See also:
Obama retakes web traffic lead from Ron Paul
Paul still leads Clinton, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani and McCain - Mainstream media fails to report
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_retakes_web_traffic_lead_from_Ron_Paul/blog

Although affirmative action policy is directed towards race, I'd submit that as "Legacies," Sen. Obama's children would (in all likelihood) gain admission to Harvard, anyways. I'm not convinced that the children of prominent alum are in need of race based affirmative action to gain admission to their parent’s alma mater, especially when there is presumed entitlement of admission as a "Legacy" admit. However, I am certain, that an "AA" seat in a Harvard freshman class would most benefit an African-American scholar from a lower rung of privilege.

What follows is a link to "The New Yorker" which published an article in October 2005 that chronicles the admissions practices of three Ivy's (primarily Harvard) during the 20th century.

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html

However, given the admissions landscape of Ivy League institutions, what would make for an interesting study, would be the rate of non-admission of African-American (Ivy League) "Legacies," whom possess comparable admissions characteristics to their Caucasian counter-parts.

As it always has been, racism is something that is inside one's mind enacting them to treat a person a certain way and to make judgements based on skin color; therefore, a Black millionaire's child can be just as PRE-judiced against as a poor Black child in the classroom.

More so today than 10 years ago, overt racism seems to be growing and there is a resentment towards wealthy Blacks as well as poor Blacks.

Racism is racism and a racist society is a racist society, period. Therefore Affirmative Action needs to stay in place as long as there are severe racial disparities that exist.

Tests to get into college are geared towards a white mind with interests that encompass, basically, White people's realm of interest. Test need to be changed to be more inclusive of what other-than-whites are interested in.

Take Jeopardy for example, the categories are basically about European history and people. Well, I'm Black and I know Black history and there aren't that many questions that are well-rounded to include information that is not of interest to White people. The same goes for these tests.

Keep Affirmative Action until we don't need it anymore and right now with 50 percent of Black students not graduating from even high school, we need all the help we can get.

All students still need to compete in their studies, no entitlements there. In order to compete in a good college, one needs to be pretty-much obsessed with studying.

The achievement gap is based on two things the quality of the elementary and secondary school attended and the quality of test preparation. Kaplan and Princeton Review really do improve test scores.
I think that affirmative action presumes that children from certain backgrounds do not have the same opporunties as their white counterparts. Obama is in a position to provide opportunities for his kids thus they shouldn't beneift from affirmative action. Affirmative action should be overhauled. But before we tackle affirmative action. He need to tackle the real problem which is that poor education received by kids in big urban school districts accross the country. Until we improve public education, we shouldn't waste time and energy with tinkering with affirmative action. For affirmative action to really work, the kids need to be prepared to take advantage of the opportunities. Right now we aren't preparing the kids.

We will never solve the educational problems in this country until we accept the politically incorrect fact that family structure, culture and societal expectations are far more important than test preparation or school funding.

The achievement gap is already in place by the time children enter kindergarten, and by the third grade, the die has been cast. A student with good reading skills and comprehension will be successful; those struggling will likely never catch up unless extreme intervention efforts are initiated -- beyond the scope of most of our public schools.

It doesn't help matters any when a child looks around and sees a culture that values everything but education.

Paul,

I agree with Obama. Rich black kids who had access to an education that should prepare them for an elite education should not get an advantage because of race. From my experience, those kids didn't need it anyway as their scores were comparable or better than those of rich whites.

We all know that race and class are incredibly intertwined, which is why Obama said "if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society." You can't remedy race without remedying class. At many selective institutions, race is irrelevant if you have the resources to fund most of your education.

And everything I've read has said affirmative action has disproportionately helped WHITE WOMEN, not middle class blacks. And enrolling blacks in elite institutions hasn't maintained a black middle class. Enrolling blacks in HBCUs has. More blacks graudate from HBCUs than elite institutions annually.

Interestingly, if we are to believe data on jewish enrollment provided by Hillel.org, White Christians are nearly as underrepresented in elite colleges and black and hispanic students.

Will it becme necessary to create affirmative action for White Christians too given trends in admissions outcomes?

In the UC system, after affirmative action was ended, black enrollment at Berkeley and UCLA declined but black enrollment for the entire UC system didn't change much. Black graduation rates have soared and today, UC system graduates more black students than it did prior to the affirmative action ban.

The impact of affirmative action at "elite" colleges on the black professional class is ambiguous.

Whether an individual deserves affirmative action during elite college admissions competitions depends on the other contestants against whom the individual would compete doesn't it?

Obama's children would deserve affirmative action if most of the students they had to compete against were even more privileged than Obama's children, and were more likely to have achieved better grades or test scores than Obama's children due primarily to their superior privileges rather than their superior work ethics. I doubt a university exists where Obama's children would find themselves in that kind of a competition. So I believe Obama’s children shouldn't get the same affirmative action benefits middle-class or lower-class Blacks should get when they compete against more privileged middle-class or upper-class Whites for elite university seats. Obama’s children should be tagged as top 15% affluents (special cases) and should have to compete against their extremely privileged White peers in head to head numerical showdowns.

I'm a fan of John Roemer's model for measuring deservedness as described in his 1998 book Equality of Opportunity. And, I believe the hardest working students who would be able to complete the rigorous curricula at our top universities should get the seats ahead of all the lazier yet very privileged students who get a bigger share of the seats than they deserve (assuming Daniel Golden's 2006 The Price of Admission is mostly true).

Using Roemer's mathematical tools, our elite university admissions experts might be able to develop methods to separate the lazy smart students from the hard working smart students more effectively. The hard working smart students deserve to have the seats at our very best universities and the lazy smart students deserve to get their educations elsewhere unless their parents/relatives would make huge financial contributions to the elite universities that would, in essence, serve as special penalty fees for their underperforming students' laziness. These special penalty fees could be principled ways to enable hard working students to benefit from the extremely privileged students’ laziness at those elite universities that do not yet have colossal endowments like Harvard’s, Yale’s, Stanford’s, or Princeton’s.

Should Clarence Thomas' children benefit from Affirmative Action? Afterall, he did. In all seriousness, of course Obama's kids deserve the same benefits of affirmative action as any other African-American child. The whole income and class nonsense is just a smokescreen by Whites opposed to affirmative action to diminish their culpability in creating the conditions that require affirmative action in the first place--racism. Blacks were not denied access to these schools because of their income, it was because of their race. Admissions decisions are made before financial aid considerations are taken into account (in theory). Most of the Whites kids in these schools can't afford them, so what's the point of even taking income into consideration when the issue is past RACIAL discrimination? Maybe when there is more than 1 Black Senator out of 100, we can revisit this issue of whether or not the kids of high fallutin' Blacks need affirmative action to get into these schools. One Black senator does not mean racism has ended. In fact, in a nation that is 25-30% non-White, it indicates that it is alive and well and entrenched.

cmoney,

If the issue is past racial discrimination, why don't jews and asians receive affirmative action as well?

And while the US is indeee 30% non-white, most elite colleges are 35-45% non-white.

If the issue is past racial discrimination, why don't jews and asians receive affirmative action as well?

Because neither group was discriminated against by force of law for starters..., but then presumably you know that already and are merely up to your typical trolling antics.

That's simply not true. Asians were discriminated against rather severely by force of law for many years - at east as much as Hispanic/Latino Americans.

But we were talking about discrimination in the admissions process of elite colleges. These colleges had explicit quotas on the enrollment of various ethnic groups (including at different times and places, jews and asians).

Incidentally, why is my post "trolling?" Is it because I dared to question the dominant point of view on this board?

I thought AA was in place to give advantages to all people who have been historically discriminated against, which goes beyond race and is why women and the poor benefit from it, no?

In the UC system, after affirmative action was ended, black enrollment at Berkeley and UCLA declined but black enrollment for the entire UC system didn't change much. Black graduation rates have soared and today, UC system graduates more black students than it did prior to the affirmative action ban.

Prove it with data.

Aaron: Asians do receive benefits from affirmative action. They are counted as a minority, just like everyone else. In fact, Asians account for much of the 35-45% non-whites at the "elite" colleges that you noted. Jews have opposed affirmative acttion traditionally because of the alleged "quotas". Quotas were used by some schools to LIMIT the number of Jews that could be enrolled. For example, a school might limit Jewish admissions to 10 students per class. If more than 10 qualified for that class, only 10 could get in. Hence, their understandable opposition to quotas (which are not a part of affirmative action, BTW). I don't think we need to throw out the affirmative action just yet. Yes, there are some very successful Blacks who could probably get their kids the best possible pre-college preparation, but they are few and far in between. If their kids happen to benefit from AA as well, is that such a crime? Afterall, the Bush twins and their ilk can still get into any school they want based upon who they are, just like their father.

What the hell is a 'black blog?' I wasn't aware one could attribute phenotypical characteristics of human beings to an entity in cyberspace. Perhaps you could flesh this concept out some more?

This blog is run by 'black' law professors but the blog (and the associated comments) deals with a multitude of issues of race, ethnicity, gender, equality etc that are not limited in scope to the travails of black Americans. Even if it were, can issues facing black Americans really be disentagled from issues facing other Americans? Come on -- that's ridiculous.

Perhaps some day you will be able to locate a 'black blog' that's more to your liking.

Aaron, don't think Jews and Asians don't benefit from AA. Some schools use AA very broadly.

cmoney,

It's been shown that Asian admissions rates are substantially below what one would predict on the basis of objective qualifications. It's also been shown that affirmative action reduces Asian enrollment while having no impact on white enrollment. I think it's difficult to argue that Asians benefit from affirmative action in college admissions. They have been admitetd to elite colleges in large numbers despite tacit attempts to limit their enrollment.

Bush's daughter almost certainly benefited from a form of affirmative action in getting into Yale. It's particularly unsettling given all the advantages she had that a poor student would not have had. To a libertarian, there's nothing wrong with affirmative action of any sort at a private college but that affirmative action is unacceptable at a public college.

Right now, affirmative action is the law of the land except in a few states. It's a fairly low impact public policy, despite all the controversy it engenders.

ETS,

I'm sure there are always *some* schools which will give affirmative action to asians and jews. Bob Jones University? BYU? Who knows. But under current laws, Jews are considered Caucaisan and thus do not receive benefits. Asians have been shown in various studies to lose enrollment due to affirmative action while white enrollment is unaffected.

It's been shown that Asian admissions rates are substantially below what one would predict on the basis of objective qualifications. It's also been shown that affirmative action reduces Asian enrollment while having no impact on white enrollment. I think it's difficult to argue that Asians benefit from affirmative action in college admissions. They have been admitetd to elite colleges in large numbers despite tacit attempts to limit their enrollment.

Again, alot of unsupported assertions. Provide links and relevant passages.

Asians have been shown in various studies to lose enrollment due to affirmative action while white enrollment is unaffected.

What asians; chinese, vietnamese, laotians, pakistanis? In what percentage of schools?

In other words, show us some data to back up your mythmaking. Or a study from an objective, preferably academic, party.

keto,

I gatehred some links but I got a message when I tried to post that my comments were pending approval by the blog owner. I have no idea why.

keto,

If you have an anonymous email address you don't mind posting, I am happy to email you the links I found. I'm not sure if I am being censored or if its just technical difficulties.

OK, then cite:

1) Your claim
2) The relevant passage
3) The reference (author, org, title of study, etc)

Let's try one at a time....

"Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent."

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml

"During the Michigan campaign, a group that opposes affirmative action released a study bolstering claims that Asian students are held to a higher standard. The study, by the Center for Equal Opportunity, in Virginia, found that Asian applicants admitted to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT score of 1400 on the 400-1600 scale then in use. That was 50 points higher than the median score of white students who were accepted, 140 points higher than that of Hispanics and 240 points higher than that of blacks."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

"In 1990, a federal investigation concluded that Harvard University admitted Asian-American applicants at a lower rate than white students despite the Asians' slightly stronger test scores and grades. Federal investigators also found that Harvard admissions staff had stereotyped Asian-American candidates as quiet, shy and oriented toward math and science. The government didn't bring charges because it concluded it was Harvard's preferences for athletes and alumni children -- few of whom were Asian -- that accounted for the admissions gap."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

what's so hard to understand? he's saying that the biggest barrier to equality in education - cost - has been greatly diminished, and that, since affirmative action fosters racial animus, it will eventually need to be done away with if we want to realize true racial equality in this country. what's so hard to understand about this? of course financial aid and AA are "different." but then again, obama wasn't asserting that they weren't. your post is a gigantic straw man from hell.

"In 1990, a federal investigation concluded that Harvard University admitted Asian-American applicants at a lower rate than white students despite the Asians' slightly stronger test scores and grades. Federal investigators also found that Harvard admissions staff had stereotyped Asian-American candidates as quiet, shy and oriented toward math and science. The government didn't bring charges because it concluded it was Harvard's preferences for athletes and alumni children -- few of whom were Asian -- that accounted for the admissions gap."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

"The University of California came under similar scrutiny at about the same time. In 1989, as the federal government was investigating alleged Asian-American quotas at UC's Berkeley campus, Berkeley's chancellor apologized for a drop in Asian enrollment. The next year, federal investigators found that the mathematics department at UCLA had discriminated against Asian-American graduate school applicants. In 1992, Berkeley's law school agreed under federal pressure to drop a policy that limited Asian enrollment by comparing Asian applicants against each other rather than the entire applicant pool."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

The profs are on to you too!

Actually, it's their movable type spam filter that's set on automatic kill. If you embed more than one link in a post, your post gets rejected as SPAM, and no, most of the profs do not check their comment queue to see if there are substantive posts stuck in moderation.

ooh boy...., can't wait to see what conservative stink tank these predigested and heavily spun links will point to...., heritage, AEI, manhattan, amren....,

Here's the Princeton study in full: http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf

cnulan,

Thanks for the info about the embedding links....

One of the links is from a libertarian (NOT CONSERVATIVE!) think tank. The rest are from the Justice Dept or from academia. And there's more to come.

And as much as I hate Heritage Foundation's stuff, comparing them to Amren which is a racist organization is really indefenisble.

"It is true that after Prop 209 went into effect, as opponents had predicted, black and Hispanic populations at California's two most elite universities – Berkeley and UCLA – dropped by nearly half and have never fully recovered. According to admissions data, between 1995 and 2004, black admissions to Berkeley dropped from 6.66 percent to 3.59 percent and Hispanics from 17 to 10.22 percent. UCLA reported similar drops.

Yet, despite these drops, the overall population of minority students across the University of California system has remained remarkably stable."

Source: http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20061107.shtml (op ed appeared in the SF Examiner. The data are publicly available from the state of CA).

And from the above op-ed:

"Four-year graduation rates for blacks at UC San Diego, for example, doubled from 26 percent in 1995 to 52 percent in 2001 – nearly on par with whites and Asians. Similarly, Mexican-American graduation rates are up from 27 percent in 1995 to 42 percent in 2001."

cnulan,

yeah, attack the source instead of the facts. that's the mark of someone who knows what they're talking about. it's also a good argument technique. ad hominem arguments are just great.

(and you're automatically discredited for claiming that heritage "spins" anything: they're probably the most respected and objective thinktank out there.)

And the data on CA prop 209 from a law review article (not sure of the extent of peer review): http://www.law2.byu.edu/JPLNew/Vol%2020.1/4Hadley.pdf

Chauncey,

I hate to disagree with the only guy out there who is supporting me, but Heritage is absolutely ideological and, while respected in some circles, is far from objective in its research output.

That said, one cannot simply dismiss their research without reading it. They may be ideological but the research could still be solid.

And while Heritage is generally a mouthpiece for a conservative political agend,a it's not a racist organization like American Renaissance. Shame on anyone who compares the two!

Although this story is not about Asians, it is interesting to note that the Asian community is divided on affirmative action. Those who support it are quick to debunk the "model minority" stereotype of Asians as all being rich, highly educated, free from discrimination, and overrepresented in certain fields. This blogger seems to make a cogent argument:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aamodel.htm

Some Whites use the model minority stereotype to argue against AA for Asians. Some Asians feel that AA hurts them in terms of admission slots to some schools in that they are losing spaces to non-Asian minorities. I think they would all agree, however, that Asians have been subjected to harsh discrimination in this country (especially in California) and continue to be regarded as "foreigners" by many.

oh Lawd..., suspicious like Uncle Clarence say;

In Grutter v. Bollinger, he argued that affirmative action stigmatizes all blacks, who are either promoted above their abilities or subjected to the unfair suspicion that they would not be where they are absent a racial preference. Regardless of the category into which Thomas would put himself, this response suggests how even beneficiaries of affirmative action can oppose it without hypocrisy.

and mad too?

what's so hard to understand? he's saying that the biggest barrier to equality in education - cost - has been greatly diminished, and that, since affirmative action fosters racial animus, it will eventually need to be done away with if we want to realize true racial equality in this country.

ah know I sho don't wont massa mad at me for gettin some'a what he been takin fo hisself since 1627...,

cnulan,

I don't care much for Clarence Thomas either but trivializing him using the same racist terms used for many years by white racists is truly despicable.

Where I come from, everyone has the right to be treated with dignity even if the ideas that person expresses are not those you agree with. That you invoke racist references to mock him only makes it worse.

And while Heritage is generally a mouthpiece for a conservative political agend,a it's not a racist organization like American Renaissance. Shame on anyone who compares the two!

Sorry for the momentary digression, but this bears periodic repetition here when conservatives and their kneegrological water carriers periodically come a-calling..,

Conservatism is a form (indeed the original form) of identity politics. It is expressed through multiple forms of political ideology based on justifying elite rule and the division of the human race into dualized classes (ideal and counter-ideal) in terms of some “natural” moral order.

Conservatism appears in various forms as the rationalizations and dualized classes shift over time, and in three distinct states of realization, reflecting different levels of development of the self. The overt rationalizations commonly mistaken for conservative ideology are, in fact, derivative phenomena—tertiary at best. The primary phenomena is the creation of a conservative identity, the subject of conservative political narratives. The secondary phenomena is the supporting ideology of superior and inferior groups, casting conservative identity as something to be preserved, promoted, and defended against the forces of evil, embodied in its demonized others. The primary and secondary phenomena are relatively constant over time, while the tertiary phenomena vary considerably.

Black folks got a HUGE amount of experience combatting the racist drivel passing itself off as conservatism.

Paul Rosenberg's complete analysis (multiple links) bundled in a single post at Cobb.

back to our regularly scheduled, and on-topic banter...,

"But under current laws, Jews are considered Caucaisan and thus do not receive benefits. Asians have been shown in various studies to lose enrollment due to affirmative action while white enrollment is unaffected." - Aaron

Can you please show me a law that said Jews are considered white? And even if they are, like I said before, some schools use AA very broadly and will admit people based on religious diversity. Yeah some Asians may lose AA to bring in more whites at some schools, but it's all relative. At other schools being Asian benefits you and not just at the ones you mentioned.

cnulan,

I'm not a political conservative and I have no great love for the vast majority of the tenets of politcal conservativism. I think muc of what you say is probably true, on avearge. That said, just because racists have masked themselves in the cloak of conservativism (and they've masked themselves as liberals too!) doesn't mean it makes a scrap of sense to link the two as if they are the same or descendent from the same root ideology. That's ridiculous. And it's also unfair. And that argument is often used to support the practice of calling anyone who disagrees with a liberal/progressive political agenda, a racist.

I don't care much for Clarence Thomas either but trivializing him using the same racist terms used for many years by white racists is truly despicable.

Where I come from, everyone has the right to be treated with dignity even if the ideas that person expresses are not those you agree with. That you invoke racist references to mock him only makes it worse.

oh no Aaron, you got it twisted. I mocked Uncle Thomas extensively on Sherilyn Ifill's thread preceding this one. no, the above archaic vernacular was directed at none other than your would-be present water carrier who has made it abundantly clear that he believes that kneegrows must strive to be loved by white folks - and that Black folks who scorn such self-abasing kneegrows (of which Uncle Clarence is an exemplar) are likenable to hateful crabs in a bucket...,

ETS,

Go to the Office of Personnel Management homepage. People with ancestral originas in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa are considered Caucasian under federal employment guidelines.

Several years ago, an Egyptian immigrant with features and skin color that most Americans would identify as 'black' sued the OPM because he was classified as 'Caucasian.' OPM refused to reconsider because his ancestry was tied to a country in North Africa.

Clarence Thomas can surely disagree with you on affirmative action without being likened to a "self-abasing" negro, can't he?

Clarence Thomas can surely disagree with you on affirmative action without being likened to a "self-abasing" negro, can't he?

ETS,

I don't have the patience to sort through the OPM mess of a webpage but here's a UC Berkeley page that references the guidelines:

http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/seads/aaeeodef.htm

"Caucasian - Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (not of Hispanic origin)."

That said, just because racists have masked themselves in the cloak of conservativism (and they've masked themselves as liberals too!) doesn't mean it makes a scrap of sense to link the two as if they are the same or descendent from the same root ideology.

Please enlighten us all concerning what precisely it is that the so-called conservative seeks to conserve?

That's ridiculous. And it's also unfair. And that argument is often used to support the practice of calling anyone who disagrees with a liberal/progressive political agenda, a racist.

for as long as I can recall, the term "librull" has served as a less odious functional equivalent of the archaic usage, nigger lover - nobody is fooled by these post southern strategy terms and nearly every politically conscious Black person knows EXACTLY what the overwhelming majority of conservative code words actually mean.

What's an even more fascinating focus of study is that tiny minority of kneegrows whose minds and identities have been "snatched" by the conservative mimetic onslaught - reducing them in the process to racial cannibals (duppies) quick to attack, rend, and if possible devour the vital and succulent sensibilities of sane and self-possessed Black folks...,

Clarence Thomas can surely disagree with you on affirmative action without being likened to a "self-abasing" negro, can't he?

Whether he agrees or disagrees with me is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether he is constructively engaged in interpersonal communion with Black folks and the documented opinions he has expressed - which expressions carry more authority than the average man on the streets..,

By both measures, Uncle Thomas is a deranged kneegrow duppy..., and an indisputably documented hazard to the legal health and well-being of Black folks in America.

cnulan,

I'm not a conservative and I don't want to put myself in the position of havin to defend their viewpoints. But my understanding is that many conservatives believe the government should promote a moral or religious agenda, that government should be small when it comes to the economy but big when it comes to enforcing social norms, etc.

In any case, by denying a black person his right to a racial identity if he happens to disagree with you on a political issue, you are robbing him of his right to individuality. I think that's terribly unfortunate.

Black America is not a monolith. Every person is an individual. Even if some similarities exist, every person has lived a different life and been subject to different experiences. Who are you to claim that all black people must stand in your line or suffer racial insults .... from you?

This really turns my stomach.

cnulan,

If you don't like Clarence Thomas' viewpoints, are you nevertheless capable of criciticing him without resorting to name calling? "negro," "Uncle Thomas" etc.

Is that really necessary?

I am sorry to say that some issues are not pointing to solutions but are knee jerk reactions to the racist.

Why did the working middle class in this country not fight for affordable college?
Let the brightess from all races into college and not be burden by 75k afterwards.

Why do we focus on college when many jobs need 14 years of education and a good High School education?

Barack Obama does not seem creative and fresh. Who is he talking too?

Spinning wheels in the air
What do they change
Just the flow of hot air!

Nana,

College is incredibly affordable. The average college graduate earns several hundred thousand dollars more over a lifetime than a non-graduate. Even a four-year private university at $40k a year pays for itself many times over. And state university is much cheaper.

If you want to go to college, take out loans like the rest of us do!

Aaron: If the shoe fits, then Uncle Thomas has to wear it. If any Black man is worthy of scorn an derision, it is Clarence Thomas. Political views aside, he is disgraceful as a person and a mockery to the image, intellect and accomplishments of Black lawyers. Yes, he is a classic Uncle Tom and he wears the badge proudly.

cmoney,

Your above post is pure, unabated racism. I don't know what else to call it. This is no different than if a white politician were to refer to Al Sharpton using a racist term.

If you think he's a despicable person, then call him despicable. If you think he's a womanizer, then say so. But to use his racial background to scorn him is, in my mind, completely unacceptable. In my opinion, it crosses a line that decent people shouldn't cross.

I don't want to say anymore about this. I honestly find it very upsetting.

Aaron,

well, HF is generally regarded as rather objective.

but you're right about cmoney. i think the fact that he resorts to silly racist comments indicates two things: 1) how unintelligent or immature he clearly must be, and 2) that he recognizes how weak his position truly is.

Aaron: If the shoe fits, then Uncle Thomas has to wear it. If any Black man is worthy of scorn an derision, it is Clarence Thomas. Political views aside, he is disgraceful as a person and a mockery to the image, intellect and accomplishments of Black lawyers. Yes, he is a classic Uncle Tom and he wears the badge proudly.

When among home boys, why are we offended by remarks.

The myth of how individual we are is one of the last we have to fight. The studies are being proven that we are more shaped by external forces than we think
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9275
Clarence Thomas own words prove this out.

So folks who look at the institutions that shape our children, understand how important it is to fight the fight.

Chauncey: I could say a few things to you, but I will restrain myself. It's quite clear that you are nothing more than a White racist conservative who resorts to name calling yourself when people, such as myself challenge the racist, right wing drivel you post up here everyday. I could care less what you think of me. Just know that I know what you are and where you are coming from. By the way, it is not racist for me as a Black man to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom. Of course, being White, you and Aaron (probably the same people) wouldn't understand that.

cmoney,

not all conservatives are white. for example, uncle thomas isn't white, and his views basically mirror mine. it's pretty hard to understand why this extremely obvious point is completely lost on you, but i think it has a bit to do with your intelligence and maturity level (like i said above). only dumb people with the brains of children can't see past race.

"uncle tom" is racist. "sambo" is racist. mentioning "massas" in the same sentence as a black man is racist. thus, if i'm "racist" like you said, then i'd be the one saying these things. wait, but i'm not. so who said these things?

you.

funny, no? or maybe ironic?

cmoney,

Black people are perfectly capable of expressing racism against other black people. The names you have called Clarence Thomas are a perfect example of this. Being black does not grant you permission to use race as a means of objectifying and demonizing others of the same race. You don't get a free pass. No one does.

OK, now I'm really done with this garbage.

Aaron, those guidelines do not apply in all admissions decisions - especially those of private, elite colleges.

ETS,

That's correct. They don't apply to private, elite colleges. But private, elite colleges have, nevertheless, come to rely on them.

In any case, if you think there are a large number of private elite colleges that give preference to jewish applicants for religious reasons, can you cite links with evidence of this? It's very hard to believe given that applicants are not asked to specify religion on their application. Not for some time.

As for asian students who despite being harmed by affirmative action are still vastly overrepresented at all elite colleges, it's very difficult to believe that they would receive preference for reasons of diversity.

But I'm open minded. I will take a look at any evidence you cite.

Chauncey & Aaron: So what, you don't wear a hood. Doesn't mean that what you are pushing isn't the same old racist ideology that has been used against Black people for centuries. I'm not falling for it. It's also amazing how you have this reflexive gag response whenever anyone challenges the integrity of Clarence Thomas. Maybe you are one of his former Clerks, a clear indication that you are not Black. Being a Black, and thus a potential victim of Clarence Thomas' ante-deluvian policial philosophy and self hatred gives me every grounds for calling him out for exactly what he is. There is no place for civility when it comes to race haters like Uncle Clarence Thomas--my life, my people and the integrity of Black lawyers and judges are stake. Yes, I hate him. Deal with it.

Aaron states:
"If you think he's a despicable person, then call him despicable. If you think he's a womanizer, then say so. But to use his racial background to scorn him is, in my mind, completely unacceptable."

Debbie: So then if one thinks Clarence Thomas is an "Uncle Tom" (which he is) why shouldn't one call him an "Uncle Tom"?

There is never too much at stake to be civil. Civility is a prerequisite to meaningful discourse.

Debbie,

Because that's a racist word that objectifies him solely because of his race. After all, were he something other than black, the term would not apply to him. The term is used to single out black dissenters. It is wielded as a weapon to mute anyone who dares to express some opinion outside the norm among certain circles.

Being despicable or a womanizer is independent of race. It's a quality that exists among every population of people. To say that an individual expresses an undesirable quality is one thing. But when a person's racial background is held against him, it is another thing entirely.

I know this thread is about affirmative action, but when it comes to Uncle Clarence, he doesn't deserve the respect of civil discourse, much less the respect that would normally be due an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. If a White Associate Justice said he would never hire a Black clerk, there would be no dispute that he or she was pre-disposed to discriminating against African-Americans, but I am supposed to give Clarence Thomas a free pass when he says (and does) the same thing because he is Black? Screw him! He is a bigot and is not worthy of respect. Back to affirmative action, please.

Debbie,

I see "Uncle Tom" as very similar to "black b*tch." Inserting the word 'black' in there is meant solely to objectify the person the comment is directed towards. Uncle Tom is like this to. Why not simply say Clarence Thomas is "intellectually lazy or dishonest" or that he's a "bigot." Both of these are race neutral.

Aaron,

As spare time permits, I am looking at some your posted studies.

On the Princeton study:

1) The results of this study are based on a numerical model. I think this is an important point that is missed in your assertions and posts. There have been many real life cases from which to draw direct empirical data. I am making no judgments about the quality of the model, but it is a model nonetheless.

2) The proxy for "merit" that this model uses is SAT score alone, not GPA, not letters of reccomendation, not extra curricular activities. The authors themselves point this out in a previous paper: Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities.

3) One question that I cannot sift through at short notice is the effect of white privilege on asian admission. How many asian spots are taken by whites? This question is seldom touched upon.

Aaron said: “Because that's a racist word that objectifies him solely because of his race.”

Debbie: You mean just like the term “whore” objectifies women solely because of their sex?

Aaron said: “After all, were he something other than black, the term would not apply to him.”

Debbie: Obviously. If he were anything other than black the appropriate term would be a racist, but because Thomas is black the appropriate term would be an “Uncle Tom”. Or is there another more appropriate term one can use?

Aaron said: “The term is used to single out black dissenters. It is wielded as a weapon to mute anyone who dares to express some opinion outside the norm among certain circles.”

Debbie: No the term Uncle Tom specifically refers to a black person who serve the interests of whites at the expense of blacks if some people incorrectly use it then that’s their (your) problem.

Aaron said: Being despicable or a womanizer is independent of race. It's a quality that exists among every population of people. To say that an individual expresses an undesirable quality is one thing. But when a person's racial background is held against him, it is another thing entirely.

Debbie: Being a womanizer while independent of race, is not independent of gender (sex). It exists only amongst the male population. So would you now argue that the term womanizer objectifies men because their gender is held against them?

Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom and thus deserves to be called an Uncle Tom.

One more point about the princeton model: it only based on 3 elite universities.

The English language is full of words that are not race, gender, sex, class, etc. neutral such words include whores, womanizer, “Uncle Tom” and yes while these terms may be viewed as objectifying the individual because of a certain characteristic he/ she possess, it can also be viewed simply as descriptive. Calling Clarence Thomas a racist/ bigot does not convey the same meaning as the term Uncle Tom does.

Aaron -
I don't know how much religious diversit is factored into admissions. I just know that it is. Harvard has gone on record as saying they look for all kinds of arbitrary diversity in a Washington Post/Newsweek article by Jay Matthews. I can't find it now, but you can look for it on either website.

Applications give lots of opportunities to share one's faith, such as extra curriculars, essay and letter's of recommendation.

Asians are not over represented at all elite colleges. But then agains when we say elite, what schools are we talking about?

They'll have the money thing and legacy thing going - they won't need the race angle.

I recommend the book Price of Admission to open your eyes about just how much the money and legacy advantages are running rampant at these elite schools.

In any case, by denying a black person his right to a racial identity if he happens to disagree with you on a political issue, you are robbing him of his right to individuality. I think that's terribly unfortunate.

Uncle Thomas has existed in a continuous state of racial self-denial longer than I've been grown. He's certainly proven himself an individual, a proverbial singleton truly worthy of Ayn Rand's fetid and ophidian passions. As such an exemplar in the objectivist mold, Uncle Thomas has no need or use for the cultural solidarity embodied in Blackness.

Black America is not a monolith. Every person is an individual.

Uncle Thomas is perfectly entitled, and entirely free to indulge his purple on the outside phenotype surrounding a creamy nougat of unvarnished white supremacy on the inside.

Even if some similarities exist, every person has lived a different life and been subject to different experiences.

ah yes, permit me to respond with comparable aphoristic wisdom;

water is, as they say, very, very wet....,

Who are you to claim that all black people must stand in your line or suffer racial insults .... from you?

where did I make that claim? no, what I said is that Uncle Thomas is a deranged kneegrow duppy. To try to bring these wonderful digressions at least somewhat round to the topic du jour, Uncle Thomas is a deranged kneegrow duppy who has asserted in no uncertain terms that the material privations suffered under color of legal authority by Black folks up through the majority of the 20th century and continuing to this very day as a matter of entrenched social custom - that these material privations pale in comparison to the potential negative ramifications associable with what white folks think about Black folks;

In Grutter v. Bollinger, he argued that affirmative action stigmatizes all blacks, who are either promoted above their abilities or subjected to the unfair suspicion that they would not be where they are absent a racial preference.

why hell, pale-complected mediocrities get promoted waaaaaaaaay beyond the conceivable range of their abilities every single day as a matter of course in this society. Take the tragically still-reigning POTUS as an exemplifying case-in-point.

This really turns my stomach.

then you just may need to man up and stop catching the vapors...,

mebbe you could write off-thread and anonymously to one of the many sisters who comment at Blackprof.com and humbly ask where you might go about finding reference materials that could assist you with the much-needed cultivation of a little testicular fortitude?

I do not believe in affirmative action - I believe in affirmative reparations.

affirmative action put the same racist bigots in control to determine what Blacks they seem fit to meet the criteria for acceptance. That is not a solution - just another form of racism. We all seen how Whites act towards affirmative action - using AA to plant tokens that think like them. This is what George HW Bush did to replace Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas when deciding to put another African-American on the Supreme Court.

affirmative reparations is making institutions that wish to maintain their White majority status to pay a "bigot tax" that would finance entrepeunership for African-Americans and other groups affected by American racism. This would allow affected ethnic groups to pursue life, liberty and happiness without someone else approval.

Aaron - This is the first time I've seen you present a cognent, well researched argument since I've been here.

There are, however - several flaws in your argument.

First off - Asians and AA. There is, as of yet, and unexplained performance differential between Asians who came here during the first wvaes of immigration starting in the 1840's, and those who are performing well in standardized testing who are principally imigrants who came here AFTER the Civil rights Act of 1965 which opened doors for Asians. Legislation of which in thirty year Post WWII battle - Asian voices were notably absent.

As such, the "Model Minority" isn't being driven by the offspring of folks who suffered the degredations of anti-minority laws - making the "same burden" argument inherently false, AND SPECIOUS IN APPLICATION WHEN ARGUING THE IMPACT OF AA ON ASIANS.

There also seems to be a substantially different story when we look at subgroups within the Asian community. Over 40% of SE Asians in particular in California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are on public Assistance, with College graduation rates hovering at 10% -roughly equivalent to Hispanic Americans.

The next part of the argument which fails is that there is any congruence between the level of discriminatory activity today against Asians and black folks. There isn't.

The last wobbly leg to your argument is testing. Now - I don't have time for a windy discussion of this at this time - but why is it, the very same eleite insitutions you mention have largely dropped the SAT as a reliable predictor of academic sucess at their institutions?

Indeed - The SAT is at best a questionable predictor -

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/sat.shtml#predictors

BT,

Any material (data) on the pre-civil rights/post-civil rights asian groups?

I have a hypothesis, but have never seen any empirical data on this phenomena.

Prof. Butler: You say, rich black kids are outperformed by lower middle class white kids on standardized tests.

Do such kids from the South outperform black kids?

This is the way it works. The South has poor education and places a low value on education. All races are behind in the South.

Black folks in the North were isolated by segregation, perhaps, even now. They maintained their Southern standards of educational aspirations and attainment. Low.

There are no real black folks. All American South blacks are half white trash by blood.

Dark skinned African and Carribean immigrants likely outperform all groups from the South, once they learn a little English. These are real blacks, not the half white phony race whores seeking to scam the system.

Do you have any data comparing American phony blacks to phony American South whites?

SC,

i'd say the "real blacks" are the african blacks who, by the way, actually do pretty well on standardized tests. i call them the realest blacks because you ain't gettin no blacker than african. incidentally, african blacks are also the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action at elite schools. people say this is a bad thing, but i don't see how: if american blacks don't want to take advantage of affirmative action, then someone else will. africans, especially those coming from uncivilized hells like liberia and zimbabwe, are more than eager to take american blacks' place.

Supremacy Claus and Chauncey are pretty funny with the "real blacks" vs "half white trash" by blood.

So what are you guys? Real Whites or fake Whites?

Keto - Believe it or not, Ferengi (AKA Dragon Horse) is the expert on this and has done considerable research in this area. I'll have to go back to some of my old battles with him over at Dell's and see if any of the stuff he posted is still there.

If not - he should reappear shortly if he follows pattern.

BT,

I'm not arguing (nor have I ever argued) that Asian-Americans are monolithic. Nor have a I referred to them as a "model minority." What I have said is that, on net, they are harmed by affirmative action policies whereas white students are, on net, not harmed. I don't think it's [articularly instructive to debate who is worse off -- Asian immigrants or US-born blacks. US-born blacks tend to be born into less educated families on average but that's not overwhelmingly true. And the majority of Asian immigrants come to the United STates with almost no familiarity with US culture or the English language. And I don't think anyone here would argue that either group is the recipient of "white privilege."

The SAT is not an overwhlemingly strong predictor of WITHIN school academic success but it is a reliable predictor. And it is important to bear in mind that these studies focus on within-school cohorts, which, by definition, restricts variation and very likely underestimates the exam's utility.

ETS,

The Princeton study is indeed based on statistical models. This is the most powerful tool that social scientists have at their disposal as models can control for factors that would confound anecdotal or case-study based research. A statistical study, like any study, is never *proof* of anything. But, taken as a whole, the data strongly suggest that Asians are at minimum not benefitting from affirmative action and, in all likelihood, are harmed by it. White students are largely unaffected by affirmative action. However, despite this, white students are now actually underrepresented at the majority of "elite" colleges. I don't think this matters one bit but it's important that people understand this. The facts always matter.

As to the definition of elite, I didn't have anything specific in mind. I think we could settle on a definition. I was primarily referring to schools that are roughly the equivalent of first tier universities or liberal arts colleges - schools with very selective admissions. If you consider the top 15 or 20 national universities, Asians are indeed overrepresented at every single university - often by an enormous margin.

As for use of the term "Uncle Tom," I've said my piece. Just because one is black doesn't mean that person is justified in wielding words as weapons against black people who dissent. I continue to believe use of that word is really scraping the bottom of the moral and literary barrel.

Not even the College Board claims the SAT is a reliable predictor of college success (I am referring to graduating with a high GPA). It's a weak predictor of first year performance at best. Standardized tests are also very easy to manipulate. As someone who scored 90%+ percentile in both the SAT and ACT, I know what I am talking about.

You say that that study doesn't represent proof, then go on to use its results like indisputible fact. Just look at your rhetoric whenever you refer to the study.

In an above post, I pointed out the weaknesses of the study. They are substantial. Would you care to address these?

I took the time to actually read that paper and parts of the author's earlier paper in 1997. Have you done the same, or merely read the abstract and conclusion paragraphs.

"black people who dissent"

is an absolutely hilarious euphemism for UNCLE TOM.

Surrenduring an autopoetic term as rich and redolent with the truth of the matter in favor of the conservative sanctioned "black people who dissent" is NOT gonna happen, impassioned coonservative pleas notwithstanding...,

Has anyone come across a descriptive equivalent to PC that captures the essence of all this Luntzian double-talk employed by the arbiters of white identity politics?

Uncle Tom n. (1922) Origin US; applied to a servile black man; from the name of the hero in Harriet B. Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, (1851-52). 1967, Punch, "An obligation… applies constantly to all underdog groups, constantly tempted by rewards to uncle-tom, to pull the forelock." 1977, New Yorker, "Pryor goes through his part pop-eyed, playing the Uncle Tom for Uncle Toms."" This definition and usage can be found in The Oxford Dictionary of Slang(41). In the New Dictionary of American Slang, a short definition is given. "Uncle Tom n. a black man who emulates or adopts the behavior of the white majority"(451). The Random House Dictionary, the 1987 edition, gives a more detailed definition; "Uncle Tom, disparaging and offensive. a black man considered by other blacks to be subservient to or to curry favor with whites. 1. Uncle Tomism, a policy of relationship between whites and blacks involving a benevolent but patronizing attitude on the part of the whites and a willingly submissive attitude on the part of the blacks"(2056-57). Random House’s earlier edition (1966) has a slightly different definition, "Uncle Tom n. Contemptuous. A Negro who is abjectly servile or differential to whites. Also called Tom." The definition for Uncle Tomism remains the same except for the term black (1987 edition) which replaced Negro (1966 edition).

Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang defines it as a noun and a verb. "Uncle Tom n. [1920] (origin US Black) 1. Subservient Black person, fitting willingly into the stereotyped and inferior image refined by generations of White supremacy. 2. [1990’s] a tattle-tale, a person who befriends another, usually in the workplace, only to deceive them." "v. [1920] (Us Black) to act in a subservient obsequious manner to whites"(1244).

Aaron
Re: the Uncle Tom hijack - Like Debbie has already said, you keep referring to a common misusage of the term. Its definition isn't merely a black person who's political ideas oppose "mainstream black thought". But a black person who makes it a point ingratiate himself with whites at the expense of black people is an existing phenomenon that's perfectly valid to label. I'd disagree that Clarence Thomas deserves it, but it's still a relevant slur. A good example is Larry Elder (who amusingly doth protest too much the label), who is sickeningly and unnecessarily apologetic of white racism (which AFAIK is not a political stance).

Aaron, what is your overall point? Abolish affirmative action?

I also want to point out your own words in the recent post referring to that numerical model's data:

"The facts always matter."

"But, taken as a whole, the data strongly suggest that Asians are at minimum not benefitting from affirmative action and, in all likelihood, are harmed by it."

Whenever you make claims like this, you have to really scrutinize the model and its underlying factors. Trust me, I live in a world where people throw models (statistical and otherwise) around like candy at a parade.

It is not sufficient to merely fit a model to empirical phenomena; that is, making the model fit the real data doesn't validate the underlying structure of the model. For example, I could create a regressional model to fit the behavior of a pendulum's displacement. The model could fit the data quite well and fail to explain the physics taking place.

Likewise, the authors of the princeton study have created a model that fits some admissions data. But this model fails to explain the role of some significant factors, like GPA, and letters of recommendation--things we know affect admission. In addition, since admission trends don't signifiantly change over time, it becomes relatively easy to fit a model to them. The important test is if this model can predict 'bumps', or significant changes; an example would be what happened in the UC system after AA was abolished. I will sift through the two papers I have to see if they tried this. I suspect, though, that they haven't attempted this more robust test of their model.

keto,

SAT score and GPA account for an overwhleming amount of variation in admissions rates -- even those at elite schools. That the Princeton study did not consider other factors is a weakness in the study but it isn't a fatal flaw. And given that most elite colleges have similar admissions criteria, that the study focused on a handful of colleges, in my opinion, is neither here nor there. The question is, given this study, other studies, DOJ investigations and the like, what does the preponderance of the evidence tell us? I think it's indisputable that the evidence favors the fact that Asian students are not helped and are likely hurt by affirmative action policies. This is hardly a controversial stance.

Is the SAT a "reliable" predictor of college GPA? Yes. It's been studied over a number of years and, in each year, it's a significant predictor of 1st year college GPA. Does this mean SAT scores account for a great deal of GPA? No. Again, these studies focus on within-school cohorts which artifically decreases variation.

Congratulations on scoring above the 90th percentile in both sections of the SAT. I'm sure your parents must have been very proud.

cnulan,

A black conservative who opposes welfare state interventions generally supported by the majority of black voters is not servile. He is entitled to his opinion without being referred to as "servile."

Do I like Thomas' stance on issues like abortion and executive power? Hell no. But I don't think his position makes him servile. To me, he's simply a conservative douchebag. See -- name calling can be fun. Bigotry isn't.

keto,

I'm not making a point. I'm trying to present (1) facts and (2) propositions generally supported by the body of research and evidence. I don't think it makes sense to decide whether or not affirmative action ought to be abolished based on the experience of a small number of applicants to elite colleges.

I also posted some links that detail changes in admissions in the UC system pre- and post- Prop 209. And I posted links referencing several DOJ investigations that uncovered evidence of anti-Asian bias in admissions at several public universities.
The data on admissions rates at the University of Michigan throughout the 1990s are publicly available. You can take a look for yourself.

No one can say for certain that Asians have been hurt by affirmative action. But to simply point out flaws in models and ignore a large body of other evidence is to be in denial. If our standard in the social sciences were absolute proof, we'd never be able to learn anything.
People can (and do) throw around model results without examining the underlying data but, at the same time, an imperfection in a model does not mean the model is no longer valid. It just diminishes our confidence in the results. For example, regression models have found evidence of discrimination against blacks in US labor markets. Obviously these models do not control for every single factor. They are plagued by endogeneity etc. But does this mean they are wrong and balcks aren't discriminated against?

Again Aaron, what is your overall point? What's your overall stance on AA?

"That the Princeton study did not consider other factors is a weakness in the study but it isn't a fatal flaw. "

That's your opinion. It was so big of an issue that the authors themselves devoted much time to pointing it out. Why is it not a fatal flaw? Give a real reason.

"And given that most elite colleges have similar admissions criteria, that the study focused on a handful of colleges, in my opinion, is neither here nor there. "

Why? Do you have a real reason, or are you just 'going on faith'?

"Is the SAT a "reliable" predictor of college GPA? Yes...."

OK, why not provide the evidence up front, since you know I'm going to ask for it. You do have these studies, don't you?

Again, not even the College Board---the body that administers the SAT--makes this claim.

While we're at it, why don't you explain this paragraph a little more, in which you seem to contradict yourself. If SAT isn't a 'great deal' of GPA, then it would seem to cast a rock at your princeton model, which uses SAT as a proxy for merit and college success, which include GPA.

So you have no point. Fair enough.

When you bandy around this study, calling and representing its results as 'facts', you should be prepared for stark criticism. And this is what you have done up and down this thread. I wouldn't care if the they were studying black discrimination or not; a flawed study is a flawed study.

And you seem to be confused on a point. A regression model that fits to empirical data, allowing for factors is one thing. Such a model can use statistical tools and methods to find statistical significance of one or more factors.

A model that changes data and factors to make a prediction is something else.

This princeton study takes a model--based on a regression--and attempts to do the latter. It changes parameters and factors to create hypothetical scenarios, and attempts to make predictions based on these scenarios. And the predictions, IMO, are weak because they have not accounted for all of the major--I said major-- factors that determine admission.

Aaron -
Whites make up anywhere from 70 to 80 percent of the population at ALL elite colleges. No disrespect, but you will never convince me that they are "underrepresented" at any level of institutional privilege.

I'm not sure I know what Asians being "overrepresented" means. Are there too many Asians? Is there a such thing? Are there not enough whites? Is there a such thing?

I never used the term Uncle Tom.

ETS,

That's not true. They make up 70% at only two or three of the current US News top-15 national universities. Princeton Review.com had admissions data if you'd like to check it out.

Overrepresented refers to a situation in which Asian students are disproportionately represented compared to their incidence in the population. It's not a subjective assessment.

I know you didn't use the term "Uncle Tom". That was a resposne to others here who did. I apologize for the confusion.

ETS,

well, "overrepresented" means disproportionately large. the disproportionality is pegged to population ratios. for example, asians represent 12% of CA's population, but around 50% of the freshman undergraduates at the university of california. this means they're "overrepresented" at the UC. it's really no more complicated than that.

keto,

This is one study among six sources I cited. It's just one of the many data points out there to examine. If you believe this study is critically flawed, you are, of course, free to dismiss it. But there are other studies and evidence out there. And I'd caution against dismissing any study results derived from a "flawed" model. As I said earlier, if we did that, there'd be no evidence of labor market discrimination against blacks either. And I'm guessing we both agree that despite "flawed" models, the results of tose models are still probably fundamentally correct.

You are referring specifically to ommitted variable bias in the Princeton study. You are saying that if the study omits theoretically important predictors of the outcome, we can dismiss the results entirely. Whether we can dismiss the results entirely depends upon the degree of the ommitted variable bias. One way to know if we have a lot of bias is to take a look at the R^2 of the model. A model with a fairly high R^2 is unlikely to be plagued by significant bias (though, of course, it's always possible that it is). You'd also need to believe that the missing variables are strongly related to the independent variables of interest. Your critcism is a valid one and I think you correctly argue that these results out not to be taken as proof. But taken together with the other data I have offered, the prepondeance of the evidence, in my opinion, strongly suggests that Asians largely bear the costs of affirmative action - not white students.

As for the link between SAT score and 1st year GPA in college, here's a link from FairTest.org, an organization that advocates against standardized testing. As you will see this organization argues that the SAT is, in fact, not predictive enough to warrant consideration. http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html

SAT predicts about 12% of variation in first year grades. That makes the SAT a weak but *statistically significant* predictor of 1st year GPA. Given that this has been studied exhaustively, we can see that it's a reliable predictor though not a strong one. There is no contradiction here -- a predictor can be valid and reliable without being strong. These terms mean different things in statistics.

And That's WITHIN SCHOOL! This is a very important point. Variation in SAT scores within a given school is lower than overall variation in SAT scores. Because schools use SAT as part of the admissions criteria, students with similar SAT scores end up at the same school at a rate that is different from random chance. So we cannot conclude from these studies that, on average, an individual with an 1100 SAT score is nearly as likely to succeed at Harvard as an individual with a 1500 SAT score. That's not what these studies show. To draw such a conclusion from the study is an example of a common fallacy in statistics.

Incidentally the Princeton study doesn't use SAT as a predictor of "college success." It uses it as a predictor of college admission. And SAT scores are a very strong predictor of admission at the schools studied.

Aaron is right.

of course elite schools discriminate against asians. If they didn't discriminate, then asians would comprise 50% of their freshman classes, just like they do at the university of california. whether because of their culture or something innate, asians simply value education more than other minority races (indeed, they value education perhaps more than any other race, except, perhaps, for jews. the progression of jewish intelligence is documented here: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10855&page=all . a fascinating article, really).

the pressure to excel academically is incredibly intense in asian families. i'm sorry, but that's a fact. let's call it what it is.

ETS,

If I will never convince you, I'm not sure what use it is to post data but here's a quick try (just in case):

Even if you count every single non-responder to the race question as white:

Harvard -- 61% white
Yale -- 62% white
MIT -- 47% white

http://www.princetonreview.com/home.asp

I chose three top schools at random. You can search for more.

Note: In my above post, I refer to "white." This refers to all students who either self-identified as "Caucasian" or did not answer the race question on the application.

This is obviously an overestimate of the white population at these schools. First, some of the non-responders are non-white. Second, some of those who responded that they were "Caucasian" are, in fact, not considered Caucasian under federal govt gudelines. For example, many Indian-Americans identify themselves as Caucasian. And others, such as Arab-Americans, North Africans, etc. might not be considered white by a majority of Americans including many of those who post here.

A black conservative who opposes welfare state interventions generally supported by the majority of black voters is not servile. He is entitled to his opinion without being referred to as "servile."

Your first comments on this thread and all your subsequent evasions and protestations evince no concern for, or opposition to, "welfare state interventions" broadly defined.

Basically, you came on here complaining a la Uncle Thomas about the perceptual liabilities attendant to affirmative action for Black folks. Those of us with any concern whatsoever for facts have yet to read even the barest hint of a factual case for opposing material remedies for historically indisputable material privations continuing through my lifetime under color of law and up to the present day as social custom.

I have yet to read anything you've written on this thread saying something more substantive than that you oppose affirmative action for Black folks because of what some white folks think about it, or still more arcane, because affirmative remedies for historical Black privations may negatively effect Asian immigrants. I'm caring about the economic prospects for the children of privileged Asian immigrants for what reason again?

Aaron, you blow more smoke and fling more straw than an Amish hayride on fire.

cnulan,

Actually, if you take a closer look, I've never even registered opposition to affirmative action on this thread. All I've said is that affirmative action in college admissions has a negative impact on Asian applicants. Whether you think this is an important consideration is a normative issue.

****

Though some Asian immigrants are well educated and well off when they arrive, I think your statement, applied to Asians either as a whole or on average, is pretty indefensible.

Aaron synergizes - "" What I have said is that, on net, they are harmed by affirmative action policies whereas white students are, on net, not harmed."

I don't buy that - Aaron. What I would counter with is that Asians have been massively and unfairly ADVANTAGED by the blowback in conservatives seeking to eliminate black and Hispanic kids from Universities.

Indeed, I can relate this at a personal level, being involved in the battle over Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax County - which is one of the 2 major "magnet" schools in the state.

The issue revolved around declining minority enrollment. The school utilized a test, administered to potential students in the 8th grade to determine eligibility for the 400 slots allowed per year. They had seen black and Hispanic enrollment decrease - along with nearly 1/4 of the accepted students coming from 1 of the 26 Junior High Schools in the County.

No mystery that the most sucessful Junior High School also happened to be located in the wealthiest district with a population having advanced degrees exceeding 60%. This particular Junior High School is one of 8 Magnet Junior Highs, which because of parental support is able to have the most adavanced equipment and facilities in the county purchased by the PTA or gifted by well-heeled parents.

The County attempted to change the entry requirement to Thomas Jefferson to a system wherein the top 10% combined GPA and test takers in the Gifted Programs at each of the school would be eligible with each school having x slots. If any school did not use their slots, then the remainder were open on a competitive basis. The result of this system, because of housing trends, would be to enfranchise more Hispanic and black kids who lived in the poorer districts.

Enter the Center for Individual Rights, AKA known as the Federalist Society KKK in suits to threaten to sue the county, as they did an adjoining county who sought the same sort of system. You can reference te logic of their case here:

mason.gmu.edu/~lcohen2/Cohen%20Final%20Final.doc

The result being that the County backed down.

Asians acount for 7% of the County population. Under the old system, they accounted for 23% of the TJ students. Immediately after having to go to to a strictly test based system, they are now over 30%.

The blowback is that non-Asian kids no longer want to apply. My kids rejected their acceptance - AFTER making the cut, preferring the more diverse environment at their local GT High School (or in one case a private prep school, with a diverse population).

TJ has become virtually an Asian-only school, with current projections that the Asian population will exceed 60%.

So... WHO has benefitted from right wing racism?

BT,

I'm aware of the issues surrounding admission to Thomas Jefferson High School. Asian enrollment at Thomas Jefferson is very high as it is at other top public magnet schools - Lowell School in SF, and Bronx HS of Science and Stuyvesant HS in NYC.

But I respectfully submit that the students who passed the exams happened to be predominantly Asian -- not predominantly black, hispanic or gasp - white. Is the exam better than the GPA system? I don't know. I tend to favor exams because throwing GPA into the equation means decisions are more subjective (as opposed to an objective examination) but I'm sure there are enough arguments on both sides to go around. That said, to call the CIR a "KKK organization" for preferring the exam system is patently ridiculous. The reason the country wanted to switch to an exam/GPA based system was because they thought it would increase black and hispanic enrollment. CIR opposes government use of race in provision of public services. This doesn't put them even in the same vicinity as the KKK, a terrorist organization that has engaged in murder and a host of other crimes.

In any case, college admission does not work the same way. In college admissions, black and hispanic students receieve affirmative action. In the case of these magnet schools, so far as I am aware, they do not. As a result, we can't say if affirmative action in magnet school admissions displaces asian students.

That said, to call the CIR a "KKK organization" for preferring the exam system is patently ridiculous....CIR opposes government use of race in provision of public services. This doesn't put them even in the same vicinity as the KKK, a terrorist organization that has engaged in murder and a host of other crimes.

Center for Individual Rights

BT - remember, it has nothing whatsoever to do with their monocultural motives and modus operandi, rather, it's all only about what they write.

When will you paranoid Blacks stop looking for unintended crypto-racist self-disclosures? gotta love the symbolism of that CIR website...,

Aaron -

I have to disagree with you on the testing as being a valid measurement of academic ability. Even the CIR has been forced to admit that any of the 3000 students prequalified for the exam are capable of meeting the rigorous study level at TJ.

The test then - is a methodology to filter students based on their test taing ability, or the ability of the Junior High School they have metriculated from to prepare them for test taking. The fact that one school in the county is able to produce nearly 1/4 of the applicants, despite being on of 26 Schools in the same system - suggests at the very least the test may be gamed...

And at the worst biased.

The dependency on a testing system which inherently (and some would claim by design) advantages white students (and by coincidence Asian students) is racism - which is exactly the business the CIR is in. The CIR's campaign of legal terrorism against colleges and Universities seeking to develop or maintain diverse student populations isn't any different than the KKK's night riders threatening "uppity" blacks and "nigger lover" whites alike with violence. As such - the CIR is no better than - and in many ways worse than the old KKK. They are racists of the worst kind.

A simple search of the CIR-KKK scumbags funding reveals the core of what they are:

"CIR has close links to racist libertarians of the far right. The organization's federal tax returns reveal that on three occasions in the early nineties CIR received funding from the Pioneer Fund, which supports "research asserting the genetic superiority of whites," according to The Independent of London. Pioneer was founded in the thirties by a millionaire who advocated sending blacks back to Africa. The foundation's charter set forth its mission as "racial betterment" and aid for people "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution.""

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990308/flanders

Now you want to argue with me that they don't smell like pigshit?

Aaron -

I have to disagree with you on the testing as being a valid measurement of academic ability. Even the CIR has been forced to admit that any of the 3000 students prequalified for the exam are capable of meeting the rigorous study level at TJ.

The test then - is a methodology to filter students based on their test taing ability, or the ability of the Junior High School they have metriculated from to prepare them for test taking. The fact that one school in the county is able to produce nearly 1/4 of the applicants, despite being on of 26 Schools in the same system - suggests at the very least the test may be gamed...

And at the worst biased.

The dependency on a testing system which inherently (and some would claim by design) advantages white students (and by coincidence Asian students) is racism - which is exactly the business the CIR is in. The CIR's campaign of legal terrorism against colleges and Universities seeking to develop or maintain diverse student populations isn't any different than the KKK's night riders threatening "uppity" blacks and "nigger lover" whites alike with violence. As such - the CIR is no better than - and in many ways worse than the old KKK. They are racists of the worst kind.

A simple search of the CIR-KKK scumbags funding reveals the core of what they are:

"CIR has close links to racist libertarians of the far right. The organization's federal tax returns reveal that on three occasions in the early nineties CIR received funding from the Pioneer Fund, which supports "research asserting the genetic superiority of whites," according to The Independent of London. Pioneer was founded in the thirties by a millionaire who advocated sending blacks back to Africa. The foundation's charter set forth its mission as "racial betterment" and aid for people "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution.""

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990308/flanders

From their Charter we get the segregationalist statement:

"CIR advocates a limited application of civil rights laws that would preserve the right of private citizens to deal or not to deal with other private citizens without government scrutiny."

Now you want to argue with me that they don't smell like duck shit?

BT,

I agree that there are a multitude of problems with standardized tests. You mention the major problems -- that the exam may be of limited usefulness in predicting academic success and that it may test test-taking ability rather than general ability. That said, standardized tests have the advantage of being objective (as opposed to grades which are often based on the whims of a teacher and unstandardized accross classes). And when properly constructed, standardized tests have been shown to be valid (if not great) predictors of academic ability.

I think we can agree on much of the above. Where I cannot agree is that reliance on standardized tests constitutes "racism." To define racism in a way that is outcome-dependent, in my opinion, distorts the meaning of the word. Is the NBA racist because whites and asians are underrepresented relative to blacks? Is MLB racist because blacks and whites are underrepresented relative to hispanics? And if the power structure is white, why would it design a standardized test which gives such an overwhelming advantage to Asian applicants?

CIR constrains it's activities largely to fight efforts to use race among PUBLIC universities. Their position is that PUBLIC institutions do not have the right to discriminate against people on the basis of race. Certainly even public colleges ought to have a right to design their own admissions policies but many would argue that they do not have the right to engage in any sort of racial discrimination -- whether it is race-based affirmative action or legancy preference. You may not agree with this belief but that doesn't make it racist? And it certainly doesn't warrant a comparison to a campaign of murder and torture! That sort of hyperbole doesn't do anything for your argument. Personally, I think it trivializes the KKK's victims who suffered far worse than being denied some extra SAT and GPA points.

That the Pioneer Fund seeks to use CIR to its political advantage is soemthing I was unaware of but nevertheless do not find suprising. The Pioneer Fund opposes affirmative action and so does CIR. This doesn't mean that CIR is a racist front anymore than the NAACP would be a racist organization if it accepted a donation from Louis Farrakhan. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. If you are from the NoVa area, I'm sure you know this.

Aaron -
Not to be rude, I don't have time to search the site. Can you provide me a direct link that most MIT students are peole of color? A link suggesting that Harvard and Yale are only 60 percent white would be nice too.

ETS,

The site doesn't allow for direct linking. I'd like to think you'd trust me enough to think I am not purposely misrepresenting the data but I suppose not....

I will paste in the data for MIT for you (and you can always verifying by typing 'MIT' into the search function:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MIT Admissions Office Phone: 617-253-4791
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Rm 3-108 Fax: 617-258-8304
Cambridge, MA, 02139 Website: web.mit.edu

Student Body
Enrollment: 4,114
Female: 44%
Out of State: 90%
International: 8%
African American: 6%
Asian: 26%
Caucasian: 37%
Hispanic: 12%
Native American: 1%

As you can see the numbers add up to 90% meaning 10% did not report. Adding this 10% to the self-reported Caucasian number of 37% yields 47%. If you want to count international students as potentially white, say half the internationals are white (generous). This gets the white rate up to 51%. And this is assuming every single non-reporter is white! And the fact that some Caucasians may not be "white" as many Americans often use the word.

Same drill for harvard:

Harvard College

86 Brattle Street Phone: 617-495-1551
Cambridge, MA, 02138 Fax: 617-495-8821
Website: www.college.harvard.edu



Student Body
Enrollment: 6,715
Female: 49%
Out of State: 84%
International: 9%
African American: 8%
Asian: 14%
Caucasian: 47%
Hispanic: 7%
Native American: 1%

Caucasians are about 2/3 of the college age population in the US. So a white % under 67 means whites are underrepresented.

Even making very generous assumotions, whites are represented at these schools. And others... Princeton, Stanford, Caltech etc etc.

The Larry Elder reference above was comical. He epitomizes the very essence of "Uncle Tomness." However, Thomas affects public policy, and therefore his "Tomness" has a much more profound effect upon the race.

The symbolism of his selection as the hand picked successor to the legacy of Marshall was, well, rather insulting. Someone like say, Higginbotham, would have brought as much to the table as Thomas, the problem was that Higginbotham, the elder statesman, was already too old.

The book reveals that Thomas never responded to the open letter that Higginbotham wrote to him (via a U Penn Law Review article). Did Thomas ever even acknowledge the Higginbotham letter?

If anyone wishes to read a substantial excerpt of the book's first chapter, follow the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/supremediscomfort.htm

Aaron replies "...standardized tests have the advantage of being objective (as opposed to grades which are often based on the whims of a teacher and unstandardized accross classes)."

I've been in business for 30 years - and I have yet to run into a standardized business issue...

Or even a standardized R&D problem.

Soooooo... The ability to solve a set of standardized test questions, is nothing more than the ability think like a robot, and provides no insight into how well a person may perform outside of the pre-prepared maze.

As such, despite the inequities and uneven quality of classroom instruction - it is a far better measure of the individual's ability to handle the reality than a test.

I think that the testing system should be eliminated, including the SAT.

Aaron grumbles - "Is the NBA racist because whites and Asians are underrepresented relative to blacks? Is MLB racist because blacks and whites are underrepresented relative to Hispanics?"

I'm not sure where any research has linked athletic ability to intellect - so why are you proposing that the ability to put a large ball in a small hole or to absorb enough steroids to hit a small ball a long way is equivalent to creating Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Surely you jest! This is exactly the sort of false logic based on childish oversimplification common to conservatives, who promote a racist agenda.

No AA System, since the 1978 SCUMUS case, guarantees outcome. There is no such thing as a quota. What AA Programs do is to level the playing field. Indeed, if one were to engage in the basic intellectual dishonesty of your NBA analogy – you might say that AA does for black in education what the three point shot has done for whites. Has having the three point shot, which increases the chances for white players who may not be able to compete in the inside game ruined the NBA – or made it more competitive?

One could easily argue - looking at the differing teams producing winning records from year to year, that having AA for white players has made the game more competitive.

Aaron normalizes with – “And if the power structure is white, why would it design a standardized test which gives such an overwhelming advantage to Asian applicants?”

The tests are only redone every 30 years or so. Indeed the SAT II is only the first major overhaul of the test since 1968. Whether the SAT II’s verbal section winds up reversing Asian gains is yet to be seen. I would guess the new Essay section will have a severe depressing impact on the number of ESL students gaining artificially high scores.
Aaron negates – “CIR constrains it's activities largely to fight efforts to use race among PUBLIC universities.”

I wouldn’t imagine they would have a problem with Bob Jones University…

Geez – I wonder why?

That’s an amusing distinction which reeks of racism in that any private school accepting tax exemption, and/or federal funding is benefited by the public trough…

Which is exactly where Bob Jones ran into trouble with their segregation policies.

To that point – we have Michael Rosman, the lead attorney from the CIR on the “Bollinger” UMICH cases stating:

“(2) an interest grounded in academic freedom and the First Amendment should protect Bob Jones University as well as Harvard University (even though we all know it will not)”

http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/167.html

Interesting statement, belying their stated objective in the context of the Bakke case.

Aaron whimpers – “This doesn't mean that CIR is a racist front anymore than the NAACP would be a racist organization if it accepted a donation from Louis Farrakhan.”

Or accepting a donation from MLK versus David Duke…
From Mahatma Gandhi vs Adolph Hitler…
Or accepting a cool drink from a mountain stream versus a cup of poison.

You might want to go back and look at the Pioneer Fund connections with Adolph…

Again.

The CIR is the KKK in suits. They serve no purpose except to legitimize segregation in our public and private facilities, and a return to pre Civil Right Act of 1965, through the legalization of Jim Crow.

From the paper – “My Years With the Pioneer Fund” by Harry F. Weyher

Among the organizations that Pioneer has
supported for this purpose, usually with only small
amounts of money, are the American Immigration
Control Foundation (managed by G. Palmer Stacy),
Atlantic Legal Foundation (headed by Douglas Foster
and Edwin L. Lewis), the Center for Individual Rights
(led by Michael Greve and Michael McDonald), FAIR
(headed by John H. Tanton, Daniel Stein, and others,
and which also does considerable demographic
research), the Foundation for Human Understanding
(managed by R. Travis Osborne), The Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and Peace (one time
grant to help publish a book on population
problems), the Institute for the Study of Man which
publishes the Mankind Quarterly (Roger Pearson),
International Association for the Advancement of
Ethnology and Eugenics (then managed by A. James
Gregor, Robert E. Kuttner and Donald A. Swan), and
the New Century Foundation (headed by Jared
Taylor).

The Institute self-reports its demographics..,

International, Hispanic, and Unknown categories can be safely assumed to be majority white.

http://web.mit.edu/ir/pop/students/enrollment.html

MIT isn't Cheyenne WY, however, it is hardly a paragon of diversity. Bump this up by a factor of 10 for faculty and staff - which make Cheyenne WY look like a melting pot by comparison.

Aaron -
Thanks for that info. If you believe that whites are underrepresented at elite colleges based off of that info, what do you suggest be done about it?

BT,

Obviously I am not comparing athletic ability to intellectual ability. And I think you know it. I'm comparing racial disparities in employment in sports to racial disparities in college admissions. The magnitude of the disparities are fairly similar.

And I think you also realize that I never said that AA guarantees a particular outcome. What I said is that to conclude that racism is present based on the distribution of outcomes is ridiculous. Outcomes can be disparate without racist animus .... as they are in professional sports (NBA officiating notwithstanding).

As for your tone .... "Aaron whimpers", "Aaron grumbles"? There's no need to be snide and attribute animus to everything I say. For someone with 30 years of business experience, I'd expect behavior that's a little less juvenile.

And, by now, you know I'm not conservative -- this isn't the first conversation we've had. Continuing to refer to me as a conservative, at this point, seems like nothing more than an attempt to smear me with an undesirable label. I don't appreciate it. And you don't need to tell me about the Pioneer Fund. I know what it is and I know all about their agenda. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. Hey, Adolf was an advocate for universal healthcare -- does that link those who support govt healthcare to Nazis?

In any case, if you don't want to be civil, we've got nothing more to discuss. In the future, I'm going to do my best to confine my responses only to those who express an interest passionate but civil discourse.

ETS,

I'd suggest that absolutely nothing be done about it. Private colleges like Harvard and MIT can admit anyone they like as far as I'm concerned. :)

ETS,

And I don't think public colleges should do anything about it either.

Ed: I am a fake white. I have close relatives darker than the fake black, left wing, Democrat talking point spweing race phonies in the frieze above the blog.

For 40 years, psychology has settled the question. Skin color does not correlate with IQ. My dark relatives are brighter, richer, and nicer than me.

Some top Harvard black studies prof traced all his DNA to Ireland, none to Africa. He did so publically on a left wing, biased, PBS documentary.

Aaron sails - "I'm comparing racial disparities in employment in sports to racial disparities in college admissions. The magnitude of the disparities are fairly similar."

That's fine as long as you don't draw any inference that the causality of outcomes in both are the same- or that the system of selection for higher education based on biased tests is somehow as inherently fair as batting .400 in the minors...

Because it isn't by any objective method.

Aaron wuffs - "As for your tone .... "Aaron whimpers", "Aaron grumbles"? There's no need to be snide and attribute animus to everything I say."

One of the characteristics of black conservatives is to be notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to criticism. One of the other tactile issues causing black conservatives great intellectual sterility seems to be an utter lack of a sense of humor ...

If it walks like a Duck...

Aaron diatribes - "Continuing to refer to me as a conservative, at this point, seems like nothing more than an attempt to smear me with an undesirable label."

Uhhhh... Aaron - I have yet to see you take a position which doesn't come out of Black Conservative Seminary of Effete Ineffectual Thought, so you will have to pardon my great confusion and inattention to nano-technic detail in the differences between a black conservative opposing affirmative action because Massa told him to - and a black libertarian opposing AA by espousing the non-existent segregationalist paean of the “Right of Association” drawn from some imaginary 11th Addendum to the Bill of Rights in invisible ink.

If it looks like a Duck…

Aaron gushes – “Hey, Adolf was an advocate for universal healthcare -- does that link those who support govt healthcare to Nazis?”

Next you’ll be claiming he rally was a hero for his titular achievement of “making the trains run on time”.

Aaron huffs, and stamps his little sequined feet with – “In the future, I'm going to do my best to confine my responses only to those who express an interest passionate but civil discourse.”

Now with that juvenile temper tantrum over with…

You mean you don’t want to get back to losing this argument with a dose of humor?

Quack! Quack!

SC

Some top Harvard black studies prof traced all his DNA to Ireland, none to Africa. He did so publically on a left wing, biased, PBS documentary.

I would argue socialist elitist, not left wing..there is a difference.

BT,

It was Mussolini who "made the trains run on time."

quack!

Aaron, if white admission to university is not harmed once affirmative action is taken away, then whites must be receiving some sort of insulation from race based admission policies. In other words, universities are setting off a certain number of spots for all minorities, and making minorities compete for those spots.

You gotta look at the picture honestly. Asians outscore whites by every quantifiable measure. In a truly merit based system then, asian numbers should increase and white numbers should decrease. Instead, your data shows that white numbers actually INCREASE when affirmative action is taken away, implying that whites use means other than merit of attaining their numbers at universities.

If whites get in on preference, why can't blacks?

Jeezy,

If you look at SAT scores, Asians outscore whites who outscore hispanics who outscore blacks. As a result, when AA is removed, white enrollment either remains unchanged or it increases moderately and asian enrollment increases substantially. This is the experience in the UC system and it makes sense. So, if the absence of AA is a 'truly merit based system' as you suggest, whites should, in fact, benefit some from its removal. In practice, the benefits to white students are minor. This isn't necessarily evidence of preference for white students. It cold also be evidence of a preference *against* Asian students.

Could schools be doing exactly what you say they are doing -- fixing the number of spots for nonwhite students? Absolutely. I wouldn't be at all suprised. My guess is many admissions offices probably set informal quotas that they try to meet -- for every group.

Ed: What is today's Democrat Party, socialist elitist, left wing, or phony socialist elitist, or phony left wing?

I think, it is phony left wing. They have no core values, except to get into office to enjoy its rewards.

Uhhhh ... Aaron - Yes the joke is that Mussolini was a lousy leader - but he made the trains run on time...

However, when the statement is made about Hitler - it has an entirely different connotation.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/black-edwin/ibm-and-the-holocaust.html

Sorry you ignored the inference.

Paul Butler: there is empirical information about middle income blacks. It suggests that on standardized tests they are out-performed by low income whites. This "achievement gap" is not likely to disappear in the next couple of decades. So if Obama wants his kids to go to Harvard like he did, he should hope affirmative action is still around.
--------------

Prof. Butler, this is very hollow analysis. Why assume Obama's kids are of the lot who would be outscored by low income whites? Why even settle for the conclusion that AA is what we need where poor whites outscore poor blacks, as opposed to making some other adjustment?

Getting back on topic...thanks 9jah:

here is the issue to me.

1) Black kids (on average) have lower GPAs and lower SAT scores than every race (but maybe Hispanics in some area) regardless of when you NORM for income, meaning middle class black kids actually do worse than poor white kids on average. Can't speak for rich black people, because I haven't seen any of that data.

2) Predominately black schools are some of the highest funded schools in the country (as I have posted before), Washington DC, has an almost 50% drop out rate, but is is funded over 3X higher than schools in Iowa and Utah which produce superior scoring students, and has a higher graduate rate to boot. What???

3) The issue is not college. if black students were competitive going into college, this would not be an issues, as they would be like everyone else.

4) Putting everything on the school is illogical because it leaves out one of the most important inputs. THE STUDENTS!

The best schools with the best teachers can not make kids study at home, it can't make parents engaged. It will not turn off the TV and make kids read literature for fun (which will increase their vocab), it will not make kids attend class regularlly.

5) Affirmative Action in the form of quotas does effect people. When AA quotas were banned in Cali the people who received the most benefit were not whites, it was Asians. They are now almost 50% of Berkley's students, lesser qualified blacks were taking seats from them.

6) Cali is a good case study, the black drop out rate under affirmative action was much higher, because many of the students were not qualified and needed remidial classes and still dropped out. The drop out rate has decreased as kids go to schools that are more their level of community colleges.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa540.pdf

Go to pg. 4

"These differences in preparation cause minority students to receive low grades. African-American college students earn grade point averages about two-thirds of a letter grade below their nonminority peers.38 They are far more likely to drop out, and those who graduate finish, on average, in the bottom 25 percent of their college class."

7) The solution is to use affirmative action programs to better the black family structure and also aid children at the primary and secondary schools.

One of the most disturbing, I think perhaps the most disturbing fact in our whole book is that black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than white students from families in the lowest income group. You want to cry hearing that figure. I mean, it's so terrible."

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/ interviews/thernstrom.html

I would also like to comment on what BT said about 10,000 posts ago concerning the Model Minority Myth.

When we say Asians we should really be saying East Asians and South Asians, not SEAsians.

SEAsians (with the exception of Filipinos) underperform, are more likely to be on welfare than blacks, etc. These are mostly descedant of refugee poplations from the Vietnam War and Cambodian/Khmer Rouge conflict, they were extremely poor and illiterate before they ever came here on average.

What you will see with the Vietnamese is, that the Vietnamese nationals who are ethnic Chinese (Hoa) far outperform ethnic Viet population in America (a trip to Chinatown in Houston will show you almost all the "Viet" stores are owned by Chinese people who were born in Vietnam, not ethnic Viet).

Most Asian Americans are Chinese, Korean, and Filipino only a very small minority are ethnic Vietnamese or Cambodian...so although they do underperform it not nearly enough to bring down the "Asian average" in fact if these people are excluded then Asians would far out perform whites.

Also I have no clue where BT is getting his information that Asians who came here before 1965 don't do well, as compared to those after 1965...I would really like to see the source of that.

Dragon Horse,

Interestingly, the race with the highest SAT scores is the race of people that chose not to declare a race. This group outperforms asians.

As much as some Whitlock syndrome folks would like to blame Black youth for the failings of the public school system, the fact of the matter is that drastic changes have taken place in the schools themselves since 1957(hint-hint). These changes have profoundly lowered the quality of pedagogy and the climate of community within public schools that are no longer our own. Failure to consider these factors - and failure to consider the fact that admission to elite colleges and universities was essentialy denied to folks who outperformed all school rivals a mere 50 years ago - would comprise yet another fragmentary non-analysis and tiresome iteration of vdare-ist pseudoscience....,

---------------------------

Sumner's Science Fair Legacy Lingers in Grads: KCK School Earned Respect By Dominating Awards in Kansas City Science Fair'a Early Years.

From: The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Missouri) | Date: 3/26/2007

Mar. 26--Fifty years later, and Patricia Caruthers remembers.

She was 17, a black girl in a turquoise skirt walking into a hall filled with white competitors.

In race-rancorous 1957, the one-time Kansas City, Kan., teenager knew what she could and couldn't do. She could go to the movies, but only the one reserved for blacks. She could roam the neighborhood, but not west on 13th Street into white enclaves. She could eat in department stores.

"But I had to eat in the back of Kresge's and the Jones Store and in the basement of Macy's," said Caruthers, now 67.

She also could compete in what was then the sixth annual Kansas City Science Fair, which on Tuesday will begin its 56th year of competition.

Caruthers slipped on her polished shoes and a turquoise sleeveless blouse to match her skirt. With her high school chemistry teacher, a nattily dressed William W. Boone, sharp with his thin mustache, silk tie and double-breasted suit, she walked into Municipal Auditorium and hoisted her project on a long table.

She had worked for months on the "Magnetic Orientation of Colloidal Graphite Particles with the Brownian Motion." As she stood near 1,000 other students, some nervous, their palms sweating, she felt...

"If anything, superior," she said.

Caruthers, after all, was from Sumner High School. She was a Spartan.

The fact has been almost lost to history. In the first five years of the Science Fair, Sumner's all-black student body belied the notion of white educational supremacy when its students were crowned grand champions every year save one, 1954.

"Many people have no idea about this," said Eckhard Hellmuth, a retired professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who last summer co-wrote a paper on Sumner's science pre-eminence, titled "Achievers Obscured by History." In 1952, the Science Fair's inaugural year, Sumner's Arvey Andrews captured top honors. Daniel Wilson and Shirlee Ross won in '53. Beckwith Horton and Myrna Loy Thomas won in '55. John Hodge and Norma Cole won in '56.

"This was the stellar school -- known around this whole region as the place to go," said Deborah Dandridge, the archivist for the African-American collection at the University of Kansas' Spencer Library and home to reams of Sumner High School historical papers.

"By 1910 the majority of African-American graduates from the University of Kansas had all come out of Sumner," she said.

Founded in 1905 as the only all-black high school in Kansas, Sumner's academic pre-eminence had for decades flown in the face of white educational superiority. Generations of its students would go on to become physicians, attorneys, engineers, business leaders and academics.

Fernando Gaitan, who this year became the first African-American chief judge for the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri, is a Sumner graduate. Delano E. Lewis, a former president and chief executive officer of National Public Radio and a former U.S. ambassador to South Africa, is a Sumner grad.

"We estimate we have about 30 millionaires from Sumner. And the number of colleges that have buildings named after Sumner graduates is absolutely outstanding," said Chester Owen, past president of the Sumner High School Alumni Association and a graduate of the class of 1949. "Very few people, even the students of Sumner, are aware of the achievements."

Integrated in 1978, Sumner remains one of the area's leading schools, with its 1,000 students routinely earning top scores on national standardized tests.

But 29 years ago, the district stripped Sumner High School of its name, mascot and school colors in the name of integration. The wound still aches today.

Instead of Sumner High School, the school was renamed Sumner Academy of Arts and Science. The concrete art deco letters that read "High School" were chiseled off the entrance of the massive yellow brick building at Eighth Street and Oakland Avenue.

The school crest was scraped from the entrance floor. Instead of being the orange and black Spartans, the students became the royal blue and silver Sabres.

Some claim that the school had been slipping for years and integration was needed. But in the minds of diehard Spartans, an august legacy had been sacrificed in the quest for white students. Even the school song was changed.

"This is my 29th year here. I started with the school when it became integrated," said Sumner librarian Mary Conrad, who is white and the academy's unofficial historian. "In my opinion, the district blew it. When they started the academy, they were afraid whites would not come down to the facility. They felt they needed to change the name, change its mascot, change its colors. There has been resentment all these years."

Only recently have some of those wounds begun to heal.

In 2004, the Sumner Spartan crest and the academy's Sabre crest were painted side by side on the gym floor. A year later, they were installed next to each other inside the school's entryway. A display case of old Sumner High School memorabilia stands against one wall.

As part of the school's 2005-2006 centennial, the varsity basketball team wore orange and black uniforms, and this year wore them at special games. A few faculty members are currently floating the idea of changing the school colors to orange and royal blue, a combination of the old and new.

"There are still a lot of people out there who are angry and are just beginning to make peace," said Owens of the alumni association. "The current principal, Mary Viveros, has been incredibly supportive. I can't say enough good things about her."

Back in the 1950s, Caruthers and others had no doubt they could compete.

Sumner student parents, in many instances, were college-educated professionals. John Hodge's father had been Sumner's principal for 35 years. Patricia Caruthers' father was Bertram Caruthers, a Ph.D. educator from the University of Nebraska. Her mother, Evelyn Caruthers, an educator who died earlier this month, earned her master's degree from the University of Missouri.

The vast majority of teachers at Sumner, restricted by racism from holding jobs in industry or at many universities, possessed master's degrees or doctorates.

"I think it's generally believed that segregated schools were, by nature, inferior. Sumner refuted that. We had dedicated teachers -- teachers who refused to let us be mediocre," said 1955 Science Fair winner Beckwith Horton, who later became a millionaire businessman.

Horton graduated from the University of Kansas, where he studied electrical engineering. He later founded or ran numerous businesses around Minneapolis, including his own that made electronic components for business machines.

On the phone from his second home in Arizona, he rolled off the names of legendary Sumner teachers as one would name exalted historical figures: William W. Boone, E.A. Taylor, Rebecca Bloodworth, Clarence Turpin.

Even in an age of segregation and rampant racism, he said, he recalls none ever speaking of race as an impediment.

"I suppose there were areas of the country where the students in the white schools were getting a better education, better supplies. I guess better teachers were assigned to those schools. That simply was not the case for us. The teachers were absolutely outstanding," said Norma Cole Burke, who won the Science Fair award in 1956 and now lives in Albuquerque.

She added that there were generations of Sumner parents and grandparents who believed deeply in education. Burke was raised by her grandmother, a beautician, and grandfather, who worked in a slaughterhouse.

"They never talked about it," she said. "They never indicated that I couldn't do or be whatever I wanted. So, at the Science Fair, I had no thought about the fact that I might be going up against whites."

Burke, who later managed federal oversight of Medicare programs for six New England states, said that on the day of the Science Fair, her only thought was the electrometric titrometer she had built.

At the fair, she and other former Sumner students recalled, "there was no racism."

"I don't think anyone there ever attempted to make you feel that you shouldn't be there," Caruthers recalled. "At Sumner, it was never discussed that you were black and you were going to compete with all these white folks. We were taught to compete.

"We knew we were from an all-black school. But we didn't walk in a room and feel inferior or anything of that nature."

Caruthers later earned a Ph.D. and became vice president for educational services at Kansas City Kansas Community College.

She won the 1957 Science Fair.

One month later, Caruthers and her project boarded a plane for the National Science Fair in Los Angeles. After that, it was sent on to the International Science Fair in Japan.

That same year, The Kansas City Star responded to Sumner's string of wins with an editorial:

"The myth that Negroes do not have the mental capacity to grasp the intricacies of physics, electronics, higher mathematics and the like continues to be exploded every day."

Sumner student JoAnne Holbert, daughter of a physician and now a professor of education at Wayne State University, would go on to win the Science Fair in 1958. Forty-three Sumner students are entered this year.

Caruthers recalled something else from 50 years ago as well.

After she returned from Los Angeles, where her project took fourth place in the nationals, she sat down in front of an algebra teacher, Clarence Turpin, who had lowered all her math grades because she'd been out of town.

"He had standards," Caruthers said. "He warned me. You just didn't miss his class."

Prof. Butler,

I like 9jah question:

Prof. Butler, this is very hollow analysis. Why assume Obama's kids are of the lot who would be outscored by low income whites? Why even settle for the conclusion that AA is what we need where poor whites outscore poor blacks, as opposed to making some other adjustment?

I would like to add, why assume the divide is black and white. Statistically, if Obama's kids are raised in a home with two parents his kids will perform at the level of all other kids of different races. The reason for the test difference is not due to the color of the child.

Aaron,

You took a lot of heat, but you also make the most sense.

You can isolate all the facts you want to prove your point but what are we comparing here.
If we start with the premise that the US system of education has failed its children, then logic would state that children of color and the poor are suffering more. This is the hard fact.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond
“We badly need a national policy that enables schools to meet the intellectual demands of the twenty-first century. More fundamentally, we need to pay off the educational debt to disadvantaged students that has accrued over centuries of unequal access to quality education.”
AA still needed
“As an indicator of the growing distance, the United States ranks twenty-eighth of forty countries in mathematics, right above Latvia, and graduates only about 75 percent of students, instead of the more than 95 percent now common elsewhere. Most high-achieving countries not only provide high-quality universal preschool and healthcare for children; they also fund their schools centrally and equally, with additional funds going to the neediest schools.”
State rule on education is a failure.
It is interesting that folks who talk about Asians leave out the fact that the poorer SE Asians are the niggas of Asia. In places like New Mexico, ethnic Vietnamese, and Cambodians, resides in one of the most violent areas of the state. So those who argue about these differences are not stating some of the obvious. Japanese and Chinese to a less degrees are very basis against these groups.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070515/wl_africa_afp/safricaemploymentrace;_ylt=AnaNDl0vX5gbHX.aqRPY6w.s0NUE

Ferengi flatulates - "Also I have no clue where BT is getting his information that Asians who came here before 1965 don't do well, as compared to those after 1965...I would really like to see the source of that."

The "Model Minority Myth" is principally the result of the second wave of Asian immigration (1965-1985) - with a high concentation of immigrants from Korea and India. The third wave (1990-200x) consisting in large part of Cambodians, Vietnamese, and HMong is still the have the highest poverty rate of ANY ethinic groups in America, the lowest literacy rate - and the lowest educational attainment rate in America.

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 is the first in depth study of the Asian - American population which looked at the sucess rates among native born and not native born almost all of whom arrived after the Civil Rights Act of 1965. This study only lloks at the generationl differential between 1st and second and subsequent generations.

"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 and Xie 2006). 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:

1. Chinese (NB=11, FB=14%)
2. Koreans (NB=12%, FB=15%)
3. Asian Indians (NB=10%, FB=10%)
4. 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."

With this information we can begin to look at first (pre-1965) and second wave Asian immigrants - we find something startling - that the first wave immigrant poverty is as high or higher and income levels are actually lower than second wave groups. I haven't identified a study examining that yet - however some suggestions are provided by the following book. This suggests that the legacy of Jim Crows impact on the native (pre-1965) Asian population may indeed mirror that of it's impact on the native black population when considered in the context of second wave immigration performance.

In his book, "Race, Rights, And the Asian American Expereince", Angelo Anchenta examined some of those legacies of discrimination against Asian Americans -

An excerpt from the book is here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0813524644/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0966784-1223060#reader-link

BT:

Thanks...I will look into this.

I do have a book already on Jim Crow Chinese that lived in Mississippi.

They were brought to the Delta to make up for the labor shortage after slavery. Because they were not black they were not subject to all Jim Crow laws (like blacks) but some did apply. They were also not white.

Basically they found a niche to get out of "working poor" which was to go into shop owning and other such things like laundries, shoe repairs and focused mainly on black clients, which did not threaten whites who tended to not even sale to blacks, because they did not want to be seen as having too many black clients (because it would run off whites).

Very interesting...most of those Chinese Delta folks moved to Cali after 1965...especially L.A. and San Fran.

Even talks about how some Chinese men intermarried with black women (because they were not allowed to bring women from their country until the 1960's).

Cheap book, not too longer, easy read:

www.amazon.com/Mississippi-Chinese-Between-Black-Second/dp/0881333123

BT:

Thanks...I will look into this.

I do have a book already on Jim Crow Chinese that lived in Mississippi.

They were brought to the Delta to make up for the labor shortage after slavery. Because they were not black they were not subject to all Jim Crow laws (like blacks) but some did apply. They were also not white.

Basically they found a niche to get out of "working poor" which was to go into shop owning and other such things like laundries, shoe repairs and focused mainly on black clients, which did not threaten whites who tended to not even sale to blacks, because they did not want to be seen as having too many black clients (because it would run off whites).

Very interesting...most of those Chinese Delta folks moved to Cali after 1965...especially L.A. and San Fran.

Even talks about how some Chinese men intermarried with black women (because they were not allowed to bring women from their country until the 1960's).

Cheap book, not too longer, easy read:

www.amazon.com/Mississippi-Chinese-Between-Black-Second/dp/0881333123

Newlie -

Dammit! I was 10 years too late! I won a National Science Fair in 1967, and was presented an award as one of th 10 best in the Nation in 1967 by the then Secretary of Labor, Willard wurtz - and now you are telling me folks like Patrica Caruthers and the folks at Sumner High School were kicking booty and taking names in science near 10 years before I motivated my first electron to jump across a substrate!

Unbelievably Kool!

Biggest mountain to climb for black kids in the sciences is the belief that they are alone. A misperception the Scarlet Pimperweenies of the right try to enforce every day.

Ferengi - You have mentioned that book beofore and I did read a chapter or two that was online.

Asian Social Scientists are just beginning to construct a picture of the historical pressures and social dynamics driving their multi-ethnic group's experiences in America.

Should be interesting.

Speaking of black school performance...a new report has come out from a BLACK THINK TANK:

http://www.cleveland.com/education/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1179304546106960.xml&coll=2

"The achievement gap separating black boys from just about everyone else springs from a powerful, anti-education culture rising in the black community, a local black think tank argues in a new report.

Parents who undervalue education, and a mass media that peppers youth with the quick, shallow rewards of hip-hop lifestyle, are steering alarming numbers of boys down a dead-end path, PolicyBridge contends.

snip

"In our community, family culture has changed, and street culture has changed," said Randell McShepard, 42, an executive at RPM International and the secretary of PolicyBridge. "But the headline now is, Those changes are dragging down the education system.' "

McShepard, Timothy Goler and Mark Batson, all local black professionals who attended Cleveland and East Cleveland public schools, founded the nonprofit research center in 2004 to explore issues critical to the black community.

snip

Almost half of black children attending Cleveland public schools fail to graduate, and only a fraction will ever finish college."

Changing demographics....

White population shrinking rapidly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/us/17census.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Don't worry Dracoon Horse there is plenty of white booty left for you to suck out of.

Craka:

That was nasty and lowbrow.

Read my site if you want an analysis of the situation.

Craka:

That was nasty and lowbrow.

Read my site if you want an analysis of the situation.

Affrimative Action is the downfall of the African-American society

Affrimative Action is the downfall of the African-American society and it must end!

Affrimative Action is the downfall of the African-American society and it must end!