Zone1 Let's Talk About "Merit"

[justoffal]

A prime example of the length and consistency of a big lie is the distortion of Affirmative Action. Whites have been given what the right complains about blacks getting since the beginning of this country. The discomfort some whites have in recognizing how they benefit from race-based law and policy is evident in any discussion a person of color has with a person who opposes equal rights legislation. Do they not understand how long whites were hired, promoted, admitted into colleges, and even allowed citizenship rights only because of the color of their skin? Do they not question the qualifications of white legacy students?

While Harvard is currently gearing up for a lawsuit around affirmative action and discriminatory admissions policies against Asian Americans, the real vector for race-based discrimination goes on unchallenged: white privilege. While white privilege operates at every level of society, the case against affirmative action cleverly hides how white privilege influences college admissions specifically. This article will answer the question what is white privilege, and will explain how it is pertinent within the discussion of affirmative action and college admissions. To conclude the article, a discussion of how our understanding of white privilege can be rectified in concrete ways to help end racial discrimination in college admissions. The central argument of this article is that white privilege affects admissions in three crucial ways: the importance placed on legacy admissions and connections, affluence-restricted athletics, and wealth.

Before we can analyze how white privilege affects admissions, it is important to examine what white privilege means. Francis E. Kendall, author of Understanding White Privilege, explains white privilege as “having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do”. There are two main aspects of white privilege that have been identified over the last 50 years: 1) legal and systemic advantages, or overt white privilege 2) subconscious, psychological prejudice. As Cory Collins writes in his article “What is White Privilege, Really?”, “white privilege is both unconsciously enjoyed and consciously perpetuated. It is both on the surface and deeply embedded into American life”. This dual thrust of white privilege is critical to understanding how white privilege operates both visibly and behind the scenes. While there are some overt policies that can be directly critiqued as favoring whites, the subtle ways that white privilege operates can be much harder to identify. Within the realm of college admissions, both forms of white privilege operate in equal measure.

The first way that white privilege impacts admissions is through overt admissions preference through legacy admissions. To contextualize, legacy admissions are defined as “the boost that most private colleges and universities give to the children of alumni”. The the list of schools that place weight on legacy status include: Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Cornell, Georgetown, the University of Southern California and the University of Virginia. These students who are eligible for legacy consideration are called “legacies”, and they are “admitted at twice the rate of other applicants at some universities, and average SAT scores for legacies are, in some cases, [are] lower than the average scores of their peers”.

Blogs Decommission Notice | Brown University

Blogs Decommission Notice

blogs.brown.edu

​

While legacy admissions are not overtly racialized, Richard D. Kahlenberg explains that these advantages overwhelming benefit white students: “legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white students to the detriment of AsianAmerican, African-American, and Hispanic students… only 7.6% of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8% of all students”. To drive this point home even further, while “Asian Americans composed 15.7% of all Harvard applicant [they only represented] 3.5% of alumni children”. While legacy admissions could benefit any student who has family that attended the university, research shows that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white students. As a result, they form one arm of white privilege’s impact on admissions. In concurrence with legacy admission, elite private universities also place a large amount of weight on the connections of a student and there family. For example, “at the University of Texas at Austin, an investigation found that recommendations from state legislators and other influential people helped underqualified students gain acceptance to the school”. These preferences thus elevate “predominantly white, affluent applicants”.

Blogs Decommission Notice | Brown University

Blogs Decommission Notice

blogs.brown.edu

Study finds 43 percent of Harvard's white students are legacy, athletes, related to donors or staff

The number drops dramatically for black, Latino and Asian American students with less than 16 percent each coming from those categories, the study said.

www.nbcnews.com

‘Affirmative Action’ For Wealthy, White Students: Why Colleges’ Legacy Admissions Must End Now​

In 1963, Duke University admitted its first five Black undergraduates.

When I walked onto campus as a freshman 29 years later, most of my Black classmates and I were still the first in our families to attend the prestigious university. We—like many lower-income students across racial and ethnic backgrounds and first-generation college students—could not benefit from the legacy preference that was extended to our white, wealthier peers—a privilege bestowed upon applicants whose parents or grandparents are alum of the school.

While the United States Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissions—essentially “affirmative action” for wealthy and white students—remain untouched.

It’s time to demand colleges and universities end the unfair, unjust, and unearned privilege of legacy admissions that has excluded students of color and low-income students for decades.

Among the top 30 universities, legacy students have a 45% greater chance of being admitted than non-legacy students and fill between 10% and 25% of all available slots in an incoming class

'Affirmative Action' For Wealthy, White Students: Why Colleges' Legacy Admissions Must End Now

While the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissions—essentially “affirmative action” for wealthy and white students that's excluded students of color and low-income students for decades—remain untouched.

newsone.com

Whites are 59% us population 54% post grads

Asians are .045% of US population but 6% post grad.

This means they are 133 times more likely to be admitted than whites.

Where is the white privilege?

Jo

 

[Coyote]

You can actually do both. One can still recognize that Ashkenazim have higher-than-average IQs, and still judge each Jew as an individual. Nobody is saying, for example, that a Jewish applicant should be admitted because he belongs to a group with high IQs. It all comes down to the individual.

Not really…when you make a broad (and particularly) negative generalization about an entire race, such as low IQ, and follow it up with “but of course there are some that are bright”….. it is not about the individual at all.

?


No, I gave the example of my two parents - white, Jewish, and grew up in poverty. Why should they, with their superior academic accomplishments be relegated to a lesser school so that two black kids with weaker academic accomplishments get the top school? The blacks with the weaker metrics should get the lesser school.

If test scores and GPA’s were the only metrics used, you would have a point, but they are not and never have been, nor should they be.

 

[justoffal]

Not really…when you make a broad (and particularly) negative generalization about an entire race, such as low IQ, and follow it up with “but of course there are some that are bright”….. it is not about the individual at all.


If test scores and GPA’s were the only metrics used, you would have a point, but they are not and never have been, nor should they be.

Very interesting
....

What other metrics do you think should be used? This is a sincere question. Not looking for an argument I'm looking for some details.


Jo

 

[Lisa558]

Not really…when you make a broad (and particularly) negative generalization about an entire race, such as low IQ, and follow it up with “but of course there are some that are bright”….. it is not about the individual at all.

Sounds like you’re putting words in my mouth again. To clarify, the following two points are not mutually exclusive:

1. There are many bright black individuals, and they would get into prestigious colleges even if white. They deserve to be there.

2. As a group, blacks have a lower IQ than average.

If test scores and GPA’s were the only metrics used, you would have a point, but they are not and never have been, nor should they be.

They should be the two primary metrics - but liberals like to include all sorts of “holistic” stuff to justify why blacks are admitted while whites with better grades and scores are rejected. And skin color should not be a factor at ALL.

The SCOTUS ruling will come out by the end of the month. All predictions are they will rule that discriminating according to race is unconstitutional.

 

[JoeB131]

You can actually do both. One can still recognize that Ashkenazim have higher-than-average IQs, and still judge each Jew as an individual. Nobody is saying, for example, that a Jewish applicant should be admitted because he belongs to a group with high IQs. It all comes down to the individual.

I agree. And no individual should be reduced down to a GPA and a Test score. Sure, you can consider those, but you should also consider athletics, legacies, dean's interests, diversity, extra-circular activities, charity work, etc.

No, I gave the example of my two parents - white, Jewish, and grew up in poverty. Why should they, with their superior academic accomplishments be relegated to a lesser school so that two black kids with weaker academic accomplishments get the top school? The blacks with the weaker metrics should get the lesser school.

Because they weren't the victims of 400 years of systematic racism in the United States. (And no, what they went through in Europe doesn't count. That's Europe.)

Wut? Who is the White Dude? Who is he? Clarify please.

Meet Edward Blum, the man behind the Harvard affirmative action case

If you look behind the curtain of affirmative action litigation in recent decades, there you will find Edward Blum.

www.boston.com

Because race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional.

Except the Supreme Court has ruled they aren't. Twice.

Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Coyote]

See? Your question about “why should black kids have to sacrifice to [better scoring and higher GPA] kids who are already the largest demographic” is EXACTLY what I was saying about your seeing people as “color groupings” instead of individuals.

That rather seems as if that is what you are doing with your White Jewish kids.

The fact that the more qualified white kids are part of the ”white color” group is irrelevant. They are the better students, and should not be rejected due to race.

Diversity is valued both on a college campus and out in the world of work. Do you value it?

GPA’s and Test scores are not and never have been the only metrics. Do you think they should be and if so, why?

Whites are still far and away the biggest group. Asians as well. When only 2.6% of all applicants are accepted, that means a hell of a lot of bright, capable kids are going to be rejected. How are you going to create a diverse campus out of that 2.6%?

Race is only one of MANY factors that don’t exclude merit in the process..

 

[JoeB131]

Take a course in a computer language.

Kind of not the point, is it? You only need so many coders.
And we outsource most of that to brown people in India, whom you seem to hate almost as much as you hate blacks.

 

[justoffal]

I agree. And no individual should be reduced down to a GPA and a Test score. Sure, you can consider those, but you should also consider athletics, legacies, dean's interests, diversity, extra-circular activities, charity work, etc.



Because they weren't the victims of 400 years of systematic racism in the United States. (And no, what they went through in Europe doesn't count. That's Europe.)

Meet Edward Blum, the man behind the Harvard affirmative action case

If you look behind the curtain of affirmative action litigation in recent decades, there you will find Edward Blum.

www.boston.com

Except the Supreme Court has ruled they aren't. Twice.

Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I like the inclusion of extracurricular activity and charity work. That's sits well with me. Interestingly I know of no Asian volunteer workers that I can think of personally. I am sure they exist.

I do however know many black volunteer workers, some Hispanic and a few white.

That was a valuable comment.

Jo

 

[Lisa558]

That rather seems as if that is what you are doing with your White Jewish kids.

For the second time, the poor, white Jewish kids were my PARENTS. The point was how unfair it would have been to rob them of the fine college to which they qualified, and thus embark on a successful life, in order to give their spots to lesser-qualified black kids for no other reason than they’re black.

Diversity is valued both on a college campus and out in the world of work. Do you value it?

Diversity is harmful IF the pursuit of it comes at the cost of getting the most qualified, competent in the workforce. And there are many examples of that happening - where being black is the priority, and best qualified second.

GPA’s and Test scores are not and never have been the only metrics. Do you think they should be and if so, why?

Whites are still far and away the biggest group. Asians as well. When only 2.6% of all applicants are accepted, that means a hell of a lot of bright, capable kids are going to be rejected. How are you going to create a diverse campus out of that 2.6%?

Creating a diverse campus - when it means different skin colors - is not important. What IS important is a diverse campus of differing thought, and not a setting where 95% of staff are libersls.

Race is only one of MANY factors that don’t exclude merit in the process..

But considering race is unconstitutional, and will be disallowed.

 

[JoeB131]

See? Your question about “why should black kids have to sacrifice to [better scoring and higher GPA] kids who are already the largest demographic” is EXACTLY what I was saying about your seeing people as “color groupings” instead of individuals.

The fact that the more qualified white kids are part of the ”white color” group is irrelevant. They are the better students, and should not be rejected due to race.

Except 43% of white students get in on ALDC criteria, meaning that some other student was displaced because they got a leg up because of athletics, or their parents went to that school, or that a Dean showed an interest in them because their parents contributed enough money to buy a new lecture hall.

Let's just concentrate on legacies for a second. This country was founded on the principle that you shouldn't have power and prestige simply because your father had it. It's why we supposedly kicked King George III out on his backside. Yet, legacies create a bit of petty nobility. You go to Yale or Harvard because your father went there and his father went there, securing your position as a mover and shaker in this society, even if you are a complete moron....

I go back to my previous question, that if we put Bush, Trump and Obama on a game of Jeopardy!, who do you think would win.

We all know what the result would be. Bush would miss most of the questions, Obama would get the highest score, and Trump would whine like a little bitch about how unfair the game was and that Ken Jennings was part of the Deep State.

It seems your love for "Merit" only extends to finding ways to exclude black people.

 

[Hector12]

Because they weren't the victims of 400 years of systematic racism in the United States. (And no, what they went through in Europe doesn't count. That's Europe.)

The persecution and discrimination Jews experienced for two thousand years, and which culminated in the Holocaust does not count because the Jews overcame it, and became the most accomplished demographic in the world today.

400 years of systemic racism does not explain black social pathology now. Black social pathology is explained by the reality that the process of human evolution evolution did not prepare most Negroes for the characteristics needed to contribute positively to civilization today. These are intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy.

Characteristics that enabled the ancestors of Negroes to thrive in the tribal environments of sub Saharan Africa earn for many felony convictions today.

If your friend Jamal really existed he would illustrate my claims. I doubt he would know who his father is. I suspect his mother would be uncertain about Jamal's father.

 

[Coyote]

Sounds like you’re putting words in my mouth again. To clarify, the following two points are not mutually exclusive:

1. There are many bright black individuals, and they would get into prestigious colleges even if white. They deserve to be there.

2. As a group, blacks have a lower IQ than average.

No….I’m not putting words in your mouth.

They should be the two primary metrics - but liberals like to include all sorts of “holistic” stuff to justify why blacks are admitted while whites with better grades and scores are rejected. And skin color should not be a factor at ALL.

Here is what Harvard says about its mission:

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

How would that mission be fulfilled?

GPA’s are still the primary metric. Anyone accepted must still have very solid academic credentials to be considered. Do you disagree?

If so, then they are looking at a large pool of very well qualified applicants to select from. At that point, GPA is a less important metric.

The SCOTUS ruling will come out by the end of the month. All predictions are they will rule that discriminating according to race is unconstitutional.

 

[Hector12]

Kind of not the point, is it? You only need so many coders.
And we outsource most of that to brown people in India, whom you seem to hate almost as much as you hate blacks.

Two computer programs that took me two weeks to code enabled my company to fire four clerical workers. I was disturbed to learn that. My boss was pleased.

Computer technology eliminates the need to hire people whose jobs are easy to learn.

I have a high regard for the culture and history of India. I have liked the East Indians I have known.

 

[JoeB131]

For the second time, the poor, white Jewish kids were my PARENTS. The point was how unfair it would have been to rob them of the fine college to which they qualified, and thus embark on a successful life, in order to give their spots to lesser-qualified black kids for no other reason than they’re black.

Because your parents didn't encounter 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, etc. When the Jews came here, they were just another bunch of white people. Maybe not as good as the WASPs, but on the same level as the Irish, Germans, Catholics, Italians and Poles.

It's why they came here to start with, because they wouldn't have to deal with the garbage they dealt with in Europe at the hands of my relatives... (Oh, no, wait, they ruled after the war that Uncle Anton was only a Mitlaufer, you can't blame him.)

So it seems this country already did this country a solid simply by letting your parents in. Why do you think they deserved another?

Diversity is harmful IF the pursuit of it comes at the cost of getting the most qualified, competent in the workforce. And there are many examples of that happening - where being black is the priority, and best qualified second.

depends what you consider "qualified". If they were letting in black kids with a 1200 SAT and 2.5 GPA, you might have a point. But a 1400 SAT and a 3.3 GPA, that's more than qualified.

Creating a diverse campus - when it means different skin colors - is not important. What IS important is a diverse campus of differing thought, and not a setting where 95% of staff are libersls.

Except Conservatives usually aren't smart enough to qualify for college professorships... that's the problem. When you think Talking Snakes are real, you kind of lack the critical thinking skills to get to that level.

But considering race is unconstitutional, and will be disallowed.

Except more than likely, the schools will just change the criteria to allow more blacks to get in by calling it something else. The real problem is, why do you want the government to micromanage how schools admit students?

 

[Lisa558]

Except 43% of white students get in on ALDC criteria, meaning that some other student was displaced because they got a leg up because of athletics, or their parents went to that school, or that a Dean showed an interest in them because their parents contributed enough money to buy a new lecture hall.

Let's just concentrate on legacies for a second. This country was founded on the principle that you shouldn't have power and prestige simply because your father had it. It's why we supposedly kicked King George III out on his backside. Yet, legacies create a bit of petty nobility. You go to Yale or Harvard because your father went there and his father went there, securing your position as a mover and shaker in this society, even if you are a complete moron....

View attachment 794167

I go back to my previous question, that if we put Bush, Trump and Obama on a game of Jeopardy!, who do you think would win.

We all know what the result would be. Bush would miss most of the questions, Obama would get the highest score, and Trump would whine like a little bitch about how unfair the game was and that Ken Jennings was part of the Deep State.

It seems your love for "Merit" only extends to finding ways to exclude black people.

What in the WORLD are you talking about, with my father having power - and how my father went to Yale because his father went to Yale, blah, blah, blah. My father (and mother) were children of poor, uneducated immigrants fleeing antisemitism in Europe, and because they scored very high on tests and got top grades, they got a great college education. Why should they have had to give up the chance to escape poverty - using their brains, motivation, and discipline - to give their spots to blacks who scored so much lower and had worse grades?

 

[Lisa558]

No….I’m not putting words in your mouth.




Here is what Harvard says about its mission:

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

How would that mission be fulfilled?

GPA’s are still the primary metric. Anyone accepted must still have very solid academic credentials to be considered. Do you disagree?

If so, then they are looking at a large pool of very well qualified applicants to select from. At that point, GPA is a less important metric.

So now you’re quoting Harvard as your proof? They are at the crux of the lawsuit for twisting into pretzels to justify admitting blacks while rejecting whites and Asians with much higher metrics. That’s why they came up with that insulting personality test.

 

[JoeB131]

Two computer programs that took me two weeks to code enabled my company to fire four clerical workers. I was disturbed to learn that. My boss was pleased.

Computer technology eliminates the need to hire people whose jobs are easy to learn.

Um, okay. But my guess is that when you learned you were a job destroyer, you didn't find something else to do for a living.

I kind of have the same problem in my professional work. I'm sure I've inadvertently eliminated a lot of jobs either through outsourcing or process improvement. (my primary job) Then again, I've also helped people find better jobs through resume writing and job counselling. (My side hustle.)

And at the end of the day, the system will take care of itself.

Here's the real problem, though. Unless we invest the money educating people of color, we aren't going to be able to compete with China in the long run, because they are investing in education.

 

[Hector12]

Because your parents didn't encounter 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, etc. When the Jews came here, they were just another bunch of white people. Maybe not as good as the WASPs, but on the same level as the Irish, Germans, Catholics, Italians and Poles.

Why do mot Orientals perform and behave so well in the United States? They are a non white race. Orientals who moved to the United States were easy to identify. They faced persecution and discrimination, and overcame it.

 

[JoeB131]

What in the WORLD are you talking about, with my father having power - and how my father went to Yale because his father went to Yale, blah, blah, blah. My father (and mother) were children of poor, uneducated immigrants fleeing antisemitism in Europe, and because they scored very high on tests and got top grades, they got a great college education. Why should they have had to give up the chance to escape poverty - using their brains, motivation, and discipline - to give their spots to blacks who scored so much lower and had worse grades?

Who said they had to give up a chance to escape poverty? Again, as I said, we kind of already did them a solid by letting them into this country.

So, oh, my gosh, they'd have to go to state! Hey, I went to UIC, and we had plenty of Jews there. Israeli independence day was a big deal every year, as you'd have the Jewish students having their celebration, and the Palestinians students protesting outside.

 

[Coyote]

Creating a diverse campus - when it means different skin colors - is not important. What IS important is a diverse campus of differing thought, and not a setting where 95% of staff are libersls.

Why?

Diversity typically means people from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. Different economic backgrounds, ethnicities, different parts of the country and yes, different racial backgrounds. Do you think a bright White Jewish kid who grew up in the Chicago suburbs will bring the same experiences to the table as a bright Black kid who grew up in a single parent home in a poor urban neighborhood? How about the Asian girl, daughter of diplomats, who grew up around Washington DC and the Hispanic girl who is a first generation immigrant from Texas? Or the first gen kid from Mingo County WV, son of a coal miner, and the kid whose parents immigrated from Cambodia and built their own business? That is what a diverse student campus looks like. Diversity in thought and the challenging of assumptions is what they should be exposed to in their educational experience and, just as important, through their relationships with each other.