[ad_1]
Protesters supporting the admission process of Harvard University are demonstrating near the campus. (Adam Glanzman / Bloomberg)
People rarely encounter race-sensitive admission policies when applying to the university. Despite the current disarray in the selectivity of colleges, most four-year schools accept more candidates than they reject.
But you will never guess that by looking at the anguish of positive discrimination, an issue that has triggered emotional debate and high-profile trials for decades.
This week, a federal court in Boston began hearing arguments in a case against Harvard University by a group called Students for Fair Admissions. The group argues that Harvard's ability to accommodate race on admissions allows the school to discriminate against qualified candidates from Asia and the Pacific Islands. Harvard states that she uses a holistic approach to admissions, in which race is one of many factors taken into account in the assessment of a candidate, including the rigor of the school curriculum and participation in extracurricular activities and leadership.
Although the case focuses on Asian candidates, opinions on positive discrimination vary considerably within this racial group. Nearly 60% of Asians and Pacific Islanders think that positive action is a good thing, according to a recent survey. Looking at the subgroups, not everyone agrees at the same level. For example, 80% of Americans of Japanese descent support affirmative action, but only 38% of Americans of Chinese descent. Overall, Asians and Pacific Islanders are slightly more likely to have no opinion on positive action than to think that it is a bad thing.
White Americans, on the other hand, have a firmer view of the issue. They are more likely than any other racial group to oppose positive discrimination, with almost two-thirds of them opposing it, according to a public opinion survey conducted since 1940. years. In comparison, only 10% of blacks opposed positive action policies.
[‘You feel invisible’: America’s fastest-growing immigrant group is being left out of the DACA conversation]
But the vast majority of Americans will never be directly affected by these policies. Of approximately 2,000 non-profit colleges and universities in approximately four years in the United States, only 352 consider race [sociologicalscience.com] in admissions or about 18 percent. Only 124 "very selective" colleges, such as Harvard, consider race as a factor. Thus, these highly selective and race-sensitive institutions account for only about 6% of the four-year institutions in the United States.
Most students do not plan to enroll in these colleges, either because of their geographic location, academic competitiveness, elite status, or high tuition fees. . So why do so many white Americans so vehemently oppose admissions to race-conscious colleges?
In general, whites prefer color blind policies for college admissions. This allows them to downplay difficult discussions about how the history of racial exclusion and persistent discrimination in the United States influences inequalities today.
Law professor Elise Boddie and more than 500 other academics have recently explained how neutral race-based approaches can exacerbate racial and ethnic inequalities in college admissions. The limited information that would be used in these approaches could erase the background of candidates, including whites, and turn the college admissions process into a simple approach that will compare OiYan Poon, education specialist, to dating apps. popular.
It is important to remember that these institutions are by nature exclusive since their founding. Very selective colleges, and most colleges and universities in general, were built for and focused on the education and employment opportunities of white students. Racial and ethnic minorities have been excluded from these spaces, regardless of their qualifications. This story explains why race-neutral admission processes fail to produce more diverse campuses.
Without racially conscious admissions, these racist historical systems continue to influence those with access to highly selective schools. Think of the benefits accumulated by the children of former students, called "heir students", for example. In the college admissions process, they receive the most significant benefits when considered for a place in the next year's class. These advantages, stemming from the long history of racial exclusion, allowed a small group of white families to be admitted, without distinction of academic prowess. You can not leave a legacy in an institution if your parents or grandparents have never been allowed to register in the first place.
[An American in Hong Kong]
White Americans are committed to maintaining the status quo. The elite college sector understands well the opportunity to enter the well-paid and highly prestigious companies of the United States. Often the criterion for determining whether you are worthy of being considered for any of these positions is admitted to an elite institution such as Harvard. They are the gateway to the elite sector of society filled with financial security and prestige.
These schools offer the power to offer more for the family and avoid financial insecurity, the power to gain ground in a more competitive job market. A prestigious university degree can confer this power for several generations, as alumni children continue to enjoy considerable benefits in the process of admission to the university.
Yet a majority of white families and their children seldom consider these elite institutions to continue their college education. In some cases, they flatly disdain these colleges and call them elitist. However, they oppose positive discrimination policies such as conscientious confessions of race more than the rest of the country. They maintain a social legacy of racial exclusion that has allowed generations of white Americans to find their way to financial security.
Whites must take into account an uncomfortable truth about affirmative action: these are opposing policies that take into account the impact of historical and persistent inequalities on the children of other peoples. Supporting color-blind views of history allows them to attribute their own difficulties to "one-sided policies," instead of recognizing that racial exclusion has shaped the winners and losers of today's society. In reality, it is policies like affirmative action that prevent them from enjoying all the racial privileges of the past.
More about us:
White parents teach their children to be color-blind. Here is why it's bad for everyone.
My mother is Native American, but I am white. My identity is more than my DNA.
"Think about your sons": What can parents do against sexual assault at the time of #MeToo?
[ad_2]
Source link
