February 01, 2005
Every year at the start of a legislative session, it seems, the Democrats in the Washington legislature propose overturning I-200 in order to impose state enforced racial preferences. In today's Seattle Times, the usual suspects tell us that they prefer government racism to fairness: "Finding the balance between diversity and fairness"
public colleges and universities would simply be allowed the flexibility to include race as one of many characteristics considered during the admissions process. This flexibility would be subject to periodic review in order to determine whether it is still needed to achieve diversity, and subject to termination once it no longer was.
Oy. So they want to let unelected, scarely accountable, and effectively unfirable, university bureaucrats to simply discriminate willy-nilly on the basis of ethnicity without any defined goals or criteria? Astonishing.
Here are the actual numbers of UW undergraduate enrollment by ethnic group, updated to the current quarter, Winter 2005
[large PDF, see p. 4]. I'm comparing the UW enrollment numbers with US Census bureau data for Washington State
|Other/Two or More
[The percentages of UW students are as a percentage of domestic enrollment (total enrollment excluding foreign students). The Census Bureau numbers are from 2000, so current demographics will have drifted slightly. Also, the Census numbers don't add to 100% because of overlap between Hispanics and racial groups]
So we can see from the numbers, that Asians are greatly "overrepresented" at the UW compared to their proportion of the state population, Caucasians are "underrepresented" and African Americans, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are nearly proportionally represented. Hispanics appear to be close to proportionally represented when you adjust for overlap. So what exactly is the underlying ethnic imbalance that the racial preference technicians think they need to solve, and how exactly do they intend to solve it?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2005
03:38 PM | Email This
1. Glad to see more tables Stefan, I was hitting withdrawl.
2. Hah! Carlson is using these figures on his show at this moment! Wonderful!
"Separate but equal" was justly eliminated from our nation's laws.
"Together but not equal under the law" seems to be the goal of those who desire to discriminate on the basis of race or ancestry.
It took so long to match our laws to our nation's founding principle that "all men are created equal," why do the leftists want to return to unequal treatment under the law?
Just don't point out that Asians are overrepresented at the UW or you in alot of trouble.
In fact, for many purposes, the administration takes them completely out of the minority catagory so that it doesn't boost the column and take away the reason to "fix" something.
Interesting, African Americans and caucasians are now nearly equally unrepresented.
5. I would like to see a study done to determine how many children of any race who come from a middle class background, who are honor students, who do not get to go to college because they cannot afford it, and because their parents earn too much money for them to get financial aid, but not enough money so they can afford to lay out thousands of dollars for several years for a college education.
Universities have been skirting I-200 anyways by requiring students to submit personal essays with their application. How are these essays related to discrimination, you ask? At least one of the essays prospective students are forced to write is invariably something along the lines of "how do you contribute to diversity?"
Read between the lines. Universities don't recognize diversity as anything other than skin color (intellectual diversity anyone?). Therefore this is a loaded question designed to elicit a certain response. I'd wage three-quarters of applicants mention their racial or ethnic background as their contribution to "diversity."
WASPs have a hard time answering such a question because they are propagandized to think that being a WASP isn't "diverse." Therefore barring any intellectual acrobatics, their response is much less compelling and reflects poorly on their application.
7. The paragraph you excerpted confuses me. It says, "allowed the flexibility to include race...." Then later it states: "This flexibility would be subject to periodic review in order to determine whether it is still needed to achieve diversity."
So later it may be determined that race is not necessary for diversity? It seems to me that race will always be a part of diversity. Their hangup on race = diversity is betraying them. They think that race is the sole determinant in diverstiy? Perhaps I'm not being clear. I told you they confused me. Does anyone understand what I'm saying?
8. The greatest hypocrisy and shame of Affirmative Action is the fact that it systematically discriminates against Asian-Americans. Since they generally are overrepresented in universities, thier standards are raised (often higher than for whites) in order to get a higher proportion of Blacks and Hispanics. This completely undercuts the notion that AA is just about "diversity" or "righting past wrongs" because Asians are both a distinct minority and have suffered serious discrimination throughout the America's history. Thier success should not be punished, but that is exactly what so called "Affirmative Action" does.
When Carlson presented the D legibot with the numbers, she said she found all of the tables rather difficult to follow, and would rather talk "conceptually" about the issue.
Her main point seemed to be that since the federal government will allow more discrimination (not her term) to take place than Washington currently allows, we should allow it.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), stated at 494 regarding elementary and high school children:
"To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."
Does admission to a college or university based on race as one factor which outweighs merit-based factors generate a feeling of inferiority as well?
But for the use of race as a factor in the admissions process, would they be admitted?
The leftists say that people of certain ancestries are not capable of gaining admission on their own individual merit.
It is clear that the leftists firmly believe in the inferiority of some people based on race or ancestry.
Why let the leftists put students into a situation which, as the supreme court stated in Brown, will "generate a feeling of inferiority?"
Sure, the supreme court -- to the everlasting shame of the justices who joined in that opinion -- recently held that arbitrary discrimination in the university admissions process based on race or ancestry doesn't violate our federal constitution.
That means it can be done (just as Plessy v. Ferguson had previously made "separate but equal" racial segregation constitutional).
It doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, nor does it mean that it should be done.
11. I'm wondering if you've looked at residency on this. I taught at UW last fall, and many of my Asian students were from out-of-State or from a foreign country. By accepting these students, they can collect MUCH higher tuition dollars than by accepting WA residents.
Ever since I was 16 (when I first started having to fill out government forms) I've always opted not to list my "race" or ethnicity if I don't have to, or if given the choice, I'll list "other". My feeling is that as long as we continue to focus on race as a distinguishing feature, we'll never truely be free from racism.
I'm not saying that it can't be used as an indentifying feature, like eye color, but it should absolutely not be a basis for who does, or doesn't get into college, or who does or doesn't get a government contract. If you are trying to positively identify someone, skin tone can be helpful, but it can't tell you one bit about who someone is, or how you might expect them to perform on some task.
There is a good article in last week's newsweek that talks about how many students who got in to college based on affirmative action are actually doing quite poorly. The idea being that affirmative action only focused on getting them in, not in preparing them for what they'd have to do, or helping actually do it.
Wow! That table is astonishing!
And, to think that I really believe that blacks were under-represented in college.
This is yet another example of Democrats continuing to believe that the public is as stupid as they've tried to make us through bad public schools (geezzzz, what does that say about me?!).
You know, I'm just down to the point now that I do not believe a single thing that comes out of a Democrat's mouth. I used to think I was just being cynical, but I see now that this is just logical.
They really should be careful, though, because their favorite vilan - "whitey" - might start calling for quotas for white people. Oh, the horror.
The previous president (McCormack) answered this question. Solely & exclusively at the expence of white males, since addressing Asian overrepresentation would be "unfair". Asians win due to effort. Whites win due to "institutional racism"
"So what exactly is the underlying ethnic imbalance that the racial preference technicians think they need to solve, and how exactly do they intend to solve it? "
There is no underlying ethnic imbalance.....It's just time for the Dems to throw out another hot-button issue to distract us from their pending tax increases - and to psych us into shame over I-200 so we will be more willing to pay the tax increases....
They just haven't got it yet! They are so transparent!
I still want to know how all of those illegal aliens - (that we fund tuition for with our tax dollars )- figure in all of this?
I remember filling out racial info for a state agency (they say it was not required, but...) and the word "white" was the only race not capitalized. I put a note on the paper stating that "white" was a color, not a race.
One older federal employment form had "Hispanic" broken down into five subsets, as if this information was somehow pertinent to performing the job.
Keeping track of racial information of any sort for any reason, except medical perhaps, perpetuates institutionalized racism.
You stated more clearly what I was trying to say. I've also been put off by "white" being listed as a race. The don't list Black, Red, Brown, and Yellow, so why am I white? My guess is because they aren't interested in gathering data about me because my ancestors didn't have a history of being oppressed by anyone other than people who looked just like them.
18. That's a good point Jason. When I get those types of forms, I always select "other." And, if there is a space for explaining what "other" I am talking about, I say, "flesh toned."
It's totally ironic that I-200 was opposed by Asians. Politically, Asians are in Dems camp in general, and they listen to Dems propaganda.
How do I know this? I am Asian myself, but with the backbone and brain. I've heard Asian community leaders telling people that Republican policies will kill minorities (Asians included), poison water, polute air, etc. - all the typical Democratic propaganda.
I work at UW, and I can tell you that it's not very easy trying to "fight the system" from the inside, either. These people have been openly skirting I-200 since it's inception, almost to the point of flaunting the fact that they don't abide by it.
And to answer your question - there is no % of "minorities" (they don't include asians as a minority) that they will be happy with so long as there are still evil white males going to school here.
UW has more seminars, lectures, staff meetings, action areas, etc. on "diversity" than I care to remember, and just try suggesting that diversity does NOT = skin color...And the atmosphere is such that anyone who does not openly admit that "diversity" should be the UW's highest priority is scoffed at.
I've been ridiculed more than once for suggesting some measure of intellectual diversity. It is 110% clear to me that at UW, diversity means:
3 black socialists, 2 hispanic socialists, a native american socialist, a few female socialists, and one european white male socialist.
Case in point of how far they'll go: I went to a small high school where most people's fathers were fishermen or loggers (now an extinct species). A lot of the kids there did ok, but not stellar. Around a 3.0 gpa. They (white kids) were not admitted to the UW. But this one friend of mine, who went to a AAA school, parents made 6 figure incomes, had a terrible 2.0 gpa, got admitted through the "equal opportunity" program - obviously for skin color only.
While an interesting analysis of "race" in the diversity equation of universities in Washington State, you are missing a very interesting "diversity" issue that is driving a lot of university placement staff nuts around the country.
That has to do with "sex." Yes, this is a digression from your article, but an interesting one.
Nation-wide there are now many more women in college then men. At some universities the numbers are so skewed that students have complained. Remember, that while we like to think of Universities as institutions of learning, they are also places where many teenagers mature into adults through social experiences and experimentation. Actually, they are also businesses that are very concerned about retention of customers once they are accepted and concerned about word of mouth reputation to next years batch of customers.
There is a real fear at some university placement offices that if the female to male ratio gets too far out of line, it will negatively impact the desirability of that university to women applicants; as it will implicitly mean either a restricted social life for some or unwanted completion for available men.
As such (from the rumors I have heard) some universities in some parts of the US are actually beginning to unofficially lower the standards for male applicants. How about that! Soon Males may be come an endangered species that needs protection on some college campuses. Who would have thought quotas could have come full circle.
Personally, this whole quota thing and how Universities have tried to use their superior intellect in getting the perfect diversity is all a little too much for me to handle. I kind of like Adam Smith's free market approach.