Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the end goal even according to SCOTUS is for these measures to eventually become unconstitutional.
So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".
There simply is not a quick easy solution and those who are not oppressed simply have no real frame of reference to understand the problem. I encourage every person who feels these programs are unfair to spend time volunteering in poor minority communities.
The idea that "oppression" is limited to dimensions of race and gender, rather than ethnic/economic/geographic/etc is as juvenile as it is political useful.
You have had up close experience with one kind of disadvantaged community, and act as if that is the only group that has it. The difference between urban communities and places like Clay County, Kentucky is that volunteers like you won't ever get sent to Kentucky.
Your line of reasoning did a dodge there, swapping out between geographic demographics and racial demographics.
I don't think all kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods are in worse positions than poor kids in Eastern Kentucky. I do think that all the white-looking kids in eastern Kentucky, regardless of other factors stacked against them, will never be denied a job, loan, or rental opportunity based on the color of their skin. I can't say the same for the kids from any of those regions who don't look white.
The idea that we have somehow magically eradicated racism over the course of a single generation astounds me.
Seriously, it's almost 2020. You should get how close to the 1960s that is.
And yet there is no trace of it now. I doubt you have set foot in Arkansas, because your implication that the attitudes haven't changed much is grossly inaccurate.
Frequently it is. Many laws specifically protect "national origin".
What laws? The US Constitution provides significantly greater protections to US Citizens than foreign nationals, as many of rights are not extended to non-citizens.
The data shows widespread economic disparity. It does not show the cause, which may or may not be discrimination.
I think your point that oppression is not only racial but socioeconomic is not misguided. But as I understand it, the ruling does not preclude adjustments based on the access and opportunity limitations you refer to, which are not strictly limited to a particular race.
You have to distinguish affirmative action (in hiring/employment) and race based factors in college admissions.
Most colleges that use race/minority status as a factor in admissions also generally also use socioeconomic status as a factor. However, I am not familiar with any employment/hiring based affirmative action that looks at socioeconomic status.
Just as an example, I went to a top 50 (at the time) public high school in the country, the school is located in a large city (hint: where Jeff Bezos went). I had a 4.0 GPA and was the 50th percentile of the class, approximately #750 out of 1500 kids in my class. Colleges take that into account and I would never have made it to an ivy league (I did get 1 offer, but because I was an athlete and they wanted me to compete for them), but all things being equal if I came from that poor rural area you reference I would be looked at like a scholar, maybe even #1 in the graduating class vs #750, and I might have had multiple Ivy league admissions.
Why do you think this is the case?
Yet somehow you think you are enlightened by a little volunteer work. as far as immigrants in America go, Asians make more money than whites. When you compare Chinese, the difference is starker.
FWIW, I don't think you were really that poor. I grew up white, male, and poor from Appalachia. I promise you, there was no privilege in that. Its a crime against humanity that someone's test scores are worth less than another's simply because they were not born with enough pigment in their skin.
If you pick out students who had real disadvantage -- growing up with horrible schools, having uneducated parents, not speaking English, being poor -- I'd be 100% for them.
That's not what we've got.
We've got a system where Harvard will bring in black people from the "right" neighborhoods, and white people if their parents went to Harvard, taught at Harvard, or donated to Harvard.
I think America largely fails its poor, black and marginalized communities, and that a ton more can and should be done, but that doesn't mean affirmative action is the right (both effectively and morally) solution, or that it's not systemacially unfair to other groups.
Not that being "Harvard" would make it better, but to a lot of people the prestige of the name is important.
So to that effect, it is a zero sum game.
In general, we is a society (in America at least) have decided that's not good enough. It hasn't been good enough since the time there was one facility for the whites and one facility for the coloreds.
so I guess you're making up for lost time? or setting the precedent for your own progeny? because I'm like 100% sure that during the era of slavery the same arguments were made by slavers - "my ancestors didn't participate in the crusades so I'm morally absolved..."
You should go start your own Harvard and you can exclude or admit anyone you want.
The judge was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Dale_Burroughs
Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments so the current makeup of the Senate, short of impeaching her, has no relevance.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/)
>The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point "assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 510
>But such measures, the Convention instructs, "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." Ibid.; see also Art. 1(4) (similarly providing for temporally limited affirmative action); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Annex to G. A. Res. 34/180, 34 U. N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Res. Supp. (No. 46), p. 194, U. N. Doc. A/34/46, Art. 4(1) (1979) (authorizing "temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality" that "shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved").
The answer for all 3 for me personally is no. I have family members who make decisions based on different priorities which change their income. My coworkers differ radically in their abilities and work ethic. How can they have equal incomes in this scenario? There is a way to do this, and it hasn't worked any time it's been tried.
If a normal employee at say walmart brings in $100 worth of value a day to the company, and the CEO executes a few big multi-million dollar deals that month, then the CEO in fact would be significantly more productive (in terms of capital to the company) than the average employee.
> and that factors other than pure merit allowed them to amass that much wealth.
Yes like taking the risk of starting such a business to employ others and putting down the capital which might be lost.
I also don't know who you think would enforce some kind of "fairness" limit on how much money someone makes. The government doing so would likely be ruled unconstitutional and wouldn't likely ever be passed in the first place through congress.
If all the normal employees quit and Walmart can't replace them, how much money does Walmart lose?
Perhaps we should calculate value to the company based on that sort of reasoning.
If you're a self-employed craftworker who produces hammers, should your income be the same each year, without regard for the quality or quantity of hammers you produced that year, and without considering the world's need for the sorts of hammers you produced? How would you go about achieving that outcome?
Difficult to answer, and honestly not at all a priority to have an answer.
Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem.
The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor."
> Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem.
> The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor."
Are new Roe v Wade like cases being heard by the court? There's a chilling effect to people bringing these cases to consider.
I'm sure you're aware that like 10 other states have similar cases working their way through the court system
I suppose you can do a No True Scotsman and say that those weren’t truly enforcing equality of outcome since there were people at the top of that society doing the enforcing, but most would find that argument pretty strained.
Everyone should have the chance at getting educated, but not everyone needs to pass or excel - it is up to the individual to succeed, but it is up to society to provide the opportunity to succeed. That is why schooling (primary, secondary and tertiary) should be free for everyone.
You can't answer the question of "when" if a person has already decided the goal is unachievable. Again, those were his words not mine
The temporary measures will end WHEN people are genuinely interested enough to help regardless of whether they created the problem. That is my answer. You just don't like it. And that's ok....
If you/the people who support such a policy can't define an explicit goal then I'd say that's pretty unachievable.
Our system is based on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If there are issues with the opportunity then we should work to fix those (like is already being done in inner cities cleaning up the drugs/pushing out gangs/preventing fatherless homes/etc). But pretending that you're going to fix those socioeconomic issues by giving preferential treatment to people based on race is just pulling other problems into the mix and is blatantly racist.
No one is advocating wishing anything away. If you want to focus specifically on equality of opportunity you can't do so without recognizing that race directly affects which opportunities are available to whom. Any solution that ignores that is just more of the same. And doing more of the same only extends the timeline of "when" that the original comment took issue with.
Also related: California Alien Land Law of 1913 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1...), targeting mostly Asians (Japanase, Chinese, and Koreans). SCOTUS reaffirmed this law in 1923, it was finally invalidated in 1952.
And Jewish people are a protected class, even defined by SCOTUS as a race for purposes of Civil Rights/Anti-discrimination laws
Do you think their kids might be affected by say, the economic troubles their parents might've gone through, or the fact that they lost family due to the racial animus at the time? Or how about if those families were relegated to places designed specifically for them, to keep them away from the rest of the populace, with less opportunity for education or work. Do you not think that might have a multi-generational effect?
If Jews have had a hard time getting into Harvard in the past, and Harvard uses legacy status, then that means that Jews will.habe a harder time in the future for getting into Harvard.
No, that is not the justification being used.
The argument used to justify this racism is that a rich education requires exposure to diverse people and ideas, and so the educational mission of the school requires that they bring in sufficient numbers of otherwise-underrepresented racial groups. If they can't do this, they say, they won't be able to give their students a good education.
[Note that I'm just playing devil's advocate by citing their view; I actually think it's bollocks. Sure, being surrounded by diverse ideas is important in education. But if they were truly interested in this, then they'd be trying to recruit based on that actual argument, by looking for Protestants and Catholics and Mormons; tall and short people; introverts and extroverts; right-handers and left-handers; city folk and country folk. The fact that the only dimension along which they measure diversity is race reveals that the justification they give is nothing but a convenient rationalization.]
Similarly, coming from a minority religious or cultural background can also be a plus for a college application. Perhaps your complaint is that the process by which these benefit an applicant is less systematized than it is for race? Or that racial preferences are too systematized?
The other categories you mention are likely to be diverse by default---colleges already have a pretty good distribution of short and tall people, and the hand dominance distribution is also pretty representative. There aren't any mechanisms that impede the society-wide distribution of these traits from replicating itself in the student body.
Do they present any evidence to support this claim? I'm only aware of studies like that of Robert Putnam showing that diversity is extremely detrimental to community engagement and cohesion, among many other things.
This shouldn't be an acceptable justification, "righting historical wrongs" is a highly subjective policy goal which shouldn't be relevant to a verdict of "constitutionality".
But that's not what's at stake here. Chad is doing great, legacy admissions are alive and well. Meanwhile Cletus and Liu are being discriminated against on race despite their real history that flies in the face of your framing.
Why must they be thrown under the bus? Why not Chad?
This is actually incorrect. The only rationale SCOTUS has ever accepted for affirmative action is to create diverse student bodies. They have never accepted past discrimination as a rationale. For what it's worth, I'm a (former) lawyer. But you don't have to take my word for it! See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/#tab-opi...
Actually, SCOTUS specifically identified this motivation ("right these historical wrongs") as improper and affirmative action programs premised on it are illegal. That is why affirmative action programs instead talk about "diversity" -- SCOTUS blessed "diversity" as an exercise of judgment by the school that would allow otherwise impermissible race-based admission.
If it were about diversity as you claim, rather than righting historical wrongs of inequality, there would be no concept of a termination point of these programs as diversity would be an ongoing concern ad infinitum.
But race also matters in terms of starting position.
Asians need to organize like people of other races and take bigger pieces of the pie.
It's a little crude to use race maybe, but it probably isn't a terrible approximation. What would be great is if people had to disclose any paid preparation for the SAT or the hours their parents spent with them growing up but that's probably a long way off.
Overall, this issue is framed to be as controversial as possible by political interests but it really isn't that big a deal.
Isn't that contradictory? Are you saying that african americans achieve the same as asian americans even though they did not have to study hard? Then why would affirmative action be necessary?
Affirmative action is applied to upgrade the scores of candidates with lower scores if they are of a disadvantaged minority. So, an asian american with higher scores (and who worked harder) will miss out on an opportunity to an african american with lower scores (who did not work as hard).
Also not sure why the parent user is posting it multiple times. Not cool...
Sorry for posting it a lot, its just relevant to what I wanted to say in my other comments.
They claim that East Asians develop cognitive capacity at an earlier age than other races and that gives East Asians a compounding practice advantage that gives them the edge in academic scores. The article claims, based on this premise, that universities like Harvard should actually discriminate even more against East Asians.
The article is full of obvious leaps designed to sound smart but are actually logically vacuous.
Much of the article essentially boils down to this:
Young East Asians test highly > The quantity of older East Asian who are successful don't reflect the quantity of young East Asians who achieve academically > Therefore, East Asians start smart and then other races catch up cognitively in adulthood
A) Racism is likely factor here. East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly. Now we're using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself.
B) Nurture versus nature is a complicated and unsettled debate yet the author tries to claim that because China has a creativity problem, it's proof that East Asians as a race has a creativity problem. Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation.
C) Article repeatedly use test scores to say something qualitatively about the characteristics of a race. For example, East Asians test high on math therefore East Asians have more quantitative reasoning capabilities. You could just as easily attribute this to cultural differences in study priorities.
2) "If these children are scoring as high as 120 on average at the age of four (despite being hospitalized for malnourishment) and 110 to 112 at the age of ten, it is implausible that their IQ goes up as they grow older"
Come on. Why? You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing. Especially when these IQ scores are being compared against age groups.
>East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly.
Can you provide evidence that this is what's going on instead of something else? Plenty of leaders in the US are East Asian.
>using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself
You didn't present your own evidence that the 'symptoms' are actually due to racism. The author presents a compelling explanation backed up with data that explains what we see.
>Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation
The article quotes the Japanese government stating it believes it has an innovation challenge as well.
>You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing
IQ is relative to others the same age. This is evidence that East Asians develop cognitive ability more quickly than other populations. All healthy children continue getting smarter as they develop. This is all discussed in the article.
There are more Asian leaders in the world's top tech companies than there are Europeans. Why do you think that so many Asian people in Asia are able to assume leadership roles and grow their companies at breakneck pace and yet Asian Americans are somehow unfit to do the job in America?
It's wonderful how much economic progress China has made, and serious academic progress as well. But that's not relevant here.
China discourages non-ethnic Chinese from having control over Chinese companies, and has extremely few foreigners to begin with so that's not a valid comparison.
I don't know about silly, it certainly looks unlawful to me.
I quoted wrong number. It's 25% vs 40%.
Affirmative action doesn't actually bother me as much as legacy based admissions. Just absolutely idiotic that it's accepted.
The major factors pushing down that percentage are legacy admissions and the vague "personal rating," which seems to be the knob Harvard admissions turns to get the demographic ratios it desires. Asians are systematically given a far lower "personal rating" than other demographics.
I really don't see how anyone justifies this kind of thing in 2019. This is like the barest possible fig leaf over obvious prejudice. They could rename it to "Cromulence Factor" and it'd make as much sense.
Kid didn't get into Harvard? Donate to the school he or she did get into.
Secondly, why doesn’t Harvard just admit Asian Americans that score poorly to bring the Average down and chalk it up to amazing character?
If a higher court overturns your decision, then there should be consequences.
An appellate court could find that this fact, combined with other circumstantial evidence, indicates that quotas were used — even if not put in writing.
Also, it is well known that "strict scrutiny" is interpreted differently in the context of affirmative action than "traditional" discrimination. So when a judge says something survives strict scrutiny, the analysis provided may be more akin to intermediate scrutiny (applied to sex-based discrimination) or rational basis (applied to pretty much everything else).
Also, I'm saying this mainly because a lot of the comments in this thread are missing that context (especially when speculating on what happens next in this case, or on what implications this might have).
- Diversity is good
- Discrimination is bad
When 50% of the world's population is from China/India, how do you both promote diversity and not discriminate?
Then again, if they test for both things, how are they supposed to not prioritize one over another?
Is your bar just "do not besmirch the good name of this institution"? Then I guess nobody should care for or covet International olympiad winners.
Harvard is looking for people who have the highest probability of becoming prestige generators, the same way that NBA teams are looking for people with the highest probability of being points generators. Sure, the assessment methods for Harvard are much more coarse, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
> The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges.
Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.
These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further.
> For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc.
That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?
Is that the case? I always thought that the case is brought on because the diversity candidate is NOT often "equally qualified,"
If it means "someone who is equally likely to be successful at Harvard" the answer is likely yes. Like I said there is no shortage of people who fit that definition.
If it means "someone who has quantifiably the exact same quality of resume" the answer is potentially no.
Although if you subscribe to the second definition, you should probably have a bigger complaint against athletes and children of alumni, staff, or donors. Almost half of all white students at Harvard are in one of those groups and yet there are always more complaints about "diversity" than there is about these students.
 - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-...
But the reality is that it's more of a spectrum, and in general universities usually want to take the most qualified people they can, just like companies want to get the most qualified job applicants.
Absolutely discrimination. Unless the definition of discrimination has changed significantly that is.
The difference is when it is systematic. It is currently systematic in most universities and schools.
The US has nothing remotely close to India's level of diversity.
Skin color? India has the whole spectrum from dark brown to people who could pass for southern European.
Religion? India has a huge variety.
Economic? Everything from some of the poorest people in the world to multi-billionaires.
What percentage of the population's ancestors has been enslaved by other parts of the population's ancestors? Still very high.
Please explain how you are measuring diversity if you want to make the outrageous claim that India is not diverse.
Stop treating it like an exclusive club that hands out occupational licenses for an elite class of the well connected few and give as many people as you can a quality education. With the money that these universities receive that should be possible. If increase in the amount of students would have even remotely kept pace with funding we wouldn't have the need to treat this like a zero-sum race game.
I think the name 'Race Conscious' is not a great description where it actually means race and oppression.
Hasan Minhaj did a pretty informative episode on the lawsuit against Harvard affirmative action -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm5QVcTI2I8
Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x)
Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x)
Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x)
Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x)
African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x)
Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x)
non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x)
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews, upper estimate used
> They said that only about a third of the students were from families in which all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves. Many argue that it was students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions.
Is that a claim that their schools are worse at educating students than schools in Africa?
Africa is a huge continent of 54 countries with a population of 1.2 billion people, so it makes perfect sense that such a huge geographic area like that would have many excellent schools compared to the areas of concentrated and persistent poverty in the US.
The two areas aren't remotely comparable, unless you were thinking of something else?
Given that the US black population does better on the PISA tests than the only black majority country that participated, Trinidad and Tobago, it seems unlikely there are better educational systems. A quick check does not find a single country in SSA with college graduation rates above ten percent. Given that over 90% of the US black population are descended from slaves who’ve been in the US since the 1800s the disproportion is suspicious.
So 1 billion in subsaharan africa vs 42 million african americans - still on totally different scales.
Subsaharan Africa has plenty of educational institutions of sufficient quality to prepare motivated (and likely more well off) students for admission vs relatively small number of seats at Harvard.
That doesn't in any way contradict with the possibility that general education systems in subsaharan africa aren't great.
Foreign undergrads at elite US universities are likely themselves to be privileged in their countries of origin, not the least because the ability to understand English and pass tests administered in English is a huge filter for privilege in many developing countries.
I have not, yet comments here assert that it is.
It makes me question the legitimacy of their data sources.
It is intentionally difficult to find and requires legwork since I believe it is intentionally obfuscated.
Also international students are counted separately from the race/ethnicity categories. This is due to how the government classifies and collects information about race and ethnicity (see IPEDS definitions below).
I used to work at Harvard as an institutional research analyst. I actually submitted the final reports (institutional demographics and other stats) to US Department of Education. If anyone is curious, a large portion of the aggregate demographic statistics is open and available to the public: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data
I think these should be able to add up to more than 100. E.g., someone who is both Hispanic and Black.
The average age of people who identify as two races is markedly lower than other groups though they're a relatively small group, so not sure how that works out. But there's roughly as many people who identify as both white and native American as just native American. If Harvard only lets them choose one, which I guess they must if it adds up to 100%, then that could have a big impact on those numbers depending on how people react to that.
Harvard doesn't consider all US born students. They have an academic floor. Most of the US population does not meet the academic floor. Low achieving students are effectively not in the applicant pool even if they apply.
A more accurate representation of the applicant pool would be the USA demographics that meet the 10th percentile SAT score at Harvard. However, even with this more accurate pool, the accepted population would differ because different races have different average scores within this pool. The races with lower averages would be expected to be underrepresented in the accepted pool compared to the applicant pool.
See page 45. Asians have a much higher bar and lower probability of getting in after balancing for same academic level. Seems like discrimination to me.
And how does harvard assert the "race" of someone in the first place?
This is all extremely confusing.
I find that the black community (including myself) will quickly point to the reason of Affirmative Action, and what it is trying to accomplish. I find it fair if a historically marginalized group require over-representation to "break" it's cycle. Yet I find something troubling.
I'm concerned that many of the flagship arguments that are still often brought forth by this community have propositions that continue to look less and less stable.
There is a perpetual cycle that the average African-American faces, often said starting from slavery. It has frequently been said that starting with proper education, will this cycle begin to unravel. Though there's been significant attempts to equalize opportunity of education for decades, yet there's been virtually no improvement in the racial performance gap (Black-White).
The main reason I commonly see for this gap is socioeconomic status and parental education. College Board prompts every testing student for their family income status, race, gender, etc. I'd love CB to dump every categorical statistic they've collected, but they do provide a summary every year. Every year they're able to give basic statistics on performance of the different groups based upon the groups stated above.
What I find really interesting was for 2 separate years (2003, 2008) College Board made public test performance by race x income. College Board had also released 'Reaching the Top: A Report of the National Task Force on Minority High Achievement The book' (1999). The book generally stated that black students whose parents were college-educated scored lower than white students whose parents did not graduate high-school. Both datasets show that black students from high socioeconomic families were scoring comparatively to white students from low socioeconomic families.
I see this as deeply troubling. Though there is an large list of variables that are not publicly accounted for, it would make more sense for discussion to be shifted towards the discovery of the cause of the gap.
I fear that Affirmative Action is inherently unjustified and examples like similar to OP's post will continue to hurt the opportunities of the talented.
(2008) [JBHE] https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/why...
(2005) [JBHE] http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
[Teachers College Record] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280232788_Race_Pove...
Extra bit, attempt to model 1995, caution on the rhetoric but quality article:
Tables start at page 40.
How strange - are these people allowed to benefit from affirmative action?
In particular with respect to Harvard and Boston I'd think Catholicism might deserve a mention if we're going to bring religion into this.
In the end I think religious diversity is important but it doesn't belong in the same conversation. You can choose your religion and also turn it on/off at different phases of your life. You also can't see religion from the outside (with some exceptions for example a Sikh turban).
That's not true for race.
The Supreme Court has ruled that in fact Jewish people are a race...at least for purposes of Civil Rights/anti-discrimination laws.
In the Anglosphere, Jews have pretty much always been considered "white". For example, both the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa, two regimes obsessed with racial classification, never even considered that Jews might not be white.
The conception of Jews as a separate race, has historically been an Eastern European idea. Even in 1930s Germany, the Nazi party's base of popularity was always firmly rooted in the most Eastern federal regions.
I don't remember where (help me, please!) but I read an account by a medieval European monk visiting monasteries and Christian communities in Africa. He described their religious practices, traditions, culture architecture and food in great detail, but mentioned their (certainly much darker) skin tones only in passing.
"Race" (boiled down to skin melanin contents) as a distinguishing point between groups of people is not a permanent fixture in human history. It is especially overwhelmed by religion, language and culture/tribal nationality in terms of its use as a dividing point between "us" and "them".
It doesn't really make sense to talk about the expulsions in the 1500s as being motivated by race, given that there was no meaningful difference in race between the Jewish and Christian populations in the area, and they had widely intermingled.
While I have read plenty of accounts of riots and expulsions that either explicitly or implicitly state their reasons as being motivated by fears of new Christians still Secretly practicing Judaism, I haven't seen a single account naming race or some ethnic distinction as the cause.
Second, Oliver Cromwell readmitted the Jews to England, nearly 500 years ago. The Dutch readmitted Jews over 500 years ago. The Swedes 300 years ago. Over 200 years ago Napoleon's Western European armies emancipated Jews, primarily from Eastern Europe's absolute monarchies.
In contrast, Jews were never granted equal legal status in Russia until 1917. Pogroms were regular occurrences in Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania until the 1920s. The Romanian Iron Guard persecuted Jews with such brutality, that even the Nazis told them to dial it back. Contrast with Denmark, where the local populace refused to let the SS deport even a single Danish Jew.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity of Jewish history would tell you that while anti-semitism in the modern period isn't unheard of in Western Europe, its orders of magnitude worse in Eastern Europe.
Not true about South Africa:
"Shortly after the Union of South Africa received dominion status in 1910, the new Boer rulers proposed to re-classify the Jews as "coloured" because they originally came from the Middle East, and hence were not really European. The Jews of South Africa fought tooth and nail to retain their privileged status as "Whites""
Right around the same time the Oppenheimers were becoming the wealthiest and one of the most powerful families in South Africa. Despite being ethnically Jewish, I've never once heard of them facing any discrimination from the apartheid regime or the broader SA public.
You basically have to strip every complicating element of your true identity safe for the absolutely benign forms (ie "Kiss me, I am Irish" tea shirts).
If you pay attention at least in American you can observe intriguing examples of this tension with white identity playing out. For instance being LGBTQ and white presents a problem for many. In fact there are examples now of white gay men who claim to hate "identity politics", what they really hate is that LGBTQ identity jeopardizes their "white" identity and they recognize this, so it is easy to pretend there are no other "blemishes" to their "white" identity....It is a fascinating phenomenon if you pay close attention :)
Speaking for myself, mmm.....no.
"To ensure that we did not overlook religiously unengaged Jews, we asked students for their religion and whether they considered themselves Jewish aside from religion; then, we asked about their parents’ religious identities. Students who considered themselves Jewish in any way were counted in our estimates." -- https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat...
"Jewishness in the United States is considered an ethnic identity as well as a religious one." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews#Religion
I genuinely am not trying to break out the praeteritio, and say I'm not calling it a 'positive' stereotype, but at a certain level you can't have such a cultural focus on education, and then be gobsmacked when it has statistical significance in things like school admissions.
Like, if I told you that Utah had the lowest per capita alcohol consumption in the US, it's not liable to blow anyone's mind.
Heck, one of the reasons Harvard came up with its holistic admissions process in the first place was targeted at Jewish kids applying.
Also just a lazy google, I'd hazard to guess you're right about catholic representation being higher than expected.
"An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as common language or dialect, history, society, culture or nation. Ethnicity is often used synonymously with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism, and is separate from but related to the concept of races."
From Wikipedia. You're right that I didn't list every factor.
Judaism as an identity class has a lot more to it than mere religious affiliation.
I have to suspect that if the representation were 0.5x, rather than 5x, then its consideration would strike you as more natural.
Practically for much of this history in this part of the world, "Jewish" has been used interchangeably with Ashkenazi. Jewish is not an ethnicity, but Ashkenazi is, and most of the Jewish people at a place like Harvard (or applied-but-denied) have been Ashkenazi. Note this paragraph is descriptive, not normative: this conflating of Jewish and Ashkenazi is a way by which other Jews (many of which face even more racial discrimination) get erased from discourse.
This is, to put it mildly, an opinion rather than an established fact. Ethnicity is a social construct, and many Jewish societies do construct an ethnicity that crosses the intra-Jewish Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Persian/etc. lines.
The biggest example of this is of course Israel, but you also see this in other mixed-background Jewish communities like e.g. Los Angeles or France, where a single umbrella Jewish ethnic identity is overlaid on top of those more specific ones.
There is a belief that many of the "Jewish" ethnic groups form one nation (Zionism tends to hold this) and I suppose there are people who extend that to a broader definition of "ethnicity."
To continue the example of Zionist ideology, even secular Zionists consider converts to be Jews, and many consider converts to non-Jewish religions to have exited the tribe. Non-Jewish immigrants and their descendants who speak Hebrew as a native language may or may not be considered members depending on the person.
Say what? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism#United_States
If people don't think that breaking "whites" down into Jewish/Non-Jewish and nothing else is strange then I don't think we can discuss this topic rationally.
I would bet that your average Ashkenazi Jew (it is worth noting there are multiple different Jewish ethnic groups) has more genetic commonality with an average person of Ukrainian descent than that Ukrainian person has with someone of Irish descent. So why are the Ukrainian and Irish person both white while the Jewish person isn't?
And also let's point out that there is no distinction for any other group of Middle Eastern people. They instead have to choose between being Asian, African, or European.
My maternal grandparents were born in Gaza City, and Syria respectively. Grandmother was expelled Gaza in 1929, and the Syrian grandfather was expelled from Syria in 1927. Both families had been there for many generations, if not since Temple times.
When I'm in the United States, even though I am very dark, I am never considered a "Person of Color" solely because of my religion. Other people from the same places _are_ "Persons of Color" if their religion differs.
I'm darker than Ms. Tlaib if you want to get your colorimiters out.
It's 12:54 AM in Tel Aviv now, where I am. (I spend about half my time here and half in Silicon Valley).
However in the United States it's still Rosh Hashanah. I think it's a little unfair to have a discussion about Jews and affirmative action in the United States at a time when observant Jews will not be on-line.
Neither did the Nazis, btw.