|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 01/16/2003 8:45:13 PM PST by Antoninus
SINS OF ADMISSION
Dinesh D'Souza
When Michael Williams, head of the civil rights division of the Department of Education, sought to prevent American universities from granting minority-only scholarships, he blundered across the tripwire of affirmative action, the issue that is central to understanding racial tensions on campus and the furor over politically correct speech and the curriculum.
Nearly all American universities currently seek to achieve an ethnically diverse student body in order to prepare young people to live in an increasingly multiracial and multicultural society. Diversity is usually pursued through "proportional representation, a policy that attempts to shape each university class to approximate the proportion of blacks, Hispanics, whites, Asian Americans, and other groups in the general population. At the University of California, Berkeley, where such race balancing is official policy, an admissions report argues that proportional representation is the only just allocation of privileges for a state school in a democratic society, and moreover, "a broad diversity of backgrounds, values, and viewpoints is an integral part of a stimulating intellectual and cultural environment in which students educate one another."
The lofty goals of proportional representation are frustrated, however, by the fact that different racial groups perform very differently on academic indicators used by admissions officials, such as grades and standardized test scores. For example, on a scale of 400 to 1600, white and Asian American students on average score nearly 200 points higher than black students on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Consequently, the only way for colleges to achieve ethnic proportionalism is to downplay or abandon merit criteria, and to accept students from typically underrepresented groups, such as blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians, over better qualified students from among whites and Asian Americans.
...
Although universities strenuously deny the existence of quota ceilings for Asians, it is mathematically impossible to raise the percentage of students from underrepresented groups without simultaneously reducing the percentage of students from overrepresented groups. Former Berkeley chancellor Ira Heyman has admitted and apologized for his university's discriminatory treatment of Asians, and this year the Department of Education found the University of California, Los Angeles, guilty of illegal anti-Asian policies. Stanford, Brown, and Yale are among the dozen or so prestigious institutions under close scrutiny by Asian groups.
...
The second major consequence of proportional representation is not an overall increase in the number of blacks and other preferred minorities in American universities, but rather the misplacement of such students throughout higher education. In other words, a student who might be qualified for admission to a community college now finds himself at the University of Wisconsin. The student whose grades and extracurriculars are good enough for Wisconsin is offered admission to Bowdoin or Berkeley. The student who meets Bowdoin's or Berkeley's more demanding standards is accepted through affirmative action to Yale or Princeton. Somewhat cynically, one Ivy League official terms this phenomenon "the Peter Principle of university admissions."
...
Even taking into account other factors for leaving college, such as financial hardship, the data leave little doubt that preferential admissions seriously exacerbate what universities euphemistically term "the retention problem." An internal report that Berkeley won't release to the public shows that, of students admitted through affirmative action who enrolled in 1982, only 22 percent of Hispanics and 18 percent of blacks had graduated by 1987. Blacks and Hispanics not admitted through preferential programs graduated at the rates of 42 and 55 percent respectively.
Although most universities do everything they can to conceal the data about preferential admissions and dropout rates, administrators will acknowledge the fact that a large number of minority students who stay in college experience severe academic difficulties. These classroom pressures, compounded by the social dislocation that many black and Hispanic students feel in the new campus environment, are at the root of the serious racial troubles on the American campus.
It is precisely these pressures that thwart the high expectations of affirmative action students, who have been repeatedly assured by college recruiters that standards have not been abridged to let them in, that they belong at the university, indeed, that they provide a special perspective that the school could not hope to obtain elsewhere. Bewildered at the realities of college life, many minority students seek support and solace from others like them, especially older students who have traveled the unfamiliar paths. Thus begins the process of minority separatism and self-segregation on campus, which is now fairly advanced and which has come as such a surprise to universities whose catalogs celebrate integration and the close interaction of diverse ethnic groups.
Distinctive minority organizations, such as Afro-American societies and Hispanic student organizations provide needed camaraderie, but they do not provide academic assistance to disadvantaged students. Instead they offer an attractive explanation: classroom difficulties of minorities are attributed not to insufficient academic preparation, but to the pervasive atmosphere of bigotry on campus. In particular, both the curriculum and testing systems are said to embody a white male ethos that is inaccessible to minorities.
...
Both survey data and interviews with students published in The Chronicle of Higher Education over the past few years show that many white students who are generally sympathetic to the minority cause become weary and irritated by the extent of preferential treatment and double standards involving minority groups on campus. Indeed, racial incidents frequently suggest such embitterment; at the University of Michigan, for example, the affirmative action office has been sent a slew of posters, letters, poems -- many racist -- objecting specifically to special treatment for blacks and deriding the competence of minority students at the university. An increasing number of students are coming to believe what undergraduate Jake Shapiro recently told the "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour": "The reason why we have racial tensions at Rutgers is they have a very strong minority recruitment program, and this means that many of my friends from my hometown were not accepted even though they are more qualified." Other students have complained that universities routinely recognize and subsidize minority separatist organizations, black and Hispanic fraternities, and even racially segregated residence quarters while they would never permit a club or fraternity to restrict membership to whites. A couple of American campuses have witnessed the disturbing rise of white student unions in bellicose resistance to perceived minority favoritism on campus.
A new generation of university leaders, weaned on the protest politics of the 1960s, such as Nannerl Keohane of Wellesley, James Freedman of Dartmouth, and Donna Shalala of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, are quite happy to attribute all opposition to resurgent bigotry. Some of this may be true, but as thoughtful university leaders and observers are now starting to recognize, administration policies may also be playing a tragic, counterproductive role. A redoubling of those policies, which is the usual response to racial tension, is not likely to solve the problem and might make it worse.
If universities wish to eliminate race as a factor in their students' decision-making, they might consider eliminating it as a factor in their own. It may be time for college leaders to consider basing affirmative action programs on socioeconomic disadvantage rather than ethnicity. This strategy would help reach those disadvantaged blacks who desperately need the education our colleges provide, but without the deleterious effects of racial head-counting. And it would set a colorblind standard of civilized behavior, which inspired the civil rights movement in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
My jaw drops when I hear some of these folks spewing the most radical jibberish, straight from the latest DNC fax.
NeoNeanderthal alert! His other recent anarcho-posts are worth scrutinising, too.
Nothing better to teach a young person to hate socialism, than experiencing it first hand. I have read articles here on FR that there is a growing fear of white nationalism among some professors, sounds like just another double standard that blows apart liberal lies about fairness and equality.
-------------------------
It's higher than that. But there is also another trick that comes into play here. The family's kid at the chinese restauranr where I used to eat got a score of 1200 in nineth grade on the old SATs and 1470 after high school. Since the watering down of the new SATs the 1470 would be an equivalent of well over 1600. Consequently his SAT scores would be artificially capped off and lowered since 1600 is the max allowable while the scores of other students would be raised.
If affirmative action were not such an atrocious idea to begin with you could almost make a case for it in the single case of the black man who you might claim was dragged over here in chains, had a major hand in building the country early on, and was systematically denied a share of the proceeds for a protracted period. Nonetheless from day one affirmative action appears to have been for everybody in the world except the white male and some groups including asians appear to have benefited from some AA programs and suffered from others. The system has amounted to a form of officially sanctioned lunacy and I don't see anybody benefiting from lunacy longterm.
There are other things you could do which would provide vastly more benefit to blacks:
That's for starters. Do a few things like that and blacks should not NEED affirmative action.
Speaking of competition, I had to pass an entrance exam and be in the top 10 percent to be admitted to the high school of my choice back in Seoul (same admission policy for universities). Out of the several thousand nerds, only several hundreds were admitted. Harsh? Yes. But it sure was an incentive for us to study hard; after all, who wants to shame the family name? They reformed the high school system since then and did away with the tests in order to be fair to all children. Consequences? Drop-out rates went up for one thing, is my guess.
In the Michigan undergraduate admissions system, if you have a PERFECT SAT score you receive +12 points.
You will receive +20 points if you are a member of the following races: Blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans. An applicant from these ethnic groups with barely a pulse starts with a +8 point advantage over an applicant from all other ethnic groups who ACED the SAT (no easy feat). Such an admission system will naturally skew the admission results in favor of the designated ethnic groups.
jriemer
It's not just a Korean thing.
The competition to enter the "correct" high school in Japan was so great that I remember reading about epidemics of suidicides during the economic boom of the 80s and again in the downturn of the 90s. There was (maybe there still is) a underground culture of "cram" schools that ran another eight hours after school so that middle school kids could learn more to get in the "smart" HS.
After exams, it was brutal because the schools posted everyone's names and grade outside the school walls. Many kids' dreams were crushed on grade day.
jriemer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.