Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I'm 1/16 Native American, and don't consider Cherokee tradition to be a big part of my life. Supposedly, schools may choose someone w/ minority status b/c of hardships/discrimination they may have to endure. I look as white as any WASP, and I generally think of myself as being white; therefore, I can't say that I've really had problems with discrimination. Morally, should I say that I'm part Native American? What if they say list ALL ethnicities? What's your opinion?

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:06 am: Edit

Personally, I would not list the Native American thing. If you are 1/16, then I guess you might have to list the other 15/16s! My first choice would be to list Caucasian. Otherwise, list part this, part that (you fill in the blanks, as I do not know your "parts")....but not simply Native American as if that is your main cultural/ethnic background as it is not. To say otherwise, comes across to me as not entirely truthful and going for minority status.

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

Thanks for your input...but I must make a clarification. There is NO way I would ONLY say Native American. That would only be IN ADDITION to Caucasian, which is my only other "part" (Irish, Scot, English, Welsh, Dutch, German, and French Canadian).

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:19 am: Edit

Anyone else care to chime in? Please, I want as many responses as possible.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Go ahead as say you're part native american-that's the only part of your ancestry that the schools are interested in anyway. That way, if the schools can find another student who is 15/16 native american, or 3 with 5/16 native american ancestry, for the purposes of diversity they have the equivalent of one 16/16 native american.

By Mike (Mike) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:45 pm: Edit

You should list as you stated. It is honest and fair and if it helps you in any way good for you. People list legacy, and ever other thing that might help.

Mike's Dad

By Beenthereil (Beenthereil) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Pistol...Use it if it helps you.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Do you believe racial discrimination is wrong?

If so, do you still believe so when racial discrimination benefits you? It is called a taking principled stand. Are your principles worth a college admissions slot? It is up to you to decide.

You are as native American as Shaina Twain and as Hispanic as Cameron Diaz. It would definitely benefit the civil rights movement if you do mark native American. It would show how ridiculous AA has become. On a side note, Shaina is freaking hot for a girl in her late 30’s.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Covalent~

Please spare us your moronic and paternalistic attitude. It seems that you are on a crusade to attack anyone who dares to ask a question about minority status AND college admissions.

If you do not like the current Affirmative Action policies, write your congressman and the Supreme Court.

And, by the way, Shayna Twain is canadian and would not qualify for URM status. Cameron Diaz is 50% Cuban. You missed another opportunity to keep your cracker mouth shut!

Now, as far as the admission policies go, we did NOT make the rules nor created the laws. As prospective college students, we have to fill applications that are truthful, honest AND verifiable. In the case of Native Americans, one of the tests is to exhibit a tribal affiliation card. It is also our right -if not our duty- to present our application in the MOST favorable light. There are reasons why colleges are inquiring about ethnic backgrounds and it is not our place to question the whole admission process. PistolPete, if you have doubts about it, I would encourage to discuss it with the adcoms. I believe that most colleges will ENCOURAGE you to report your Native American heritage, as it helps them as much as it helps you.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Xiggi is absolutely right.

I believe that Harvard and Dartmouth have specific policies regarding Native Americans. The criterion is the same as used to be applied to African-Americans, i.e. one drop (1/32) of blood. Someone who was 1/16 Native American would qualify under that rule.

Then, too, a number of colleges have specially designated scholarships for people from certain states, or even towns, as well as sports scholarships. By and large, these policies (as well as legacies) favor some groups more than others. Affirmative Action is not just for URMs

By Got2go (Got2go) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Why do people who agree with affirmative action always use insults and name calling against people who oppose affirmative action?

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Thanks for all your help, guys.

Got2go--I wouldn't say that those who agree w/ AA always slander those who oppose it. At any rate, what Xiggi said was called for in this situation because of Covalent's caustic attitude. Covalent belittled me for asking a question that I asked to attain a broader perspective on the issue; I'm not going to learn if I'm forbidden to ask questions.

Thanks Xiggi.

By Aerobex (Aerobex) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 05:55 pm: Edit

I dont think you should put it because, there is such a think a full blooded white person there is something behind it(Irish American, German American,Russian American) i could go on and on, just because you are 1/16 native american dosent mean you are a "minority" in a political sense and that is what colleges are interested in, not your lineage, because if we all did that. Bumpkin College in Watsuga, Iowa (population 50) could have people from 100's countries. So they are mostly concerned with the political aspect of minority that the lineage. GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Aerobex (Aerobex) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 05:56 pm: Edit

sorry for the spell mistakes!!!!! typing fast!

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Sorry, Aerobex.

I think the definition of Native American is the same that used to apply to African-Americans in order to discriminate against them, namely that they be 1/32 of African descent. If that was enough to discriminate against them, it ought to be enough to serve the purpose of Affirmative Action. Those who applied that rule to keep African-Americans out and down were not concerned about what African-Americans were or were not capable of doing. You're probably too young to have seen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.

I think pistolpete should enquire from adcoms about their definition of Native Americans. If it is 1/32, then he should list himself as Native American.

By Aerobex (Aerobex) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:25 pm: Edit

I am African-American, but its a real werid and complicated topic. I would prefer to be called "African-American" because it is politically correct, but I am "Black" which is a race and so colleges use "black" instead of "AA" , but I dont think you should Check the box "Minority" if you are 1/16 Native American just because it MIGHT increase your chances of admission, that is wrong, and if it isnt, If i was born in Hawaii could i be considered "Pacific Islander" and "Black/AA"?????????????

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Aerobex:
First, in my part of the country, there are African-Americans, there are blacks from the Carribeans, and from Africa. So the terms are not interchangeable. Some are very wealthy and some are not. My son's best friend has a father who is African-American, went to Harvard, then Yale M.D. then back to Harvard for his MBA. His mom is Yale B.A. and Harvard M.A., He'll still check out the box for minorities. And that's fine.

If you want to claim multiple identities, and can do so, go ahead. But why deny it to others? Now, if colleges choose to use SES rather than race, that would be different.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:40 pm: Edit

If i was born in Hawaii could i be considered "Pacific Islander" and "Black/AA"?????????????

Your birthplace makes no difference for AA or URM, it's all based on citizenship and race/ethnicity. And yes, you could be Pacific Islander and black; Just as you could be Hispanic and black.

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Forget WHETHER it increases my chances. Let's talk about veracity...when a college asks us to make check marks to delineate our "ethnic backgrounds," and to check "ALL that apply," what should I do? They make us sign papers saying that everything in the app is "true, complete, and correct" (this comes from one of my common application supplements). Would it be deceitful to check the white box but not the Native American? And wouldn't it be advisable for me to include the same info on each application? If they contain different info, I'm breaking the agreement that I signed. So then, does it make sense that I
1)check BOTH white AND Native American OR
2)check "other"
?

By Aerobex (Aerobex) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:56 pm: Edit

For safety just check "other", and to Xiggi
with the pacific islander thing i was being facetious,
"it's all based on citizenship and race/ethnicity"

Your exactly right, thats why im saying just because ur 1/16 native american dosent mean that ur race/ethnicity denotes you as being Native American.

1/16 Native American is Apart of you lineage or ancestry it has nothing to do with race/ethnicity, if it did everybody in the US would have a slew of nationalites considering that the US is a melting pot

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Marite, I did see that movie. W I watched it in Sociology I heard somewhere that they are coming out with a new version. The girl in it annoyed me terribly, but the guy was SUCH a great actor.

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Aerobex--I generally agree with you. It's true that "it's all based on citizenship and race/ethnicity." But that's because it's believed that the races/ethnicities to which they refer have had disadvantages that were in part caused by merely BEING of that race/ethnicity. Alcoholism is a HUGE disadvantage endured by many, many Native Americans. My great great grandfather was an alcoholic; those descended from him have as well. In fact, my second cousin nearly died a few years back because of it. It's not like I'm "white" and happen to have a few ounces of Cherokee blood in me. How can you determine how "much" you need to be of any ethnicity in order to say that you are, to an extent, of that background? Any parameters we could set would be highly subjective. So, if then the question becomes, as it essentially was anyway "Has your heritage caused you/your family harm?" then the answer for me is a vehement "Yes."

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Pistolpete:

Check as many boxes as apply to you. Aerobex is wrong anyway with the definition of race/ethnicity.

By Aerobex (Aerobex) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Ok Im having a hard time with the connection between, a drinking problem effecting Native Americans, and what that has anything to do with you applying to college. If your trying to connect race to disadvantages,I dont think that is what admission people are trying to do. I believe you are trying to justify yourself with a problem, now i dont know your whole story so I have no place, but i personally dont think and its my opinion, that alcoholism has anything to do with checking native american, but let me ask you a question all though I am African American or Black, I have asian and hispanic in my family (lineage), do you feel that I have the right or the obligation to let a college know (because were being honest) that i have asian and hispanic in my ancestry by checking Hispanic and Asian because they caused me some sort of problem in my family? sorry if im coming on too strong i dont mean to.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Well, I thought you had a moral dilemma. I was simply providing a moral argument against using race. Obviously you were only seeking a specific response to your question. In any case, I would love to see which part of my post where I "forbade you to ask questions". As far as me being "caustic" and "belittling" you, I gather you were just offended that I didn't say "Use your race to get in. It's ok!" like everyone else.

Well, let me offend you some more. There are usually two reasons given that, in some people's mind, justifies racial discrimination.

1) Past/current discrimination and reparations.
-- You, of course, have not been discriminated against because you are 1/16 native American. Why should you be advantaged because of your race when you have never been disadvantaged because of your race?

2) "Diversity"
-- Being 1/16 native American, would you provide any "diversity" beyond someone who is 0/16 native American? Should you be given as much preferential treatment as someone who is full native american?

Do you meet either of these justifications? Why should you be given an advantage over the girl who sits right beside in class that was unfortunate enough to not have 1/16 native american blood? If the tables wer turned (ie: this girl was advantaged because she was 0/16 native american and you were disadvantaged because you were 1/16 native american), would you still think it is ok? Is racial discrimination wrong when it hurts you and right when it benefits you?

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit

“You are as native American as Shaina Twain and as Hispanic as Cameron Diaz. It would definitely benefit the civil rights movement if you do mark native American. It would show how ridiculous AA has become.”

This statement, made by 1 covalentbond007, uses a sarcastic tone to indicate that I am not Native American, and therefore have no reason to even bother asking my questions. It’s clearly caustic (I hope you don’t need my help to say why), and, as it has been made in reference to me, it’s also belittling me. Though the best word that may be used to describe the tone is “bitter.” And no, I didn’t want you to say “Use your race to get in. It’s ok!” I wanted to get multiple perspectives on the issue. I was offended because of the personal attack.

And now for the real issue:

It seems that the way to solve this problem is by using logic. After I made my first post, I discovered two appropriate choices of action. I can either check the white box AND the Native American box, or not answer the question.

Now, about diversity:
This issue is highly subjective. You suggest (and, I can’t say that I would deny) that I wouldn’t personally add diversity to the school. You point out that 1/16 is only 1/16 more than 0/16 (though it’s also infinitely more). But then, if there is no difference between being 1/16 and 0/16, then it follows that there is no difference between 1/16 and 1/8. Or 1/8 and ¼…You can see where I’m going with this. Either there is no ethnic difference between two people who are 0/16 and 16/16, respectively, or there is a slight difference between 0/16 and 1/16. So your evaluation of the difference between 0/16 and 1/16 is flawed, and being 1/16 Native American does, in fact add more ethnic diversity than does being 0/16 Native American. So your argument really only shows me that I should, in fact, include Native American on my app. Thanks for the help!

By Got2go (Got2go) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit

It may be easier to understand if use the metric system instead of the english fractional system because a lot of the schools are now going metric for racial classification. 1/16 would be 6.25% native american. Also, for calculation purposes they usually round off to the next higher number so you would actually be 7% native american.

By Aerobex (Aerobex) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Ok, This topic came up with this girl I was talking to in my French class, and she said depending on the College, you maybe able to put it down, for some schools it is "1/16", but she said there have been some cases where it has been so serious that applicants may need a blood test, and If you wanted to put Native-American you MUST register with Native American with some agency i dont know if it is governmental or not. NOW, i want to know, what is all this for? I think "just being honest" dosent cut it, there has to be some alternitive motive. On standardized tests, on formal documents, and even the Census, were you White,Native American, or Other? If you have not been marking all this stuff as Native American ect...or anything besides White/Caucasion. Why start now, with College, like I said is there an alternitive motive, do you think that you could obtain some sort of advantage, and is it that serious??? Is it worth taking the chance of having your application being null and void??

By Got2go (Got2go) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 06:21 pm: Edit

I think the US Department of Racial Classification will issue certificates of racial purity. It is a new federal agency being set up specifically to deal with problems of racial identity such as this.

By Pipepr (Pipepr) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Bottom Line:

Whether the current system of minority recruiting is right or wrong is irrelevant to you; there's nothing you can do about it except use the system to your advantage. Any one on this board would trade places with you in a second, so don't be naive and get carried away by their guilt trips and envious rationalizations. These same persons will use anything to get admitted to their first choice school, and so should you. good Luck

By Aerobex (Aerobex) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 10:38 pm: Edit

That is crazy, are you that desperate where you think race will get you in, that is crazy, if race didnt matter,would this be an issue? To Pipepr: I think you are giving bad advice,so let me ask you like I have been asking all along but nobody wants to answer my question: all though I am African American or Black, I have asian and hispanic in my family (lineage), do you feel that I should check Hispanic and Asian????

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

If it's true, do it

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 12:09 am: Edit

In reality, race is a social and political construct. Purely speaking, there is only one race: The Human Race. Our evolutionary history is just too short, and the genetic variations amongst us, too miniscule to warrant legitimate racial designations. But of course, we as human beings have seldom been inclined to let the truth get in our way.

The sad fact is that mankind early on found it expedient to construct psuedo-scientific "races" in order to maintain social and political power, and to deny the same to others. That's what the whole system of classifying a person as 1/4 this, or 1/16th that was meant to further accomplish. When people remained obediently within the confines of the established hierarchy, there was a perversely comforting social order and predictability (especially for the ones residing at the top of that hierarchy). But inevitably, all paradigms begin to shift. It is during these periods of social deck shuffling, that we become a little unsure of our standing. Manifestations of the current shift are now being played out in such hot button social issues as Affirmative Action.

Back in the mid-seventies, some social science "expert" (don't ask me who, because I don't remember) estimated that, because of slave/master sexual intercouse, fully 75% of all African Americas have at least one "white" ancester. This "race-mixing" presented a problem when slaves insisted that certain of their offspring could not be seen as black (therefore as slaves) because The Master was their father. In order to leverage their initial investment in perpetuity, slaveowners came up with the "one drop" rule to justify keeping lighter and lighter skinned persons of African ancestry in servitude. States like Louisiana in particular, used very exacting legal terms like, mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon in order to determine just how "black" a person might be. However, no matter how little "negro blood" one might have coursing through one's veins, it was enough to legally define one as negro---NOT WHITE. Invariably, some "negros" became physically indistinguishable as such and, "passed" (presented themselves to society as "white" after relocating to a place where no one was familiar with their lineage). The "one drop" rule also served to keep them "in their place", once such persons were found out.

People have always and will always use their "race" to social and political advantage whenever the situation seems to warrant it. Most days in America, it is best to be "White"---but now and again, under certain limited circumstances, it may work to your slight advantage to be perceived as a member of a "racial underclass". So if you can't fight AA, it might interest you to know that the same "expert" who came up with the 75% number concerning Black American ancestry, also concluded that more than 25% of White Americans have at least one black ancester. Under the "one drop" principle, this would make any number of heretofore, unwitting "white" people eligible for URM status under AA. You might consider shaking your family tree to see what falls out...

The point of my post is this: The more of our sad and twisted human history you know, the easier it is to be cynical. This problem of "race" is not likely to be rectified anytime soon.

By Mike (Mike) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 11:34 am: Edit

Great post Valpal. You have covered the history and tragedy of "race" in the USA. The probelem is so obvious when you hear all the complaints about AA's unfairness and yet the country accepts school's prefence for legacy without much complaint. Odd how the accident of birth is seen as so unfair in one area and causes so little fuss in another.

Mike's Dad

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Let me rephrase. Only in your wildest dreams would you be as Native American as shiana twain. At least she has a somewhat exotic look and knows a little about Native American culture. You, on the other hand, look as white as any WASP and don't consider Native American culture to be a big part of your life.

I suppose it is our fault though. By our actions, we tell kids that being a minority is a good, acceptable way to get into a university. Of course, kids try to meet the goals we set. Kids try to become a minority. It certainly hits a ridiculous point when a child tries to claim minority preference based on the fact that one of his 16 great, great grandparents was a minority. It goes beyond ridiculous when the child tries to argue that being a descendant of this great, great grandparent somehow entitles him to preferential treatment because his genes somehow provide him with a greater "diversity" than another child born without the "advantage" of having a minority great, great grandparent. It would be laughable if there were not serious consequences to this type of group entitlement mindset.

Of course, you failed to answer the one pertinent moral question. Why should you be given preference over another student simply because of your race?

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 10:41 pm: Edit

The majority of people who *truly* believe in civil rights and equal protection under the laws regardless of race (against Affirmative Action) do not support legacy. We do not support any factor that you are simply born into.

The people who support and practice legacy preferences are also the ones who support and practice racial preferences. These people are your friendly neighborhood adcoms. I certainly find it hypocritical of AA supporters to find legacy admissions disdainful but yet think using racial admissions is ok.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Well said covalentbond007.

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 12:19 am: Edit

Covalent, you make me laugh…you argued that I shouldn’t include my Native American ancestry because it didn’t add the “diversity” adcoms were looking for. But when you saw that your explanation told me exactly why I SHOULD include my Native American ancestry, you found yourself desperately clinging to superficial moral ground. AA is good. It provides those with disadvantaged backgrounds a boost, so they can get over the hurdles ethnicity places in front of them. Furthermore, AA wasn’t my idea. I won’t deny that, in some respects, it’s a flawed system. But I didn’t make it. I can only fill out my application in accordance with the desires of the colleges. They want to know if I’m descended from any minorities. Morally, I should say that I’m part Native American, because otherwise, I’d be lying. I’m sure colleges would rather have students who are capriciously given advantages than those who intentionally lie. I hope you recognize that it would be a lie to put down only white; and you can’t expect me to refuse to answer the question—that would put me at an inherent disadvantage, because they would assume was bitter (like you) about being solely “white.” So, each option is equally valid, and each stems from the root of the conflict that is AA. One works to my advantage; the other to my disadvantage. You can’t expect me to chop off a limb of my family tree in order that I may uphold your ideals and deny colleges the information they want about me.

Oh, and I can really see where you’re coming from about legacies, too. After all, they have historically suffered as many hardships as Native Americans. I mean, Native Americans were only kicked of their lands, murdered when they tried to resist the whites’ aggressive expansionism, and sent off to remote corners of what has become the USA (again, I realize that this didn't affect me in any significant way, but you can hopefully understand that I am morally obligated to NOT LIE).

The theme of mocking me is quite compelling. But please, keep the spooge in your squeaky toy; no matter how much you enjoy playing with it, nobody else really cares.

Got2go, have you ever considered becoming a Pomeranian? You’d make an excellent lap dog.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 03:28 am: Edit

"odd how the accident of birth is seen as so unfair in one area and causes so little fuss in another."

Odd indeed, Mike's Dad. In fact, I often wonder if people like Covelentbond would have been as vehement in standing against the South's Jim Crow laws (which required that I spend my first years of elementary school under segregation), as they are today in their condemnation of AA. I find it interesting that AA's most vocal detractors speak of it's "social engineering" aspect as if it were something, heretofore unheard of in the history of mankind. AA is not the beginning of "social engineering", its most agregious example, nor its end, to mark the demise of such. The reasons why AA has the ability to anger, embarrass and discomfit, arise from our nation's long and torturously twisted racial history, a history whose ramifications are still ongoing... Unfortunately.

It is transparently disingenuous of anti-Affirmative Action crusaders to toss in a weak objection to "Legacy" policies when arguing against AA. If there were no such thing as AA, I feel sure that such persons would remain as mute as doorposts on Legacy admissions. Compare the number of lawsuits challenging Legacy Admission policies against the number of lawsuits challenging AA. People who benefit from, and look toward the day when a Legacy hook might offer an advantage to their own off-spring, secretly see nothing wrong with the practice. Conversely, they view any policy that might potentially (however slightly) disadvantage their (or their children's) chance for admission to the college of their choice with far less benevolence. "Fairness" is often only a concern to the person who sits on the negative side of the fairness equation. It's understandable. It's human nature---a nature short on altruism and long on self-seeking. Don't expect the jockying among human beings for social and political advantage to ever let up. And don't expect cries of, "But that's unfair/immoral, unjust" to ever end.

...And don't expect that we'll have heard the end from Convalentbond on the issue.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 07:59 am: Edit

Repeating an earlier post in this thread in response to pistolpete...

Why do people who agree with affirmative action always use insults and name calling against people who oppose affirmative action?

The US constitution says you can't discriminate based on race, but I don't think it says anything about legacies in the 14th ammendment.

Any race can be a legacy, even though the majority of legacies may be white. Legacy admissions, unfair as they may be, are not racist. AA is racist.

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Got2go is a racist.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 05:45 pm: Edit

From the American Heritage dictionary:

Racism:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Sounds pretty much like AA to me.

By Chemyst (Chemyst) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I'm about 1/4 Latino/Hispanic/Other with ancestry from the Azores Islands. Possibly even 1/32 African American judging by the looks of my grandfather. I don't have all the family history cleared up yet. I'm checking the Other box, the Other Latino/Hispanic box, and the White/Caucasian box. I think people from the Azores Islands (a mix of Hispanic, African American, and white influences) deserve to be called minorities just as much. Even though it's owned by Portugal, its people are so different from those on mainland Europe and they do not consider themselves European. However, I am not checking the African-American box if I have only 1/32 of that....it's so difficult to tell sometimes, and if you don't really identify with the culture or look it, then what's the point? Sorry if I offended some of you right there, but that's what I think...
~Anna

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Don’t sweat it Anna, nobody’s offended (you should probably apologize to him for that). I assume what you thought may have been perceived as offensive was when you said, “if you don't really identify with the culture or look it, then what's the point?” The word to describe that question is not “offensive,” but “annoying.” You ask me a question whose answer has been established in multiple posts; if you haven’t noticed it, you haven’t been reading. If you HAD read my previous posts, my response would be obvious to you (I hope I don’t seem rude; I’m just getting sick of having to repeat myself).

Got2go, this is a discussion about what I personally should do regarding my application. It has nothing to do with what you think of AA as an idea. And do you really want me to answer the question “Why do people who agree with affirmative action always use insults and name calling against people who oppose affirmative action?” Fine, whatever. Generally, they don’t unless provoked. You’ll notice that whenever anyone here has resorted to “name-calling,” it was in response to some sort of mocking or stupid comment. I hope you don’t consider it especially offensive to be called a Pomeranian. But really, you act the part. Every time you write, you’re basically saying, “Hey, look at me, Covalentbond! I can’t really think, but I can bark and wag my tail in approval of anything you say.”

This post is not a place for you to cry about AA. It’s about me trying to find my moral obligation, and realizing that it’s to maintain veracity. I will, however, give the colleges to which I’m applying the chance to say they don’t really care if I’m 1/16 Cherokee. I’m going to get in touch with adcoms and find out their opinions (believe it or not, this strand has led me to GOOD advice—not just feeble outcries from AA detractors who feel the need to express their opinions that nobody cares about). Thanks to Mrs. D (whose name is not really Mrs. D) for the good advice!

By Valpal (Valpal) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 02:12 am: Edit

Racist" is a nice strong word, Got2go---one that would unarguably vaunt you and your position onto the side of "right" were it to be true in the case of AA---but is it?

"Racism", is the notion (often manifested in looooong held practices such as, slavery, Apartheid, and Jim Crow) that one's own race is inherently SUPERIOR to another or others.

"Prejudice", is an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts, a preconceived preference or bias, irrational suspcion or hatred of a particular group, race or religion.

"Discriminate". To make a clear distinction; distinguish; Differentiate. To act on the basis of prejudice. To perceived the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct.

Do you honestly want to place AA on the same social and political plane as, segregation?

Really...?

I can tell you from personal experience that Jim Crow segregation was NOT an attempt to rectify an egredgious social inequity. It was NOT meant to foster opportunity for the disenfranchised.

IT was racist; Its intention was to TOTALLY DENY access to the stated principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, based on the notion that one segment of our citizenry (white Anericans) was INHERENTLY entitled to the benefits of these principles, and others (African Americans), not entitled. Jim Crow and other such practices, fully encompass all aspects of all three of the above definitions. AA does not.

Is AA "Discriminatory"? And is this discrimination right? These are actually the legitimate questions to be asked. Discrimination is unquestionably part and parcel of Affirmative Action, but it is NOT discrimination based on, "an irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race or religion. NOT based on the notion that one group is inherently "superior" to another or others.--- NO, IT IS NOT!---and if you believe otherwise, you know very little about the history of true racism in America. To deem AA comparable to Jim Crow is quite frankly insulting to those of us who have endured Jim Crow's soul robbing consequences. To say that the two are equal is comparable to the person with a paper cut telling the person suffering from a compound fracture, "This really hurts, so I think I'm just as intitled to an ambulance as you".

So again, I state the real questions to be asked of AA: Is it discriminatory and is that use of discrimination right? My personal best answers to these questions are, yes, and sometimes. But I derive no pleasure from either of these answers. I am sickened by our nation's absurdly racist heritage, which fostered the need for AA in the first place. AA carries with it an unpleasant smell, because it is the spade used in an attempt to bury one of society's rotting social corpses. It is a "necessary evil." But hopefully one which will, because of the successes fostered by its implementation, soon become completely unnecessary. In any case, the highest court in the land has already rendered a decision expressing a similar sentiment. You can whine and howl about your paper cuts all you want, Covalent and Got2go, but the ambulance will be picking up the more needful patient on this run.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 09:01 am: Edit

Racism:
>>1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Colleges believe that race accounts for differences in SAT scores and academic achievement, as well as character (re: diversity).

Colleges believe that whites and asians are superior to certain minorities in academic achievement, and they want to do something to change that...

>2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
...so, they give preference to certain races in admissions, based on the prejudice that those races can't achieve the same test scores as whites.

So AA is just a little racist, but it's for a good cause. If that's the case, I think we should apply even more racism in favor of the good cause, maybe that way AA can be ended in 5 or 10 years instead of 25.

If a little bit of racism is good, maybe even more racism would be even better. How do you find the right balance of racist policies?

By Mike (Mike) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:55 am: Edit

There is indeed a difference between scores of various cultural groups. There is little difference between thses groups when it comes to success academic or job. That is a major flaw in the use of standardized tests.

People who think that SATs or IQ tests are objective and not a true test of intellegence or skill. After all some can and are motivated to take classes to raise their scores and that alone makes the test results not an accurate measure of anyhting. After all who is smarter, the kid who takes the test with study and gets a 1300 or the one who takes a class or is tutored and gets a 1400?


The heat that is caused by AA is probably the best arguement for AA. People get very upset by AA and seem tjotaly willing to accept every other form of discrimination that takes place in the college acceptance process. One should always ask oneself why the acceptance of a URM makes one angry angrier then the acceptance of a legacy doesn't.

Mike's Dad

By Valpal (Valpal) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 12:11 pm: Edit

"Colleges believe that race accounts for differences in SAT scores and academic achievement, as well as character (re: diversity)."

You think, "diversity" is a catch word for, "character"? How in God's name did you make that mental leap? Diversity is not limited to issues of character, neither is character a trait which can only be displayed by members of "under-represented minorities" (Duhhh!). Criterion for the fulfillment of diversity are things such as differences in sex, religion, ethnic group, economic class, geographic area, etc. If you fixate on the notion that only a URM can fullfill college adcom's requirements for diversity, you completely dismiss the MANY instances in which white applicants are judged for the diversity bonus they might bring to the table. In fact, most of a campus' diversity requirements are fulfilled by things OTHER than race.

And I do NOT think that colleges believe that "race accounts for differences in SAT scores and academic achievement". They KNOW that the history of race in the United States accounts for circumstances which have caused certain racial minorities to generally score below the overall testing populace, but I certainly hope they don't believe that "those races CAN'T achieve the same test scores as whites." "Can't" implies an INHERENT inability, an assumption that would indeed be racist. In any case, test scores and grades have NEVER been the sole criterion for college admission, even for white applicants. There are any number of instances in which one white applicant is admitted over another, whose grades and test scores were quite a bit higher. It happens all day, everyday. But somehow, when it comes to a URM applicant, grades and test scores are the only things that matter (to you opponents of AA).
Another fallacy AA opponents often labor under, is the assumption that "any" URM applicant qualifies for admission to a selective school---an assumption that could not be further from the truth. In the vast majority of cases, these admitted applicants post high enough scores and GPAs to indicate that they are fully capable of succeeding in an academically rigorous environment. Certainly, once they are admitted, no one is holding their hand or doing their assignments for them. They either sink or swim, based on their own INHERENT abilities.

Again I say that racism is the underpinning which made AA necessary in the first place, but AA itself is not racist.

By Babouche (Babouche) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:24 am: Edit

Look guys.......Get real My last name is Rodriguez, how many people have thrown my resume without even looking at it after they saw my name. A study was conducted by MIT and resumes were sent to different companies in the Chicago area. Same background, different names......And guess what? all those spanish sounding names were never called for an interview.

So let's face it....hispanics are discrimated against in the labor market

By Asallan (Asallan) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 11:15 am: Edit

Contrary to that, I'm 100% South Korean, and I have an American...well, Scottish last name, because I was adopted.

Adopted at 6 months of age, I consider myself fully American. I'm terrible at math, I don't play the violin, and I didn't get a 1600 on my SATs. I did spend a year (when I was maybe 12) learning a bit of Korean (but English is the only language I speak fluently, and a bit of crappy high school French), but I don't really consider it an important part of who I am. I'm an American kid--I like "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet."

Personally, I always say I'm Asian/Pacific Islander. I was born there, I'm 100% South Korean, but yes, I have wondered if I have any business to say that. There are a lot of kids that are American born Koreans, with Korean parents, that are probably "a lot more Asian" than me. It's really a matter of choice that's up to you to decide. If I were 1/16 Korean, for example, I personally wouldn't count it, but again, that's only what I would do.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 05:48 am: Edit

Babouche's post is a good example of why we need AA for people with Spanish sounding last names.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:10 am: Edit

Got2go

AA will live as long as there will be racists and bigots. It is as simple as that.

I can live with AA, why can't you?

By Got2go (Got2go) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 12:11 pm: Edit

I never say I can't live with it-the nuttiness of AA is always good for a laugh.

As i said before, maybe AA should be even more racial discriminatory, since if a little bit of racial discrimination will solve the problem in 25 years (according to the supreme court), maybe a lot of racial discrimination will solve it even quicker.

I also feel a little sorry for the people with slavic, asian, italian, irish, jewish (etc) sounding last names since they didn't have their turn to "benefit" from AA when they were discriminated against.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 12:43 pm: Edit

I also feel a little sorry for the people with slavic, asian, italian, irish, jewish (etc) sounding last names since they didn't have their turn to "benefit" from AA when they were discriminated against.

It is not that clearcut! College admissions are only a small part of the AA. As an example, check the figures on government procurement and you will see a different facet of Affirmative Action.

Also, various ethnic groups received benefits under AA and similar programs. As a another example, Filipinos were a URM until Arthur Hu succesfully campaigned to make them lose the protected status.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Yes, I agree with you completely xiggi-it's not that clearcut. It's a befuddling mishmash of preferential treatment and discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity of your last name, political persuasion (in the case of college professors), and legacy thrown in as well.

That's what makes it fun trying to figure it out, and that's why this board gets all these questions such as "I'm 5/64 hispanic and 7/13 asian...what do you think my chances are...?"

Now if we could just get more people to adopt the metric method of racial classification...

By Valpal (Valpal) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit

Yes Gerry, you are oh so right... It was a lot simpler when the preference was based solely on being white Anglo-Saxon, Protestant and Male. There was so much less of a "befuddling mishmash" then. Maybe that accounts for why the system went completely unchallenged for what---300 years?

The reason why we see so many questions put to the board by people suddenly willing to embrace their heretofore shameful ethnic and racial heritage is, they over-estimate the extent to which a slight admixture will effect their chances for college admission.

Now if we could only erase 400 years of U.S. racial and ethnic history, and untold eons of mankind's racial and ethnic history, and adopt the classification of human beings as a single race, we might soon be scratching our collective heads over this entire issue... Piece of cake, right?

By Got2go (Got2go) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 05:53 am: Edit

Again, the preference for white anglo-saxon protestant males is the reason I feel sorry for all the slavs, balts, jews, japanese, italians, koreans, greeks, irish, etc, etc, who never had their turn with AA, and can't benefit from suddenly embracing their heretofore shameful ethnic and racial heritage.

Apparently it will be a lot harder to adopt the classification of human beings as a single race when you keep asking people what race they are. It gets even more ironic and silly-when a black guy (Ward Connerly) tries to get California to adopt a racial privacy initiative (prop 54) to get the state to stop classifying people by race for the purpose of education or jobs, he is accused of being a racist!!

By Got2go (Got2go) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 05:57 am: Edit

We really should take this discussion to another post-I didn't mean to hijack pistolpete's efforts to determine how to classify his 6.25% cherokee to colleges.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit

Happy September 16, GTG!

By Got2go (Got2go) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Why thank you xiggi!

By Chemyst (Chemyst) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit

I wish that were the case with the AA. My ancestors were from Italy, Latvia, Portugal, the Azores, and Ireland. Tell me they weren't treated badly, lol. Anyways, AA better get its act together soon. You can definitely see that they got some stuff wrong by opening any basic American history book, or so it seems to me....
~Anna

By Justplayin104 (Justplayin104) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 09:32 pm: Edit

I have a similar situation, except i'm a bit less. I'm 1/128, but card-carrying nonetheless (in fact, the Choctaws just sent me my permanent card in the mail the other day). And I probably look just as white as you.
Ever since elementary school, my parents have told me to put Native American. On school records, I'm a Native. On the SAT, I'm a Native, simply because that's what I've put and that what i've always been told to put. I can't remember ever marking "caucasian."

You guys can chime in with "that's despicable" and "people like you go to hell, i can't believe you'd be so desperate".. and all that is fine. It doesn't change the situation (and frankly, every good parent always wants the best for their kids, so if the tribe if going to recognize you, and that gives your kid better opportunities, then you can't really blame the parents for stressing this since elem. school).

Anyways, this is what I did. On the schools where I feel that I can get in on merit alone, or I have a good chance of getting in without AA, I put both Caucasian and Native American. On the schools that ask for one (UTenn, Wisconsin), I put Native.
On the schools that I felt might be a reach, I put strictly Native American. Like with BC and Trinity College, i put Native.

If any of you disagree, then fine. Just remember that it's a different game when it's your future, your education, your tuition, and your kids. Talk is cheap, especially when you're on the outside looking in.

By Mike (Mike) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 09:42 pm: Edit

I repeat> Strange how AA creates such a feeling of unfainess. Lots of things other then knowledge, skill, and abilities go into who gets in and who doesn't. And there is no absolute method of measuring superiority. Some people can afford to spend thousands on prep for standardized tests, Some spend even more hiring admissions experts to give them an edge, some have parents who can give a bilding to get them in. Still others get in because their ancestors went there. Some HS students just can't afford the bill. AAA is just another of many factors that may or may not tip the balance of who gets in. All URMs don't need the edge and many don't get in even with the edge. There remains the reailty that there are more colleges then students so everyone who wants in can find a place to get in. If you are indeed a superior example of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities you will do very well where ever you go. After all history is full of successful people who never went to a top 25 or even no college at all.

Mike's Dad

By Got2go (Got2go) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I'm not sure why people would get so upset either. Maybe part of the problem is that many people aren't sure what to mark for race, such as many of the posters on this board. Hopefully someday soon DNA testing will be cheap and quick enough (maybe small desktop units attached to PC?) so that everyone can just send in a strand of their hair, and the colleges would be able to automatically determine by genetic testing what race or blend of races they are. It would also help if the government would issue a set of standards at the same time, so that the colleges would know exactly what blends of races constitute a valid URM.

In the meantime in the absence of clear standards and testing I don't ahve any problem with someone like justplaying104 marking Native American for race.

It would probably also help if high schools did a better job of educating kids on what race they are and testing them on it, instead of leaving it all to the universities.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 02:35 pm: Edit

There are Federal guidelines for racial, ethnic classifications, and minimunm standards. This is one excerpted from the OMB and NCES guidelines:

American Indian or Alaska Native:

A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

No percentages but a test for tribal affiliation or community involvement. Can it be any clearer?

By Got2go (Got2go) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Still very vague since since "maintaining tribal affiliation or community attachment" could be very broadly interpreted, as both pistolpete and justplaing104 posts show. I think a simple DNA test administered to each college applicant would be a much fairer and quantitative test of race.

The example you cite is also confusing. Would a person that meets those conditions, ie original peoples of N. and S. America, be considered Hispanic as well, and thereby get double bonus points, or would they not qualify as Hispanic if they are Brazillian and speak Portugese? What if DNA testing showed that your ancestors were primarily from Spain as opposed to native Central American, since the Spanish killed and oppressed the native populations would that cancel out your Native American status but still give you the Hispanic status? DNA testing would clear up problems like that.

Xiggi-Could you post any links to federal guidelines and standards for URMs?
It would help a lot of people on this board.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Got2go~

You are making it overly complicated, and probably by design to further your viewpoint that the AA policies are ridiculous.

It is very clear for people who can claim URM. The policies are NOT meant to be exclusionary. ONE minority does suffice and the SLIGHTEST percentage of blood does suffice.

By the way, there is no such thing as double minority bonus points. You are a URM or you are not. Again, it does not get clearer than that.

Oh finally, there's a thing called www.google.com.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 01:46 am: Edit

Got2go, I think you may be laboring under a very serious and erroneous assumption---that assumption being that genetic testing can be used to determine the exact "racial" makeup of any human being. Genetic testing can be used to confirm THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONSTRUCT known as "race", only if you are taking such measurements against the DNA of a known individual or gene pool---and even in such cases, the results can be highly contoversial (witness the stink that insued in the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings case). As I stated earlier, the genetic differences between human beings are just too few to scientifically discern separate races. While the physical differences between various gene pools can sometimes be quite visably obvious, those differences literally only go skin deep. So 1/2 this, 1/16th that, or 1/128th the other, mean nothing scientifically, as there are no specific genetic markers that can be offered up as categorical proof of such.

Again I say, that "Race" is a psudo-scientific, politically motivated construct, meant to maintain social and political advantage for one "race" and to deny the same to another or others. In America it has, and continues to be, the "white race" which carries with it the highest social and political value, which is why its value is so easily lost through "dilution" by ANY other "race". Conversely, it is the "black race", which has historically carried with it the highest social and political liability. So damaging is this liability, that any trace of its staining properties has been enough to preclude one from claiming membership in ANY other race---least of all, the white one. So I find it rather funny, Got2go, that you would wish that the government step in and "issue set standards" for racial designation, because that is exactly what it has done since colonial times. Who do you think came up with the absurd system of racial fractions in the first place? Witness the case of Homer Plessy (Plessay vs Ferguson, 1892), a man of 1/8th "negro blood", with virtually no physical characteristics that would belie that fact: He was jailed for refusing to leave his seat in the "white only" section of an East Louisiana railroad and sit in the "colored section". Need I spell out how this 1/8th negro blood negated the fact of the entire other 7/8ths? Plessy vs Ferguson threw open the doors to the entire Jim Crow system of social and political repression---a system designed to exploit the liability of the slightest amont of "negro blood".

Only very recently in the history of America, has it been nominally advantageous to claim membership among a racial group other than the white one.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 02:03 am: Edit

"Anyways, AA better get its act together soon. You can definitely see that they got some stuff wrong by opening any basic American history book, or so it seems to me...."

Chemyst, I do not understand what you mean by, "they got some stuff wrong" in the history books. Please elaborate.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 02:08 am: Edit

We are expecting a significant weather event in our part of the country within the next 12 or so hours, known as Hurrican Isabel. I may be off-line for several days, but I look forward to returning to this discussion. Stay well, everyone.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 08:08 am: Edit

From what little I know about DNA testing, I understand that it can determine lineage, ie, who you are related to, which is what we want to establish in these cases anyway. Since, as Xiggi says, the SLIGHTEST drop of minority blood is sufficient to qualify you as a URM.

Perhaps we could couple DNA testing with official certificates of ancestry?

>>Who do you think came up with the absurd system of racial fractions in the first place?
It is absurd, we should definately adopt the metric system of racial percentages instead.

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 10:55 pm: Edit

This is just an update:
I support the concept of AA. But for me to use it would be to take advantage of a loophole in the system. I will apply as a caucasian only.