Does Harvard discriminate against Asian-Americans?
infoproc.blogspot.com
infoproc.blogspot.com
Blacks, of course, had their start as slaves and servants of those whites, and were until the mid-60s discriminated openly against, with full legal coverage for that.
So a large part of the white population has inherited notions that this is their proper place, where others are judging them by the second and third order effects of their old status up to the segregation (e.g. seeing that they're still many uneducated, poor, living in bad areas, over-represented in prison etc. Those whites assume that just because slavery ended -- and they conveniently forget 100+ more years of discrimination-- those blacks should just raise and ascend to middle/rich class, like many immigrants did. After all those immigrants started dirt poor too -- yeah, but those immigrants didn't live in a hostile society forever, they were more easily assimilated, intermarried etc into the white story, and given more chances, especially after WWII).
Because even other whites, like Italians, Jews, Irish, Greeks, and so on, were openly discriminated against for a large part of the 20th century. After they got slowly accepted into white society (and again, not totally), they also adopted their stance towards other races (not totally), as a requirement to be admitted in "polite company".
Asians too, were at the bottom. Japanese Americans, in the early 20th century, were considered barely better than blacks were, working in the worst menial jobs.
So that's what race has to do with anything. You came into the US as a member of a race, found solace and support with your own, and usually hatred or obstacles put your way from the dominant races. And as you were accepted into the mainstream society, you learned to hate those other races they hated too.
That's my understanding of the issue.
Maybe I'm overreacting here. If so, my apologies -- perhaps it's because of the sociopolitical milieu where I live. Anyway, I mean no offense to anyone. Like many others, I'm just trying to work through these issues as honestly as I can -- because dishonesty doesn't help anyone.
:-)
A lot of what was said in parent comments is true and I agree with. Though I don't think it really reflects today. At least not where I'm from. Perhaps there is more of that on the East coast, but I think as you go to the midwest and west coast you get less of that kind of division. There are definitely racists, but there are a lot more who live with a "live and let live", or attempt to adopt a "colorblind" (which is now racist apparently), worldview.
I think most whites in the US feel like they are the scapegoats for some other groups misfortunes. When no one alive had much to do with past injustices. Can you really blame past injustices for decisions of people today? In 1965 the out of wedlock birth rate was 25% and now it is almost 75%. Single parent homes come with a host of problems and much higher rates of crime, drug abuse, and lack of education.
So the likes of Jesse Jackson and Sharpton look at things like police shooting statistics (which is misleading in how they characterize them) and act like that is the biggest problem facing black people in the US. People feel enraged by what is perceived to be "unjust" police violence, sometimes rightly. Jackson and Sharpton raise their own profiles, and essentially run a "don't get called racist" money laundering operation through foundations they run.
The real problems don't get addressed and those who attempt to are called "racists" or "uncle toms" and the cycle continues. It is disgusting and sad.
Asians having outperformed white Americans should be seen as a credit to white people's lack of discrimination IMO.
Different groups have different distributions of abilities and will have different average outcomes. You can leave it as a free for all or you can try and make it fairer or more inclusive etc by introducing quotas.
Prestigious universities are not just after maximising top marks, they also go after connections to power, old money, seeking future alumni donations etc.
It isn't like Asians weren't actively discriminated against in the past in the US. Yet today, they are doing better than whites.
Really, if we want to punch more women into stem we would need to eliminate less useful options.
Don't they already do this? Maybe not with direct quotas, but certainly they fast-track women when hiring.
Another way of thinking about this is if you take say 2+ weeks to vet everyone then some perfectly qualified people are going to drop out because they found a job on day 3. On the other hand if you simply adjust the schedule so group X gets an answer within 3 days you are going to end up with more perfectly qualified people from group X without lowering your standards.
Similarly if you promote someone sooner they are less likely to look for a new job right after a promotion. That does not mean you need to promote people that are not capable, just reduce mandatory waiting periods.
http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
Somewhat humorously, if you buy unz's numbers, non-jewish whites are actually the most underrepresented group in nearly all elite universities.
This holds in the valley too - merit trumps everything else. There's ample evidence of a (happy) best-in-class workforce affecting bottom lines.
Such universities don't really care for the "best and brightest" (they can have a picking on those to keep up their academic prestige high). They care about catering to rich elites.
"Best and brightest" don't pay the bills, either as students, or as alumni.
Well, for Harvard (and most other top universities apart from Caltech) the "best" and the "brightest" are not necessarily synonyms.
First, from the viewpoint of prestige, it is better to accept those into the program who don't cut the mustard but have a good chance of becoming presidents/prime ministers/kings/business tycoons. And who has a good chance? Kids of senators, dictators, billionaire movers and shakers, way more so than the politically active 4.0 student from next door.
Second, from the viewpoint of long term relevance, spitting out one student who will endow the university subsequently with a few millions is worth way more than spitting out twenty eminently smart professors who go on to teach in obscurity - Harvard is the best example, even if their marketing goes badly, their $30bn endowment will buy sufficiently many Nobel-prize-winning faculty and scholarships for bright students to stay relevant for centuries.