You must log in or register to comment.
Magoos: SEE! They’re dumb, they were never qualified to begin with!!
They’ll be both racist, and refuse to acknowledge racism. :/
In their minds, it’s not racism. It’s either nature or culture.
No racist thinks their racist. They think they’re right.
Racism is working!
What’s the average, or at least the past few years? How does this compare with other years percentage-wise - is overall enrollment up or down? Maybe it’s usually 20 every other year, maybe it’s usually 200 🤷♂️ mostly useless without context
EDIT: there’s a little more in the actual article, at least
Harvard Law enrolled 19 first-year Black students, or 3.4 percent of the class, the lowest number since the 1960s, according to the data from the American Bar Association. Last year, the law school’s first-year class had 43 Black students, according to an analysis by The New York Times.
“This is the lowest number of Black entering first-year students since 1965,” he added, pointing to numbers compiled by the Center on the Legal Profession at Harvard, where he also serves as faculty director. That year, there were 15 entering Black students. Since 1970, there have generally been 50 to 70 Black students in Harvard Law’s first-year class, he said.
So well under half is a big change.
If there’s hidden segregation in education, as it was with Jews in USSR, then universities doing less of it will become better over time.
(I mean - this effect has sort of receded by now, but in today’s Russia all education kinda slowly rots. There are exceptions, which are mostly connected to specific passionate people.)
And affirmative action is hard to do right, and from what I’ve heard, it’s not done right in the USA.
The right way is similar to support groups and employment help groups.
Having a list of protected groups is wrong for two reasons - it doesn’t protect at all those who haven’t made it into that list, first, and making a group protected also cements its definition, makes an arbitrary border for it, second.
So - applying force, as in such laws, may feel intuitively more powerful, but it’s not.
Also laws meant to protect may actually in obscure ways cement a certain group’s disadvantaged position. The best policy is no special cases and minimization of blocking and gatekeeping, so that if for members of some group things don’t work somewhere, there’s enough alternatives so that they’d find a way. That is harder, but known to work. Unlike preferential treatment.
There is a comment with percentage of Asian students here too, where they are represented more than in population. Is there no racism against Asians? Is there any affirmative action in their favor?
Your theory is sound except for the glaring ommision of the existence of racism. That’s why “”“preferential”“” <–(needs more quotes) exists, because in America, systemic racism absolutely does
Yeah I agree with you.
When they said:
If there’s hidden segregation in education (…) then universities doing less of it will become better over time.
They are totally ignoring the fact that systemic racism is self reinforcing.
E.g. if one group of parents have enough cash on hand to enroll their children in tutoring when they need it, and impressive extra curricular activities when tutoring is unnecessary, then the children of those parents will have stronger university applications than the children that have to work part time jobs. This perpetuates racially inequality.
It’s not difficult to understand. It doesn’t even require racial prejudice.
That would be socioeconomic class more than race, and I completely agree. In fact, race doesn’t have anything to do with it, other than the historical facts of America meaning there’s a racial skew to poverty. Targeting poverty ("wealth privilege) would therefore disproportionately benefit African-Americans, without needlessly excluding the poor from other demographics and continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people.
In a system where inherent racism didn’t exist that would work, are you assuming that the current system wouldn’t disproportionately skew the beneficiaries to the existing racial bias for some reason ?
That just gives you the same problem, a step down in the chain.
Systemic racism doesn’t start once you hit a threshold of income, targeting the poor will still skew towards whatever biases exist in the system.
disproportionately benefit African-Americans
Either you don’t understand why African-Americans would need additional help or you are framing it that way on purpose.
By what metric are you getting “disproportionate” ?
continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people
It sounds like systemic racism is over so we can all just go back to seeing everyone as equals. /s
Again, either you have a fundamental misunderstanding or are purposely framing it that way.
To be clear, these measures aren’t “skin color is most important so let’s base policy on that aspect”
they are closer to
“The system is actively using skin colour and ethnicity to detrimentally target people who should really be equal in standing, let’s not pretend that that isn’t happening and try to address it”
To clarify, I don’t believe in the creation of any deliberately biased system, but I believe the main societal issue is overwhelmingly one of wealth disparity.
I’m not assigning a moral value when I use the phrase “disproportionate benefit”. I’m alluding to the disproportionate degree of poverty experienced by African-Americans. Poverty relief would therefore benefit them more. If there was no differential distribution of wealth with respect to race, the benefits of poverty relief would be neutral with respect to race.
Additionally, the person I responded to is very clearly describing a situation related to a student’s socioeconomic status. I absolutely believe some kind of “blind” application process is necessary to minimise the impact of a number of possible prejudices held by the admissions team.
It’s not difficult to understand, except it’s wrong in experience.
E.g. if one group of parents have enough cash on hand to enroll their children in tutoring when they need it, and impressive extra curricular activities when tutoring is unnecessary, then the children of those parents will have stronger university applications than the children that have to work part time jobs. This perpetuates racially inequality
(Repeated cuz it’s good, and i believe in helping people with special requirements)
Gosh, you’re pretty arrogant huh? Ignorant peeps usually are.
Is “systemic” racism, where the parents have less money because racism is systemic too high a bar for your iq to clear?
Sheesh.
(Er whoops)
deleted by creator
My comment literally starts with comparison to Jews in USSR. If that’s glaring omission, I think some systemic education issues have already got you.
No, no, don’t give up on me just yet! I need to know how you started off acknowledging racism and then forgetting it by the end of your comment! Please advise my clearly ignorant take
How many Asians and Indians, serious question, and, respect.
- African American or Black 14%
- Asian American 37%
- Hispanic or Latino 16%
- Native American 1%
- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander <1%
- African American/Black 15.3
- Asian American 29.9
- Latinx 11.3
- Native American 2.2
- Native Hawaiian 0.5
I love that 27 says “Latinx” and 28 says “Hispanic or Latino”
Is India considered Asian?
This Times of India article talking about US Ivy League admissions treats the data as such.
