I didn’t say that ten students from my school were accepted to Harvard, or at least I didn’t mean to say that. I said that among the top ten, one or two were accepted. And this is a good high school in Michigan, not the northeast. My point was: the honor of the Black student’s acceptance wasn’t “real” the way the white students’ were. A Black student from the same good high school, who lived in the same town, same neighborhood as her classmates and whose parents were of the educated middle class. What injustice were the Harvard admissions officers correcting again?

I concede that donor/ legacy admissions probably can suffer greater scrutiny- but I won’t concede that this is because those who benefit are white, or that these benefits are enjoyed by most white people, because they are not. Most white people are not rich, and most white people are not sons and daughters of people who attended pretigious universities. I suspect people don’t protest these very much out of ignorance or cynicism, because most of us know that money and connections will open doors. Unfortunately, most of us don’t have these, Black or White. Does anybody think Barack Obama’s children are going to need AA to get into the university of their choice?

And Radfem: NOBODY is magnanimous about giving up power or priviledge.

Finally, I don’t think AA is regarded as a greater sin than racism. I think most people are fine with it- unless they happen to be on the receiving end of the ‘lesser sin’.

It comes down to this: a 17 year old student has done everything possible - good grades, good test scores, extra-curriclular activities, etc.- and is denied admission for something she can do nothing about: her skin color. Is she racist for resenting this? The argument seems to be: it IS unfair, but sorry, you’re the eggshell we have to break for this omelet. Too bad all these college bound kids and their parents aren’t all on board with this equality program that gives them the shaft. How unfortunate they are starting to make these prgrams ilegal. But can you really, really blame them- and are you seriously surprised when they do? It begs credibility that intelligent people can’t see that there is nothing particularly racist or unreasonable about this.

LOL.

My English teacher in high school used to call airy arguments with no specific information attached to them ‘glittering generalities’. Your statement:

“Part and parcel of White privilege is to decide the value of something and then speak for everyone else on what is valued ” would curl her hair, if she’s still alive somewhere.

LOL. It’s dirty pool to drag out the “my English teacher” defenses, because I had great relationships with all of mine and while I may have said things that might have ahem, curled their hair at times, none of that had anything to with my ability to wage a good argument.

As for curling your teacher’s hair, if you do ever run into her, ask her if she would rather have loose waves, or tight curls?

I don’t think your arguments are fair or intellectually honest. You must know that legacy admissions may help a group of people who are overwhelmingly White, but it’s hardly an unfair advantage Whites enjoy as a group.

I don’t think this is a fair argument, as legacy admissions do benefit Whites more than other ethnicities and races AND they are still in place and not being challenged by the same individuals and groups who have done so to AA. To explain why, I provided my interpretation of it and fairly well and in easy enough to understand language, I guess as long as White privilege doesn’t get in the way. Somehow, those who receive legacy admissions are still seen as getting in through merit and those who are assisted by AA are not. Part of that is based on who makes the decisions on what is valued and what is not, and for these two to coexist, White privilege as I have explained here, is one of them.

This somehow translates to it being fair to make white 18 year olds suffer a penalty for historical racism by making them work to overcome the advantages of a good neighborhood, family and a decent education.

Any “penalty” Whites play for “historical racism” is more than made up for the benefits the race received as a result of both “historical racism” and present day racism. Black men and women still are not only penalized by past and present racism but also by the backlash they inevitably receive if any remedies are put in place to address past and present racism. AA lasted what, several decades until it was challenged and even eliminated, whereas racism against Africans and African-Americans in this country has continued for over 300 years. But which is viewed as the greater sin? Current day racism or alleged reverse racism? The drive to eliminate AA in this country should provide the answer to that.

Why not just admit AA is an unfair and crude remedy, but that any one of us would accept help from an unfair crude remedy if it benefits us.

Sorry Elena, can’t do so. Why, because admitting to something I believe is inherently false, would not be “intellectually honest” nor even “honest” for that matter. It would be caving into your desire to “win” this argument, through the dishonest use of strawman arguments.

So, if Whites(any one of us) accept help from an “unfair crude remedy” like legacy or donor admissions, then we’re just accepting a remedy that benefits us, but with people of color, primarily certain racial Asian ethnicities, Latinos, American Indians and African-Americans, they should not have the ability to do like, which they won’t if AA is eliminated. Which goes back to the question I asked, why aren’t legacy admission AA treated in a similar fashion? And don’t answer that it affects only a few people, because the practice of AA, regardless of how many people it actually benefits had been challenged, but legacy admissions have not.

I don’t blame Black people for liking or even advocating for AA, but there is really no way to call it fair and just, or to pretend Whites are devils for not being magnanimous about it.

Gee, thanks for not “blaming” Black people for advocating for AA, while at the same time you want to eliminate it. Oh, and Whites are hardly ever maganimous about giving up what we perceive to belong to us. If we were, AA might have made it to the 50 year mark. It won’t.

Also, it is hard to imagine “the accomplishments of white people are worth more than the accomplishments of non-white people, even when the accomplishment is the same” being an accepted opinion of any huge group of people in a world without racism.

You mention that Harvard takes ten students from your school each year. From this, I take it you are/were at a top tier high school, probably in the North East. The reason that Harvard only takes ten students from your school may well be because Harvard has a system in place to emphasize national diversity, so less qualified students from Montana and Kansas are admitted at the expense of more qualified candidates from New York and Massachusetts. So the black student in your story may merely have been avoiding the discrimination against your high school, rather than benefiting from favoritism towards blacks.

While the favoritism towards national regional diversity has its origins in Harvard trying to come up with ways to discriminate against Jewish students, I think that it does serve a legitimate interest as well, but it strangely doesn’t lead to much hand wringing about how it contributes to stereotyping of stupid mid-westerners.

In a world where racism did not exist, beliefs shared by a critical mass of white people would still be accepted as norms on numerical strength. Why ascribe to racism what is perfectly adequately explained by weight of number?

I hope for their sake that it is not. A reasoned response to such a statement is impossible because first I have to get over the conspiracy theory aspect of this idea- that Whites, distinct among all humans, somehow reach a consensus about what is of value and then cooperate to exclude all other races. This somehow translates to it being fair to make white 18 year olds suffer a penalty for historical racism by making them work to overcome the advantages of a good neighborhood, family and a decent education.

Elena:

Radfem didn’t suggest a conspiracy theory in any way, nor do AA proponents believe that racism is a conspiracy. So your “conspiracy” argument is simply a strawman argument, something I hope your high school English teacher would not have approved of.

(Edited to add this paragraph and the next one:) Radfem can speak for herself, of course. But my impression is that when she says that whites are able to say what value is, she’s not suggesting a backroom conspiracy, but rather the idea that, due to racism, beliefs shared by a critical mass of white people are more likely to be accepted as norms, and are taken more seriously. Whites who are let in to exclusive colleges because of wealth, athletic ability, or legacies are not seen as getting a less valuable education; but blacks and latinas who attend these colleges are, you claim, seen as having gotten a less valuable education.

I’d say that going to an exclusive college gives people a chance to prove themselves through their work; graduating from a place like Yale or Harvard requires some degree of effort and talent no matter how you got in (although probably a bit less ability and effort is required from wealthy legacy students who can hire tutors, get help from their exclusive frats and clubs, etc). The value of a Harvard degree is not based on what a person’s SAT scores were when they entered Harvard. And the sort of person who looks at a black person with a Harvard degree and assumes they’re incompetent, would probably have made the exact same assumption if that black person had instead had a degree from Oberlin. (I am not accusing you of being such a person.)

Secondly, AA is a response to historic and ongoing racism, not just to historic racism. Implying that racism is only historic, and not a current concern, is inaccurate. (I’m not saying you intended to imply that racism no longer exists or matters, but since you referred only to “historic racism,” it could be read that way.)

My English teacher in high school used to call airy arguments with no specific information attached to them ‘glittering generalities’. Your statement:

“Part and parcel of White privilege is to decide the value of something and then speak for everyone else on what is valued ” would curl her hair, if she’s still alive somewhere.

I don’t think that this sort of circular reasoning is part and parcel of AA proponents- I hope for their sake that it is not. A reasoned response to such a statement is impossible because first I have to get over the conspiracy theory aspect of this idea- that Whites, distinct among all humans, somehow reach a consensus about what is of value and then cooperate to exclude all other races. This somehow translates to it being fair to make white 18 year olds suffer a penalty for historical racism by making them work to overcome the advantages of a good neighborhood, family and a decent education. Any protest over being held to a higher standard, even if you are, like my cousins, white students from a shitty urban school and dangerous neighborhood, is racist and merely an expression of “White entitlement”.

I don’t think your arguments are fair or intellectually honest. You must know that legacy admissions may help a group of people who are overwhelmingly White, but it’s hardly an unfair advantage Whites enjoy as a group. Why not just admit AA is an unfair and crude remedy, but that any one of us would accept help from an unfair crude remedy if it benefits us. I don’t blame Black people for liking or even advocating for AA, but there is really no way to call it fair and just, or to pretend Whites are devils for not being magnanimous about it.

Ask George W. Bush and many other politicians who got into Ivy League through these routes. They would argue that they were admitted due to their own merits. In part because no one challenges the credibility and worth of those who are accepted to universities based on these two standards.

Ironically, AA may have made White people’s degrees worth more, the way their admissions are more of an honor.

To whom and for whom, Whites? Why is that surprising? Part and parcel of White privilege is to decide the value of something and then speak for everyone else on what is valued.

I know that if I were hell bent on being accepted into a top -tier school, I’d be happy to get it by hook or by crook and appearances be damned. Thus, I understand that a person who is Black that wants to grab an opportunity will be glad to get the opportunity any way it comes. Any of us would, and if we can feel justified at being given an unmerited reward because of racial injustices, then fine. Yet that “conservative reasoning” that states that AA stigmatizes Blacks cannot be dismissed. It DOES stigmatize Blacks, because, like my friend, a thing ike accpetance into Harvard is diminished if standards are lowered. The perception is that in order to get into a top tier school you have to be excellent if you are Black, exceptionally excellent if you are white. IN fact, this is not a perception at all, but reality. Ironically, AA may have made White people’s degrees worth more, the way their admissions are more of an honor.

The most elite state schools saw a drop, but the others did not.

This is true. UCB and UCLA saw drops. I think much of the increase was seen at UC Riverside.

It’s possible that the spam-catcher accidently caught it. I just skimmed through several pages of the spam, and didn’t find any non-spam - but there’s currently over 5,000 posts in the spam trap, so I might have missed it.

I will be happy to collect the data and send it along to you just as soon as it becomes available. ;)

That crazy theory that conservatives promote (the blacks self esteem is hurt by AA programs) is clearly not supported. The most recent studies indicate that the handful of Black students at these schools feel worse about themselves and their college experiences because they are so out numbered, and they perceive the school as turning its back on them.

While I might quibble with Sewere’s use of “ever-decreasing” (I think enrollment would make one large drop when AA was removed, and then make some small drops over the next 4 years as the schools became ever whiter and more hostile to non-whites, and then would start to gradually rise again), if you are quibbling over the larger idea of enrollment not dropping, it is pretty clear from California’s example that you are wrong, faith or no faith.