Found this from a student on Facebook, looks like some people are giving advice to put in “white” if you have white or “hapa” ancestry because there are still rumours of anti-Asian quotas. Whatever quotas they have now don’t work very well when lots of campuses have LOTS of Asians such as the University of Washington, MIT, Harvard, Stanford or most of the upper University of California campuses. (Actually that kid is writing in Asian Week now, egads)
I did my research when the Asian Quota wars first popped up in the 1980s when Asian students at Brown were complaining about admissions. That’s when people realized that meeting your quota was doo-doo in determining fairness. Groups that got affirmative action typically had admission rates twice as high, and test scores a standard deviation lower than most other students, even as admissions officers told me there wasn’t any “prefence” at all, it was a slight push when everything else was equal. They were simply lying.
My conclusion is that as late as the 1970s, some colleges like Brown had BETTER admit rates for Asians as affirmative action was applied to all groups. But what was happening at first was Asians were taken OFF preferences, this was the case at Brown (actually into the 90s, I’ve seen evidence that Asians were still preferred in some law schools, and even today the Naval and other academies supposedly will give you a break if you are Asian) As far as I’m concerned, I’d be more satisfied if you only gave breaks to groups that are under-represented, but at some schools that would have to include Euro-white Americans.
The NEXT stage was that I noticed that whites were falling below 50% at some schools like MIT and University of California at either UCLA or Berkeley, and the quota pattern I found upon asking for admit numbers was the number of whites was STUCK at 50%, while under-minority Black and Hispanics increased and Asians decrease, despite Asians being the fastest growing population. That means that affirmative action cases were being taken DIRECTLY out of the Asian share since whites were protected. But Asian left could never admit that.
How this was fixed is that whites were treated the SAME (discriminated against equally to favor blacks and Hispanic) as Asians. Affirmative action cases came out of Whites and Asians equally. But what happened is that whites declined, instead of complaining, everybody celebrated. Except for the few white and Asian students who noticed, and cared about getting in. But anybody that complained simply got admitted in the winter AFTER they could brag about Blacks and Hispanics being exactly the same percentage that they claimed the state required them to be, which is exactly what quota is.
But it was a scam because this “balance” was ONLY two groups at the two flagship campuses. There was no balance because UCLA and Berkeley still had way too many Asian and too “few” whites, and every remotely qualified minority in the system was concentrated there. If it were a city, moving every student of color into two schools and having less than 50% white would be …. SEGREGATION.
An unintended consequence is that most of the Asians who didn’t make it into UCLA or Berkeley ended up at…. UC Irvine, creating possibly mainland America’s first and largest predominantly Asian campus. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it produced artists like ClaraC, and African Americans often do well at Historically Black Colleges as well if you don’t want EuroWhites to dominate the leadership positions. But it’s a damned odd result of Affirmative Action if it was supposed to produce “diversity” whatever the hell that is, and all of the non-urban UC campuses are just white surfer hippie or farmboy kids.
Is 50% white diverse? Is 60% or 90% minority MORE or LESS diverse? Is 100% minority perfectly diverse??? This DIVERSE is PERVERSE. Heck, there are reviews of Santa Clara University that’s it’s TOOOOO white because it doesn’t reflect the Asian Domination of the rest of the South Bay. The even worse scam was when Berkeley INCLUDED Asians to prove how diverse it was when they only ad 25% whites, but then after they had to get rid of preferences, they CUT OUT Asians to prove how few minorities they now had due treating students without regard to race, the “new” definition of “racism”.
Fact is, there is NO perfect proportion that will match ANY zipcode in the USA because THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. Most of the USA outside of the coasts have very few Asians. Most blacks actually DON’T WANT TO LIVE in a place where they have NO black neighbors, ditto with Asians or Hispanics, my parents who were happy to be assimilation pioneers weren’t typical. The idea that everything has to match a local population is insane when there is no local population that matches the national population which is (guess what?) overwhelmingly white. What are diversity people supposed to do in Japan or China where everybody is … Japanese or Chinese?
I filed a letter of complaint, but by the time they finished, UC had eliminated obvious policies, such as reserving a fixed percent of a fixed percent for minorities, and moving away from the strict policy that racial “goals” would be rigidly applied based on state population.
Ironically, after I told them there was no reason to favor Filipinos (who as it turns out, though not as over-represented as Chinese, were still above their population in all years) the Filipinos got admission rates WORSE than whites. The progressive Filipino leadership couldn’t bring themselves to criticize affirmative action even if it did hurt them so I was the only one who mentioned it – you’ll not find anybody else who talks about Filipino college discrimination at UC besides conservative old me. That’s like the ironically named “Chinese for Affirmative Action (Against Chinese)” that supported the ONLY explicit quotas against Chinese in the United States at Lowell in SF because they got part of the pay off. Disgusting. Just like the Jewish people all over the internet speaking out for Palestine on Haaretz and J-street against Zionism as if they were bought out. I mean what Jewish person would speak out against their own people? Evidently a LOT.
Bottom line, I’d like everybody to report what they are, but also tell the college to NOT !@#$% CARE what race or religion you are, and set NO numerical goals or timetables (Thanks Richard Nixon for that idea…)
But if we insist on the security blanket of quotas, we need to be completely fair and have complete quotas for all categories in everything. Simply tell people which groups you want to favor and why, and show how much. None of this “preferences, what preferences?” crap. They say “we don’t have quotas” but then admit exactly the same number as the population? That’s crap. That means caps on Jews, Asians, LGBT, Atheists, Mormons and every other over-achieving group. And minimum quotas for Jews Chinese and Japanese and LGBT in Basketball and Football and every sport and every corporation at every level of management. Every identifiable difference between every possible identifiable group has to be researched, and nonprofit organizations funded and laws passed to eliminate EVERY GAP in EVERYTHING. Spend as much money and create as many government jobs to create at least 2,014 categories that have to be reported and tracked until it’s 50% of the GNP. What’s the use of producing anything if it’s not produced “equitably”? Low grades? Government can and must fix that. Not enough Romani or Muslim female Computer Science Majors or $50M athletes? Too many Muslim terrorists? We need to prosecute an equal percentage of Mormons and Bhuddists to eliminate “unfairness”. Government must fix that too. Spanish speaking people have higher unemployment? Fix that too. Why? Because we said so.
Not just minimum quotas for African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans for UC Berkeley and UCLA. It’s either complete admission and salary and job quotas on everything and everybody or NONE.
Now from that article: Lanya Olmstead was born in Florida to a mother who immigrated from Taiwan and an American father of Norwegian ancestry. Ethnically, she considers herself half Taiwanese and half Norwegian. But when applying to Harvard, Olmstead checked only one box for her race: white.
“I didn’t want to put ‘Asian’ down,” Olmstead says, “because my mom told me there’s discrimination against Asians in theapplication process.
Asian students have higher average SAT scores than any other group, including whites. A study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade examined applicants to top colleges from 1997, when the maximum SAT score was 1600 (today it’s 2400). Espenshade found that Asian-Americans needed a 1550 SAT to have an equal chance of getting into an elite college as white students with a 1410 or black students with an 1100.
Top schools that don’t ask about race in admissions process have very high percentages of Asian students. The California Institute of Technology, a private school that chooses not to consider race, is about one-third Asian. (Thirteen percent of California residents have Asian heritage.) The University of California-Berkeley, which is forbidden by state law to consider race in admissions, is more than 40 percent Asian — up from about 20 percent before the law was passed
“The whole Tiger Mom stereotype is grounded in truth,” says Tao Tao Holmes, a Yale sophomore with a Chinese-born mother and white American father. She did not check “Asian” on her application.
“My math scores aren’t high enough for the Asian box,” she says. “I say it jokingly, but there is the underlying sentiment of, if I had emphasized myself as Asian, I would have (been expected to) excel more in stereotypically Asian-dominated subjects.”