” is relatively recent, and is most popular with second or more generation immigrants. I’m not opposed to unified “Asian American,” “European American,” and “African American” labels, but acting like everybody under the umbrella is the same is ridiculous.
Moreover, I can’t imagine that you would make such a statement about gender. Typical neocon rhetoric–On race: “we all alike on race, so racism doesn’t exist” On gender: “Men and women really are different, and it’s in our genes.”
Sewere,
I think the biggest factor shaping immigrant variation in this category is immigration policy. Most of the well to do groups came here as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965, which gave preferences to “highly skilled workers from the eastern hemisphere.” The poorer groups also came here because of this act, but the came under the provision that targeted refugees. So Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese largely came here escaping poverty and political regimes that the US did not support.
I’m not sure exactly when the model minority myth started, but I suspect it didn’t start until after the 1960s. Moreover, due to very racist immigration policies that targeted Asians, very few Asians came to the US between the 1880s and the 1960s. Most of the Asians living in the US during the 1940s-1960s had families who had been here for generations.
acting like everybody under the umbrella is the same is ridiculous.
I agree. Racial categorization is inherently ridiculous.
Typical neocon rhetoric–On race: “we all alike on race, so racism doesn’t exist” On gender: “Men and women really are different, and it’s in our genes.”
“Neocon”? Isn’t that like, two years ago?
I don’t say that we are all alike on race, or that racism doesn’t exist. And I know that you know I don’t say that. So this would seem to be an obvious strawman on your part.
As for men and women having differences, and the locus of at least some of those differences in our respective genetic makeups, I wasn’t aware that those were controversial questions. I was under the impression that informed inquiry was in the areas of the natures, extent, and magnitude of the differences.
It seems, then that dividing people up into smaller and smaller and more specific racial groups is counterproductive. Perhaps a solution that’s easier to implement and that gets closer to the actual problem is to provide preferences for services (especially educational ones) based purely on income. As a racial group is overrepresented in the lower income brackets, they will benefit in a greater fashion from such preferences. If they are not, then it seems to me that they don’t need those benefits. In such a case, we don’t have to worry about the distinctions among the different Asian ethnic groups (or the different Latin American ethnic groups, such as Puerto Ricans vs. Mexicans vs. Dominicans).
Additionally, I suspect (and I hope that the way I state it makes sense) that post 1960 Asian families have had to embrace the model minority myth not necessarily because of beliefs in “intrinsically successful values” but because of understanding that without education (in specific professional areas such as Business Admin, Engineering, Law and Medicine) they and their children will face life-stopping discrimination and will not be able to live a stable and comfortable life.
Without education just about anybody will have problems living a stable and comfortable life. Maybe it’s not so much embracing a model minority myth as it is embracing the clearly delineated path to success in the U.S. – get a good education, use it, and you’ll do a lot better than those who don’t. Respect for education is something that exists in Asian cultures in Asia, it isn’t something that they just came up with when they came to America.
Perhaps a solution that’s easier to implement and that gets closer to the actual problem is to provide preferences for services (especially educational ones) based purely on income.
That’d be fine with me, and with most conservatives of my acquaintance. It isn’t counterproductive or wrong to help someone pick themselves up and improve their prospects in life.
And frankly, it’s more cost efficient to society in the long run.
Robert, these are not racial groups; they are ethnic groups. The logical end to what you are saying is to completely wipe out all cultures and nations, and have a big one world government where we all have the same culture. Human variation is not the problem–what with do with our variation is the real problem.
The logical end to what you are saying is to completely wipe out all cultures and nations, and have a big one world government where we all have the same culture.
We’re probably headed in that direction thanks to technology, though I hope without the one world government. But there will always be strong ethno-cultural flavors.
Where does this follow from anything I’ve written, though? Not giving the children of black stockbrokers extra points at Yale = ushering in the Total Uniculture State? Huh?
Because you insinuated that I was dividing up these Asian subgroups and creating races out of them.
My point was that just because Robert think all Asians think of themselves as a unified group doesn’t mean that the groups see themselves in that way. We don’t impose this idea on European ethnic groups, so why do it on Asian, African, or Aboriginal American ethnic groups.
We don’t impose this idea on European ethnic groups, so why do it on Asian, African, or Aboriginal American ethnic groups.
Does the word “white” ring a bell?
For all Asian-Americans, or only for those from groups like the Hmong and Vietnamese?
I’ve heard it argued that the model minority myth is merely a positive gloss on some very negative stereotypes about Asians that date from the 19th century. In the 19th century, labor unions argued for Chinese exclusion because, they said, Chinese people could undercut the wages of white men because they were willing to work super hard for very little money. That’s because they were barely human and not subject to ordinary human needs: they were willing to work harder and put up with worse living standards than would be acceptable to a civilized person. It’s a pretty short leap from depicting Asians as super-human work machines who hurt America to depicting them as super-human work machines who are good for America.
Robert,
You got a scholarship based on your ethnicity, not for your whiteness. You are perfectly aware that both categories can exist simultaneously. You know you are, I know you are, you know I know you are. There should be no need for me to comment, but your last simplistic comment naturally draws this comment.
The problem here started with your initial comment on this thread:
This is a stupid and trollish comment. It implies that Rachel is advocating dividing up people into groups (when, in fact, they are already divided into those groups). It mistakes racial categories for ethnic categories. It completely ignores Rachel’s point. If you were a new commenter with no track record, you would probably have made it a good distance to being banned by that comment.
That the conversation has gone in an unproductive and muddled fashion can pretty much be pinned on the fact that you started it in an unproductive and muddled fashion.
Do you think that the fact that the composite performance of people in the racial category “Asian” means that colleges should not bother to do intensive outreach to Hmong communities? Soft AA (the kind you nominally favor) is always going to be based on small and specific groups. You don’t do effective outreach and recruitment to a nebulous super-category, you do it to specific communities and groups.
You got a scholarship based on your ethnicity, not for your whiteness. You are perfectly aware that both categories can exist simultaneously.
OK. Then the Hmong and the Chinese can both be “Asian”, too. Sauce for the goose.
That the conversation has gone in an unproductive and muddled fashion can pretty much be pinned on the fact that you started it in an unproductive and muddled fashion.
Well, perhaps. Or it could be that the whole muddled and unproductive discussion on “race” is predicated on hundreds of garbage memes, such that nobody holding any of the stock positions can reconcile their beliefs even internally, let alone against the test of outside ideas or empirical data.
But I apologize if the thread has been derailed by my comment. By all means, please continue the productive discussion of how the harms caused by racial oppression done in the service of ending racial oppression, can be fixed by making the new structure of racial oppression more complex.
“But I apologize if the thread has been derailed by my comment. By all means, please continue the productive discussion of how the harms caused by racial oppression done in the service of ending racial oppression, can be fixed by making the new structure of racial oppression more complex. ”
That would be cutting! If AA were racial oppression.
—
Ditto the person who said the model minority myth is an outgrowth of the older idea that Asians are inhumanly able to work too hard for too little money. My impression is that the narratives about Asians-as-model-minority and Jews-as-model-minority have a lot of similarities and similarly ugly roots.
Robert said, “Does the word “white” ring a bell?”
Sure does, and look how far that has gotten us?
Sally said, “For all Asian-Americans, or only for those from groups like the Hmong and Vietnamese?”
It depends on the state and the school. In many states and at many schools, such as the one I teach at now and the ones I attended for my MA and BA, Asian students as a whole are underrepresented in relation to their proportion of the US population (I’m talking about Asian Americans, not international students by the way.). I think there is a compelling argument to be made about how higher memberships of these groups would diversify the student body at these schools. In terms of the schools where Asians (as a whole) are overrepresented, I would only apply it to the specific groups that are underrepresented.
So I guess groups like Vietnamese, Laotians, and Hmong would get affirmative action for almost all schools, and the other groups only when they are underrepresented in the student body.
Charles and Mandolin thanks for the back-up. Robert was driving me crazy.
Sure does, and look how far that has gotten us?
The point isn’t whether it’s a good idea. The point is that you make a flat assertion of fact to back up your argument, and that assertion is false-to-fact.
Robert was driving me crazy.
Well, sorry about that, again. But I don’t think the craziness is stemming from me; I think it’s stemming from the incompatible memes you’re trying to hold simultaneously.
“The point isn’t whether it’s a good idea. The point is that you make a flat assertion of fact to back up your argument, and that assertion is false-to-fact.”
What is false–it is false that Asians have ethnicities? Isn’t that what started this whole debate. You claimed I was dividing groups.
I think people should not be critcized for maintaining an ethnic identity. That’s part of the problem with whiteness.
Moreover, most people only refer to Europeans as whites when they are not in Europe. If I provided stats suggesting that Irish, Italian, and German immigrants in this country had different statuses, would you come in an say Rachel you are artificially dividing people into groups. I know you wouldn’t.
What assertion of fact?
RonF,
Preference based on family income is inadequate. However, current family assets, which make a passable proxy for multi-generational history of income, might be a decent basis for a non-race based AA system that would still succeed in addressing racial inequality.
What assertion of fact?
This one:
“We don’t impose this idea on European ethnic groups, so why do it on Asian, African, or Aboriginal American ethnic groups.”
It is manifest that we impose it on European ethnic groups in the same fashion as do on other ethnic groups.
I agree with Charles, wealth based affirmative action would be better than income based affirmative action.
Robert my response to #22 is in #20.
Rachel,
Thanks again for breaking down the process of immigration of the different Asian groups. In all my recruiting experiences, Vietnamese, Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian students have been considered part of the effort to increase their underrepresented participation in higher education. As you stated, this particularly because of the circumstances in which these groups immigrated into the U.S. and how most of them were refugees without the same opportunities as their Chinese and Indian counterparts.
I love this part –
And this
Oh yes Robert, minorities are the ones who created racial categories and now that we ask that these racial categories have been historically disenfranchising and these issues need to be addressed, we are hypocritical for using them. Yup, got you, we are racists.
But you keep making it so much better
Riiiiiigghhht, you were just implying it which shouldn’t be confused with actually stating it…
Nice one, but I’ll bite for the sake of biting. I’m pretty sure you haven’t completed a college application nor have you been on an admission committee so you would know that all these points are weighted differently. The child of a black stocbroker will not get the same points as the child of a black working construction worker who did not graduate college. What you forget to add is that the child of a black stockbroker is less likely to get counted for legacy points as a the child of a white stockbroker who more likely want to attend the same elite school. This is because the stockbroker most likely went to a historically black college/university and AA programs (that are now going the way of the dodo) were not in full effect until the mid-70s when the both parents were probably already in college.
I really would like to see the same energy put into bringing down the legacy clauses in all these universities… but everyone knows that will never happen anytime soon, so programs like AA are better targets for the proponents of “meritocracy.”
RonF says
Really? These “Asian cultures” really respect education but the people who don’t succeed don’t… Nothing like the “intrinsic cultural values” argument to reinforce the myth. Did it ever occur to you that EVERYONE EVERYWHERE values education but ACCESS to opportunities (and supporting systems) are the main issue. Minorities in every country from Hindu Dalits (I despise the other terms) in India, to the Tibetans in China, even the Ijaw and the Ogoni minorities of Nigeria’s Delta areas don’t have the same access to opportunities as the majority communities (the Yorubas of Nigeria, Brahmins of India and the Han of mainland China). Eeryone wants the opportunities tied to a good education but these opportunities are almost always reserved for the majority communities (like the Yoruba, . I’m not even going to go to into the inherent discrimination that lies within the different of educational systems that exist in India, China and Nigeria specifically exclude the histories and realities of these minority groups much to their detriment.
Isn’t the social construct imposed by society the determining factor for discrimination and hence affirmative action ?
I’m pretty sure you haven’t completed a college application nor have you been on an admission committee so you would know that all these points are weighted differently.
I’ve completed college applications at the bachelor’s and doctoral levels. Not sure why you’d assume this.
I spent two years working in the admissions office of a major university. Respectfully, I imagine that my first-hand experience of how AA programs are structured and administered is substantially superior to your own.
The child of a black stocbroker will not get the same points as the child of a black working construction worker who did not graduate college.
If that is so, then it is because of the first-generation-to-college factor, and race is immaterial. The child of a black stockbroker gets points over the child of a similarly situated white or Asian stockbroker.
The fact that this system of racial discrimination has some non-racial nuances does not change the fact that it is a system of racial discrimination.
What is false–it is false that Asians have ethnicities? Isn’t that what started this whole debate. You claimed I was dividing groups.
No, it isn’t false that Asians have ethnicities. It is false that we do not make a broad-group identification of mostly-Europeans. You said that we didn’t. We do.
I think people should not be critcized for maintaining an ethnic identity. That’s part of the problem with whiteness.
Who’s criticizing? Ethnicitize all you like.
Moreover, most people only refer to Europeans as whites when they are not in Europe.
And here’s another bizarre assertion of fact that is plainly and facially untrue. WTF?
If I provided stats suggesting that Irish, Italian, and German immigrants in this country had different statuses, would you come in an say Rachel you are artificially dividing people into groups. I know you wouldn’t.
If you suggested that we need to tailor affirmative action programs to make sure that the right groups of white people got preferences and the right groups didn’t, then I’d come in and say exactly the same thing as I said before.
If that is so, then it is because of the first-generation-to-college factor, and race is immaterial.
That is hilarious.
“Pay no attention to possible causes of “first-generation-to-college factor!” There is no possibility that a history of discrimination has any bearing on why this minority is the first to college – after all, it’s only the 21st century!”
And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously on this subject. Sheesh.
Jake, I imagine that past and present racial discrimination are substantial factors in the question of whether someone is the first in their family to attend college. The connection of the causality does not reduce the analytical incoherence of Sewere’s example.
Robert, these are not racial groups; they are ethnic groups. The logical end to what you are saying is to completely wipe out all cultures and nations, and have a big one world government where we all have the same culture. Human variation is not the problem–what with do with our variation is the real problem.
Rachel S., although Robert can certainly speak for himself, there’s a difference between saying we should wipe out all ethnic and racial distinctions and saying that we shouldn’t base governmental program preferences based on them.
Preference based on family income is inadequate. However, current family assets, which make a passable proxy for multi-generational history of income, might be a decent basis for a non-race based AA system that would still succeed in addressing racial inequality.
Rachel S. and Charles, I can accept that change. You have to be a bit careful with that. One of my MIT fraternity brothers once lost his scholarship because his parents were living in a kibbutz in Israel, and the Institute figured his parents assets to include a 1/30 of the value of the kibbutz. The problem was that they didn’t own 1/30 of the kibbutz; they had no individual rights to it and couldn’t sell their share of it. But I endorse the concept overall.
Rachel S. said:
“It depends on the state and the school. In many states and at many schools, such as the one I teach at now and the ones I attended for my MA and BA, Asian students as a whole are underrepresented in relation to their proportion of the US population (I’m talking about Asian Americans, not international students by the way.).”
Dang?! What schools are those?
In the conclusion
Contrary to a lot misinformation University of California system is far from white dominated–2/3 of students are people of color and 1/3 is white. In fact whites are now slightly underrepresented at UC in terms of actual numbers of California’s state population. Asians on the other hand are massively overrepresented and as I remember Asians who make up 12% of the state population are around 44% of the UC of the student population. So AA for Asians (in California at least) seems absurd.
Hmong, Laotians, and Vietnamese (a large percentage of whom are ethnically Chinese) underrepresentation is due largely because of their relatively lower class position and not racial or ethnic discrimination as far as I see it.
UC’s student statistics:
http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/Flowfrc_9505.pdf
Me too, as I mentioned on another thread or at least have them put on the table to be seriously discussed.
And no, it’s not going to happen anytime soon, because who makes these decisions is also who doesn’t want to lose a privilege they have that is also based on race.
I had brought up the example of UC California where people at several campuses including UCB and UCLA had tried to get “legacy” based AA action on the agenda for discussion at the UC Regents meeting and they couldn’t even get it on the agenda. This was around the same time the UC system banned AA and soon after that the state did too, through proposition 209.
Robert,
I’m pretty sure you haven’t completed a college application nor have you been on an admission committee so you would know that all these points are weighted differently.
I’ve completed college applications at the bachelor’s and doctoral levels. Not sure why you’d assume this.
I spent two years working in the admissions office of a major university. Respectfully, I imagine that my first-hand experience of how AA programs are structured and administered is substantially superior to your own.
My apologies for the miscommunication Robert, I meant to say “I’m pretty sure you haven’t completed a college application form recently“.
Nevertheless, I’m unsure as to how your argument continues to hold water. Your experience of how AA works still does not trump my experience of how I’ve seen it work in admissions committees. The example I use still assigns legacy points to the white stockbroker’s child because the stockbroker more likely went to the school of choice while the black stockbroker’s child will get similarly weighted points for AA. So I’m confused as to how it is that the AA programs are more racially charged than the legacy program?
Once again, I ask. Why aren’t people as outraged about legacy programs as they are about AA programs? Because I suspect that these arguments for “meritrocracy” and “fairness” are inherently about White entitlement and the outrage of having even a few positions allotted to historically disenfranchised minorities, who are just as equally qualified. Because, God forbid, there should be some system in place to address the favoritism that legacy programs afford whites.
I’m still waiting for an answer… in the meantime go and listen to this podcast , be sure to get the book too.
I last completed a college application form in 2003 or 2004. It’s been a loooong college experience for THIS slacker student.
I don’t expect that my experience trumps your experience, however. But I’m not ignorant on this topic, either.
So I’m confused as to how it is that the AA programs are more racially charged than the legacy program?
Because the AA programs specifically discriminate on the basis of race, while the legacy programs specifically discriminate on the basis of alumni status. Legacy programs are facially racially neutral, albeit there are some racial effects in contingent practice – although greatly reduced, by the new presence of 30 years of AA graduates at legacy-honoring schools. Racial preference programs, on the other hand, are facially racially discriminatory, as well as contingently racially discriminatory.
Why aren’t people as outraged about legacy programs as they are about AA programs?
Because legacy programs are largely about money these days, and everyone understands greed. And it’s greed in a putatively good cause, higher education.
But I’ve no particular brief for legacy programs. If private institutions want to give them up, or if folks want to pressure them to give them up, I’ll sign the petition. If public institutions and private institutions sufficiently suckling at the government teat need to give them up via a law or something, that’s OK with me. Legacy programs don’t offend me very much but I won’t weep for their passing, either.
Because I suspect that these arguments for “meritrocracy” and “fairness” are inherently about White entitlement and the outrage of having even a few positions allotted to historically disenfranchised minorities, who are just as equally qualified.
Is it so inconceivable that there could simply be principled opposition to something you happen to believe?
I am positive that there are people attacking racial preferences who just hate minorities, as you say. I am positive that there are gay activists who hate babies and want to destroy the family. I am positive that there are free speech advocates who just want to make a buck selling filth to children. I am positive that there are advocates of position [X] who secretly have [Disgusting And Evil Motivation Y]. Evil abounds; we must fight it, but of its continued existence here on earth we can have no doubt. But the bulk of the time, when someone says they believe in a cause or position, it’s because they believe in the cause or position. The fact that evil people have taken up a cause doesn’t tell us much; they tend to find a way to use any idea they come across.
I believe that people who are downtrodden and oppressed deserve a helping hand up. I also believe that it is impermissible for us to racially discriminate for or against any particular group in the pursuit of that worthy end. Why is that so inconceivable?
And
See my problem is the ease in which you go from one to the other without so much as a twitch at the rather obious inconsisitency. Both private and public institutions use legacy points (aka White Affirmative Action) for admission. And just in case that doesn’t make sense, I’ll say it again Legacy preferences benefits mostly white candidates.Case in point: Our black and white stockbrokers. My confusion is that these “merit-based” arguments against Legacy preferences lack the parity of vociferous opposition that AA preferences elicit. Yet, as you so put it, legacy prferences are a necessary evil? But Affirmative Action preferences that try to remedy centuries of systematic exclusion and discrimination lack validity?
I guess I see what you’re trying to say…. Nah, I’m just kidding, I don’t :-/
Atrios said the same thing. Whites make up the overwhelming majority of legacies even today. I was a legacy and 95% of the legacies around me were white in the 90s.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2002_12_15_atrios_archive.html#90072955
The number of African-Americans who have been given bonus points and been admitted to this list of elite schools can’t possibly come close to the number of legacy admissions.
Princeton: 12.4%; 11.6% (different years)
Yale: 13.4%
U. of Penn.: 10%
Brown: 7%; “about 10%” (different years)
Columbia: 6%
Cornell: 13%
U. of Chicago: “just over 5 percent”
Bucknell: 5.6%
Boston College: 12.1%
Holy Cross: 10.7%
Wake Forest: “about 8%”
Johns Hopkins: 12.4%
Notre Dame: 23%; 22% (different years)
Ithaca College: 1.8%
U. of Virginia: 12.6%
U. of Rochester: 5.4%
Amherst: 10%
Middlebury: 5%
Colby: 4%
Villanova: 7%
These legacy admissions are, at least at the moment, strongly racist in *effect* if not intent, as past admissions and discrimination practices by these schools ensure that a disproportionate number of white applicants are “legacies.” The racist policies of the past still have their legacy (ha ha!) today.
Oh yes Robert, minorities are the ones who created racial categories
Hasn’t every culture in history (or prehistory) created tribal and racial and ethnic categories? Usually starting with “us” and “not-us”? The creation of categories well predates current racial and social structures. This is not something that is the responsibility of any currently dominant group.
Sewere:
I’m reasonably aware of the discrimination present in various other cultures besides American cultures. And yes, “Untouchable” seems pretty cold to me. There are a great many places in the world where the populace is denied access to education based or race or tribal or religious differences, far worse than any such problems in America. Perhaps this is why such groups often take more advantage of the educational opportunities in America than the native-born population does.
See my problem is the ease in which you go from one to the other without so much as a twitch at the rather obious inconsisitency. Both private and public institutions use legacy points (aka White Affirmative Action) for admission. And just in case that doesn’t make sense, I’ll say it again Legacy preferences benefits mostly white candidates.Case in point: Our black and white stockbrokers. My confusion is that these “merit-based” arguments against Legacy preferences lack the parity of vociferous opposition that AA preferences elicit. Yet, as you so put it, legacy prferences are a necessary evil? But Affirmative Action preferences that try to remedy centuries of systematic exclusion and discrimination lack validity? –Sewere
It’s like the “liberal” trolls on Alternet who always scapegoat women and minorities instead of targeting the rich white male elite destroying this country. It’s easier to blame your problems on women and minorities than critically analyzing the power structure.
And women make up a disproportionate number of college students these days — more than our 51%. Why don’t these men complain about women taking their spots at elite colleges?
“Legacy” programs have no defender in me, either. I certainly see no moral reason why their workings shouldn’t see the light of day, although I know little enough of the law to say what any legal reasons may be.
I guess I see what you’re trying to say…. Nah, I’m just kidding, I don’t :-/
Yeah, that’s pretty obvious.
Both private and public institutions use legacy points (aka White Affirmative Action) for admission
Yes, I know. That’s why I listed both types of institutions, and what would be needed for them to give up legacy systems, and how I was OK with whatever it was that needed to happen.
Legacy preferences benefits mostly white candidates.
Yeah, again, true. So what? We agree about the legacies. Legacies bad.
Yet, as you so put it, legacy prferences are a necessary evil?
Um, no. Do you have a reading problem? Because I am using very plain language.
Why don’t these men complain about women taking their spots at elite colleges?
Because there is no intentionally discriminatory preference causing the outcome. Schools aren’t saying “give her five extra points, she has a uterus”. If they were, it would be a problem. They aren’t, so it isn’t. How come you keep asking these questions about “why don’t you object to unrelated policy or outcome such-and-such” instead of addressing the arguments about the discriminatory preferences? Is your position that weak?
We object to the intentional racial discrimination of racial preference programs. That’s it. Comparisons to things that aren’t intentional racial discrimination aren’t going to be operative in convincing us to stop disliking racial preferences, even if we agree with you that the object of the comparison is also a bad thing, as in the case of legacies.
Legacy admissions are intentional racial discrimination and what we have a problem with is that you talk about one 99% of the time and not the other when the former has a much worse effect on everyone especially working-class and middle-class white people such as yourself. There is also intended racial discrimination/affirmative action for white women because points are given to upper class, white sports such as crew and horseback riding:
I meant
When the facts show white working-class and middle-class people are mostly negatively affected by legacy admissions and not affirmative action and you rail against the latter 99% of the time and not the one that most affects people like yourself, you are scapegoating minorities instead of blaming the real cause of your problems, white people.
Let me try that again
Legacy admissions are intentional racial discrimination
No, they aren’t. You either do not understand what “intentional” means, or you are not arguing honestly. Oh wait…we already know which one it is, because above you also say “These legacy admissions are, at least at the moment, strongly racist in *effect* if not intent”. So you understand that legacies are not racist in intent.
Why are you arguing in such a dishonest fashion?
[legacies have] a much worse effect on everyone especially working-class and middle-class white people such as yourself.
First off, you don’t know what my social class is. Your past history of attempting to guess or assert what my status or motivations are have been miserably wrong. Perhaps you should limit yourself to arguing things you know, rather than trying to integrate guesswork into your argument frame.
Second, the idea that legacies have a larger impact than racial preferences overall is laughable. At elite schools it is possible (though you haven’t demonstrated it, despite the endless posting of tedious lists of school names) that legacy admissions are worse than racial preferences overall, because both are operative at the same time. But the vast majority of collegians are not at schools that practice legacy admits. Legacies affect hundreds of thousands, maybe millions; racial preferences affect tens of millions.
Third, I’ve already accepted the point that legacies are bad, and am perfectly happy to see them abolished.
So, let’s get rid of legacies. And let’s also get rid of the intentional racial discrimination in college admissions.
I am still waiting for your retraction of your fabricated quote, btw. I expect that what I will get instead is either silence, or yet another round of “but the leeeeeeeeegacies!”
Am I the only person here who doesn’t think legacies are entirely bad?
Yes, as a result of legacies, other, non-legacy students are microscopically less likely to be admitted. But what’s gained is a kind of continuity across the generations, and a kind of connection to previous classes, that adds real value to the texture of campus life.
Legacy admissions are problematic because, by definition, they most benefit students from families that have been going to college for generations – a measure that corresponds significantly with wealth and race (and, perhaps, with being non-Jewish). But I’m not sure that throwing away legacy admissions makes as much sense as keeping legacy admissions, but also actively working to mitigate the disadvantages of race and class.
* * *
Actually, some schools are saying the opposite – “give him extra consideration, he’s got a penis.“
Atrios said that not me.
I won’t recant anything because you were serious. It’s true about Latinos, blacks and Asians. Affirmative action in college admissions hurts Asians. Look what happened when affirmative action and legacy affirmative action was abolished in California. Asians make up 14.1% of California’s high school graduating class but make up 41.8% percent of the freshman class at UC campuses. I don’t care if you’re poor, middle-class or rich, whites are most negatively affected by white legacy admissions in public and private universities. You’re scapegoating minorities instead of rightfully blaming whites. You therefore give the impression you’re racist on these threads.
Am I the only person here who doesn’t think legacies are entirely bad?
No; I can see their merits as well as their demerits. But I’ll be glad to give them up, if that’s what it takes to get universal buy-in on ending racial preferences.
Gender preferences for males are objectionable and I oppose them, barring some fantastic explanation I haven’t heard of. (I understand the existing arguments in favor of them, but those concerns don’t rise to the level of justifying gender discrimination.)
I’m for keeping affirmative action and am not entirely against legacy affirmative action either because 1) I may have benefited from it (despite being a freak overachiever in high school) and 2) because I’m done with college. lol
Donna, what difference does it make which exact specific people are getting harmed?
Intentional racial discrimination is wrong if it hurts blacks. It’s wrong if it hurts whites. It’s wrong if it hurts Asians. It’s wrong if it doesn’t hurt anybody that we can identify.
It’s wrong intrinsically.
As for “recanting”, I’m not asking you to recant. I’m asking you to withdraw your forged quote.
You’re scapegoating minorities instead of rightfully blaming whites.
How the fuck is opposition to intentional racial discrimination “scapegoating minorities”? The minorities aren’t doing anything wrong, neither are the whites – they’re all just trying to get into college.
The problem is the moral unacceptability of intentional racial discrimination.
You are singularly – and revealingly – unwilling to address this point.
What I meant is I am 50-50 on legacy affirmative action because I don’t have to apply to college and because I may have benefitted from it (maybe not because my older brothers did not get in). Theoretically speaking, when I see whites on the internet adamantly opposed to affirmative action (it’s always whites) and I see the podcast about legacy affirmative action, I make the case against legacy affirmative action even though I’ve half way for it.
I’m bewildered by the repeated use of the word “intentional.” Is unintentional racial discrimination not also a problem?
I have a problem with the focus on “intent” because it reduces racism to individual bad people doing individual bad things. It ignores or de-emphasizes systematic effects because systems don’t have intentions.
“Intentional” is also slippery because racism doesn’t have to take the form of specific, conscious intent to be important and harmful. Take, for example, the sentencing mismatch between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. I don’t think that’s a result of conscious, intentional racism; I don’t think a bunch of white men got together in a smoke-filled back room and conspired to design a law to send blacks to prison for far, far longer than whites for essentially the same crime.
However, I do think that racism still matters. I think that if the exact same discrepancy were operating in the opposite direction, a way would have been found to mitigate or eliminate the huge discrepancy. Racism doesn’t have to be evil people twirling their mustaches and saying “I’ll tie the black people’s finance to the railroad tracks” for it to be enormously harmful; just an extra willingness to accept or overlook harms done to black people can make a huge difference.
So I disagree that “intentional” should be part of our discussion here. Racism is bad based on how much harm it does, and how much harm it perpetuates; it’s not bad based on how intentional it is.
Edited to add: I’m not assuming you disagree with me. But I think it’s a point worth clarifying.
Systemic racism is indeed a problem – probably a bigger one than intentional racism, but let’s not go off-topic there.
Systemic racial discrimination may be impossible to fix, or it might require huge efforts to fix, or might require big cultural changes, or what have you. But intentional racial discrimination is easy to fix – just stop doing it.
To put it another way, an unintentional discrimination might be something that we just have to put up with. It’s not the Idaho potato farmers’ fault that there aren’t many black people in Idaho, and there isn’t much to be done about the lack of black potato farmers, systemically speaking.
But if a black guy in Boise is trying to buy a potato farm, and they won’t sell it to him because he’s black, that’s a pretty easy thing to fix.
Institutional racism is more harmful than systemic racism. Because of the Old Boys Network
100% of US Presidents have been white males
95% of Fortune 500 CEOS are white males, corporate boards are mostly white males
75% of Congress is white males
78% of the Supreme Court is white males, state supreme courts are mostly white males
etc. etc.
The Old Boys Network operates on the mottoes “It’s who you know not what you know” and “Help out your friends and they will help you” and can be compared to legacy admissions. The Old Boys Network hurts us as a people and as individuals more than affirmative action for white women and minorities. The same can be said about legacy admissions versus affirmative action in schools.
One can say there’s no hard set rule that makes 100% of our Presidents white males, 95% of Fortune 500 CEOS white males, 75% of Congress white males, 78% of the Supreme Court white males but the Old Boys Network and legacy admissions are institutionalized racism. It is de facto rather than de jure racism which is much more harmful. Many Americans scapegoat affirmative action for white women and minorities when the Old Boys Network is the real culprit for white men and everyone else.
Our executive, legislative and judicial branches are over 75% whites males.
Our businesses are mostly run by Fortune 500 companies CEOS who are 95% white male.
One cannot compare this overwhelming and outrageous de facto racism to the weak de jure corrective called affirmative action.
Get my drift?
Not really. So there’s all this residue left over from past and present racial discrimination, and the solution to it is to legitimize and extend the concept of racial discrimination?
Yessiree, that racism sure is a doozy. I wonder what you consider a way to counter the issue of institutionalized racism… that is if you think there is such a thing?
Two main ways: soft affirmative action, of the recruiting and support variety. And cultural change over time, mostly resulting from individual soul-searching and moral improvement. It’s slow, but it’s the only thing that works. Coercive solutions simply move the hate around, or create new loci for it. We can’t legislate racial harmony.
Could you spell that out a little more? Thannks.
Can we hold hands and chant Khumbaya at the same time? (Sorry couldn’t resist, this is what happens when you live in Berkeley for more than 10years).
Could you spell that out a little more? Thannks.
Sending recruiters out to schools with significant numbers of minority students. Making outreach offices available to students who want to get on a college track early on, when they can really get ahead of the game. Advertising in black publications. Adding athletic programs and scholarships for sports played heavily by particular minority groups. (My alma mater has a big and vigorous soccer program these days; that wasn’t the case 40 years ago.)
That sort of thing. Making the institution available to the community, and making helpful resources available for the community to use in climbing on board the boat. (Since white people are part of the community too, the institution is thus not discriminating for or against any particular race; anyone can come to the study center.)
The primary action we need to take if we want to see more high-achieving collegians from racially preferred groups, however, has only a tangential connection to affirmative action. We have to create, maintain and offer an excellent system of publicly-financed education to every community.
Can we hold hands and chant Khumbaya at the same time?
Chanting and hand-holding are optional.
Actually legacy affirmative action is systemic racism because legacies are given points the same way women, Latinos and blacks are given points in universities. So it’s “intentional”/systemic whereas the Old Boys Network that makes white men over 75% of our government and economic rulers is institutional.
I only have a problem with those who scapegoat affirmative action in schools but not legacy affirmative action. They’re like liberal and conservative trolls on Alternet who scapegoat women and minorities instead of Bush.
soft affirmative action, of the recruiting and support variety
Yes, please flesh this out.
Aggressive recruitment and outreach would need a lot more funding. Schools have to prioritize reaching out to groups. I’ve heard schools already do this but not much has materialized due to the inhospitableness of schools once students are there. If there is a genuine effort in recruiting and making schools inclusive there would better results.
Actually, some schools are saying the opposite – “give him extra consideration, he’s got a penis.“
If I read this correctly, what’s happening is that some schools have determined that men are “underrepresented minorities” and are giving them the same preference that they give other underrepresented minorities. Is that correct?
So, what’s wrong with that? What I have read as the stated objective for diversity is to make the student bodies of schools reflect the makeup of the population at large. To that end, underrepresented minorities are given preference, and those groups that are represented in proportions greater than what’s in the population as a whole are not. Is that O.K. if the people involved are anything but white males and bad if they are white males? Why shouldn’t a non-single sex school try to get a gender balance on campus that reflects society as a whole? Or is affirmative action to achieve gender balance only prefererable if it increases the proportion of women at campus?
So it’s “intentional”/systemic
It’s not legitimate to conflate these two, Donna. Something can be systemic and not intentional, and something can be intentional and not systemic. The fact that legacy admission policies currently benefit whites doesn’t mean that this is their intent. And, from what I’m reading, in fact it is not their intent. The fact that act A creates a known effect B does not mean that the intent of act A is to create the effect B. I give someone an anti-cancer drug to cure their cancer. I am not intentionally trying to make them go bald and vomit a lot.
Ron, did you notice that the bit you quoted linked to an entire post discussing this issue in particular? And that many of your questions are specifically answered in that post?
With all due respect, my suggestion is that you read that post (where you will find out that I don’t particularly object to AA for men, contrary to your assumption), and post any further discussion of this topic there.
Ah, no, missed that. thanks.
Interesting post. I suppose I shouldn’t sidetrack this one by discussing what I read there.
Given that colleges’ gender balances are shifting to the point that the overall female:male ratio is now > 1, it seems to me that in about 20 years legacy-positive admissions policies are going to favor women.
why? women have female and male children
Pingback: What You Should Read While I Pretend To Clean The Kitchen at Faux Real Tho!
I suggest you read more carefully, RonF. Systemic racism is de jure not de facto. So the fact that legacies are given points the same way women, Latinos and blacks are given points in university admissions makes it systemic not institutional oppression. So legacy admissions is not like the Old Boy’s Network which is institutional oppression.
Legacy admission is therefore, in fact, white affirmative action.
Donna, sorry to be slow, but I’m not clear on the distinction you’re making between systematic racism and institutional racism. Could you define both terms as you’re using them, please?
Hi Amp, systemic/structural versus institutional.
Intentional versus unintentional but I don’t like “intentional” because who’s to say laws are intentional racism and attitudes aren’t? So I prefer de jure and de facto.
Hm, right, curiousgyrl.
Let’s think about this a bit, then. In that case, legacy admissions policies should be gender neutral; it’s not the sex of the alumnus/alumna that matters, it’s the sex of their progeny. So in the case of gender, legacy admissions shouldn’t have an effect on the gender balance of the incoming classes. The question then becomes, what is happening with the percentage of various minorities? Up or down?
My own personal experience as both a student and an alumnus are that the institution I’m affiliated with would tend to greatly over-favor Americans of Asian heritage (if it used legacy as part of it’s admission policies, which it doesn’t). However, others here are saying that they have an experience that such folks are discriminated against in the admissions process in schools they know about. So what’s the actual proportions of the various minorities in colleges vs. their presence in the American population? And what is the trend over the last, oh, 20 years or so? If those proportions increase, will legacy admissions tend to favor at least the retention of the increase? What would the effect be?
That’s O.K., Amp, I’m confused as well.
I’ve noticed a major difference among the kids I’ve interviewed for college admission. One of the things I ask them about is their extra-curricular activities. When I talk to a Caucasian kid, I’m much more likely to hear about sports. When I talk to an Asian kid, I’m a lot more likely to hear about a fine or performing art. If they are in a sport, it’s usually either tennis or golf, as opposed to a team sport; but even that’s rare. And I’m also a lot more likely to hear about studying their own ancestral culture, taking Chinese lessons or something like that. Why do you think that is?
Jewish Americans make up 2% of the population but 35% of the Ivy League population so they are over 17 times overrepresented. Asians make up 4% of the population and very roughly 15% of the Ivy League population. MIT at 29% and CalTech at 40% are anomalies because of Asian American interest in science or math. In California, they are about 14.1% of the population but without affirmative action or legacy affirmative action, they are 41.8 percent of the freshman class at seven UC campuses. Blacks are 3%, Latinos are 16.3% and whites are 32.2%. So basically, they are three times overrepresented in the Ivy League and UC schools. About well-roundedness, similar things were said about Jewish Americans before they were assimilated. I have a feeling many go to Chinese school, etc. because it’s not taught in schools similar to women’s studies and history. One has to come upon these things on their own. The cultural clash from living in a racist society may cause some turmoil at that age.
MIT at 29% and CalTech at 40% are anomalies because of Asian American interest in science or math.
Are you asserting that Asians have a specific interest in science and math that is greater than those of people with different heritage? What do you think is the source of that? Is it racially based? Cultural?
I haven’t seen Gaelic language or history taught in the local schools. Why aren’t the Irish kids taking it on the weekends? Instruction is actually available in the Chicago area. Same for the German kids. Heck, they could take German in the high school, but they don’t, at least not in proportion to the number of kids who have German heritage. No, they’re out there on the football and lacrosse fields on the weekends.
Women’s studies and [women’s] history
Are these subjects that are taught in California high schools? They’re not around the Chicago area, so that doesn’t apply here.
About well-roundedness, similar things were said about Jewish Americans before they were assimilated.
I didn’t say anything about well-roundedness. Someone who stresses development of their athletic abilities but neglects developing knowledge and skills regarding the fine or performing arts is no more well-rounded than someone who is opposite.
RonF, try to read slowly and carefully before responding. Thanks.
Asian parents know sciences and engineering are a better guarantee of job security and they’re mostly right. Less politics and possible racial bias.
Chinese school may be more for the cultural and community aspect than language skills. You have to remember whites are the norm so Irish, German and Greek people don’t have to stick together as much for a sense of community.
Women’s studies is not taught in high schools. Women may come to it on their own in college or after college.
So I see MIT and CalTech don’t have legacy admissions. That may have something to do with the 29% and 40% Asian American student populations outside of interest in science and engineering job security. Without affirmative action in California, Latinos make up only 16.3% of UC freshmen even though they’re 26.5% of California’s high school graduates. Whout affirmative action, whites (32.2%), Latinos (16.3%) and blacks (3%) are grossly underrepresented. At UCSD, 53 percent of this year’s freshman class is Asian-American. Whites make up about 28 percent and Latinos 12 percent.
I have a feeling many go to Chinese school, etc. because it’s not taught in schools similar to women’s studies and history.
I was reading this as applying to high-school age kids, since those are the ages of the kids I was talking about. The kids finish Chinese school up before going off to college, so there’s no similarity between it and women’s studies and history. Are there women’s studies courses that grade school and high school age kids take outside of school, then?
I’m still not quite understanding that reference.
Asian parents know sciences and engineering are a better guarantee of job security and they’re mostly right. Less politics and possible racial bias.
You know, that sounds good on the face of it. And given that I’m in those fields, I’d like to agree. But when you think about it, it’s hard to say that you can presume that this is a fact or show any hard evidence that this is so. I can tell you that there’s definitely a lot of politics in the corporate world even in the IT department, and failure to play them well (and IT people are infamous for not playing politics well) can doom your career. A degree in business (especially an MBA) can give you pretty good job security as well.
Without affirmative action in California, Latinos make up only 16.3% of UC freshmen even though they’re 26.5% of California’s high school graduates. Whout affirmative action, whites (32.2%), Latinos (16.3%) and blacks (3%) are grossly underrepresented. At UCSD, 53 percent of this year’s freshman class is Asian-American. Whites make up about 28 percent and Latinos 12 percent.
So then the question is, why is that so? Since whites are underrepresented you can’t argue that it’s solely due to racial disrimination or economic status. You would also think that whites get grade school and high school educations that are of no higher quality than those of Asian heritage. There’s plenty of white kids who have (or at least see) parents that are lawyers, physicians, IT professionals, business professionals, etc. Why do the Asian kids dominate all out of proportion to their numbers to the point that whites are underrepresented?
Last paragraph, strike “no higher quality” and substitute “no lesser quality”, please.
Women’s studies and history is not taught before college unless one has feminist relatives, friends, etc. I think women’s studies should be incorporated into the K-12 curriculum along with racially inclusive history. OT: comprehensive sex education should also be taught K-12. Look at the consequences of not teaching women’s history and comprehensive sex education K-12. Low self-esteem, depression, eating disorders, teen pregnancies, etc. Asian Americans have the lowest glass ceiling in upper management. It’s the hardest for them to advance above middle management. This is due to racism and the idea Asian Americans do not speak up on Asian American issues, the “model minority” myth. Asian Americans have an extremely hard time advancing in the corporate world due to the low glass ceiling, racism and the “model minority” myth. In California, admissions to UCs are purely merit based, that is, based on grades and test scores. Asians on average scored much higher than all other races and admissions bore that out.
Just popping in here with new information about the gendered and racial makeup of Congress. The 110th Congress is 83% male, 82.3% white. I can’t tell from this information how many of the 435 Congresspeople are white males but it’s safe to say about 83% of Congress is white male. I previously said Congress was 75% white males.
http://www.currentargus.com/ci_4945569
100% of US Presidents have been white males
95% of Fortune 500 CEOS are white males, corporate boards are mostly white males
75% of Congress is white males
78% of the Supreme Court is white males, state supreme courts are mostly white males
The link is the new information and the italicized portion is my previous comment. Just to reiterate and including the new information:
100% of US Presidents have been white males
95% of Fortune 500 CEOS are white males, corporate boards are mostly white males
83% of Congress is white males
78% of the Supreme Court is white males, state supreme courts are mostly white males
“Why do the Asian kids dominate all out of proportion to their numbers to the point that whites are underrepresented?”
Because UC adopted ‘race-blind’ policies in the late 80’s that let Asians get into college based purely on merit. Asians aren’t overrepresented in the UC system; we’re underrepresented everywhere else. Standards are higher for Asians than they are for whites, and while I don’t see anything too too wrong with that – I don’t have a problem with affirmative action in general, and if a few of us have to work harder for campus diversity overall, then so be it – I have a few caveats:
1. I’m not asking anyone to stick their political necks out and say ‘there’s too many Asians’, but at least don’t make half-assed justifications that only end up insulting us more. There’s the whole extracurricular activity criteria, which is almost purely subjective, which is emphasized especially in the elite schools. It’s one thing when struggling comedians and anal pustule mass culture pins this image of Asian youth as having no lives and all, but it really grates my nerves when it become ingrained as part of basic admissions procedure. (It helps to remember that Ivy League schools adopted their famously holistic, ‘getting-to-know-the-whole-person’ type applications nearly a century ago as an excuse to keep out those high-scoring Jews. Even if it would be something of a bureaucratic nightmare, a part of me wishes that the extracurricular activity component of college applications could be centralized to give a quantative grade that can be reported from a single source, just like an SAT or ACT score.)
There’s a girl in San Diego, I believe, whose counselor put on her recommendation that she ‘had many friends, despite being Asian’. (I’m sorry I don’t have the link.) The counselor was only trying to help her, because that is the hill she has to climb in order to get into an Ivy League school. (Say what you will about her at least having that opportunity and all, but you can’t tell me you can’t catch a whiff of stink about the whole thing.)
And then there’s the whole idea that colleges are reluctant to admit as many Asians because they don’t give as much money back as alumni. Which may well be true, given the many satellite Asians who take their degrees and go back to their home country, but that still doesn’t make it ethical. You know how else colleges could increase their endowments? Accept the richest students they can get their hands on. Is that acceptable policy? Even if it is a private institution? (Many actually have done so over the past decade, most infamously Duke. And the public reaction to the revelation proves my point.) The fact that they can blithely offer this as an excuse when they wouldn’t say it in other contexts is, of course, just plain racism.
2. And then, it’s a little different to ask a minority to sacrifice for the majority than it is to ask for the majority to sacrifice for the minority. If we want the proportion of Asians in university to go down to smaller levels to make room for whites, blacks, and others, we’re asking an already hypercompetitive group of overachievers to score 50 points higher on the SAT, earn even more glowing recommendations, play another sport, etc. Whereas if we want the proportion of whites to go down to make room for blacks, hispanics, and others, we’re talking about 6 or 7 SAT points and a couple more baskets at a regional game. (I know SAT scores are scaled by tens, I’m talking averages.) So I definitely think it would be wrong to ask anything more of Asian kids than is already being asked in terms of admissions.
Especially when talking race, comparing a majority with a minority always encounters a problem similar to the one above. It is roughly similar to those who equate battered wives with battered husbands; blindness to the imbalance in basic power dynamics always comes up at a completely self-serving basis. I’m segueing, of course, into AA. We can’t get moral absolutist with racial discrimination, as any good conservative knows, what with the need to give Muhammed and Tariq extra attention at customs and Jose and Maria an extra quick once over at the voting booths. (You can extend the analogy further; basically, if you can justify racial profiling, you can justify AA. But I don’t want to write it all out again.) Racial discrimination is justifiable if the ends are justifiable. To claim that the ends are only about individuals is horseshit. People naturally identify with the groups they associate themselves with, which is why small towns rightly celebrate any of their own who hit it big, why Raiders fans go batshit crazy over their singularly atrocious team, and why having a chain smoking, unemployed lowlife for a dad is so much teh sux. If enough people of a certain minority, who clearly identify with each other in the group, can succeed, it will help everyone in that group. The moral and practical benefits to not having a visibly ‘other’ underclass outweight any of the admitted costs.
I also meant to point out how ironic I found it when parents here complain of studious Asians with no lives crowd out all the good schools. Black and hispanic kids should be lauded, then, for leaving those spaces open for their delinquent shits, but of course THOSE PEOPLE have the opposite problem. Only they hold the keys to karmic balance.
Just in general, any analysis on race that limits itself to (East) Asian, white, and black – because hispanics, south asians, native americans, jews, etc. are all inconveient that way – can safely be regarded as a crisp, day-old turd. It’s the same: one ass-brained stereotype here, its polar opposite there, with a nice, creamy middle.
“The kids finish Chinese school up before going off to college, so there’s no similarity between it and women’s studies and history.”
“I haven’t seen Gaelic language or history taught in the local schools. Why aren’t the Irish kids taking it on the weekends?”
I don’t get it – you wouldn’t be saying that it’s wrong for us to maintain our heritage, would you? Maybe the same ‘culture’ that makes us value education makes us value our customs as well – Confucius said a lot of things.
Or perhaps it’s genetic.
(In case y’all haven’t figured it out by now, I’m Asian. Korean by birth.)
“A degree in business (especially an MBA) can give you pretty good job security as well.”
An MBA is standard accessory for the average Korean satellite kid, speaking from experience. But part of the fixation with math and science has to do with language. Immigrant kids who have had to learn the English language about the same time as puberty are not going to excel in the humanities department in America. Also, the math and science programs in North America are especially weak by international students, such that any reasonably competent student from most any other country can come here and be a whiz kid.
“I didn’t say anything about well-roundedness. Someone who stresses development of their athletic abilities but neglects developing knowledge and skills regarding the fine or performing arts is no more well-rounded than someone who is opposite.”
The difference is that that someone who ‘stressed’ the development of their athletic abilities is far more likely to end up working the counter at some porn video store than the latter, though that’s bit of different issue.
“If they are in a sport, it’s usually either tennis or golf, as opposed to a team sport; but even that’s rare.”
Um… not to pick at everything here, but is that to imply that tennis or golf aren’t ‘real’ sports? Personally, I’m an equal opportunity sportsphobe. The only sports that I find to be of any use are what we’d just call ‘exercise’ and ‘working out’, plus some martial arts and combat sports. Living in Canada, I sometimes make an exception for hockey, eh? (Sabres, stop slumping…. now!) I hate badminton and tennis as much as football and baseball, but why are some sports better than others?