You're a white person who is well-connected to your Italian heritage.

That's the definition of an "ethnic group" I'm not ethnically white, i'm racially white. I'd have more in common with a black italian-american than a white guy from Iceland.

You can be racially black and ethnically Carribbean or African, or European, or just plain American.

Right, but what I'm talking about is the idea that diversity adds something to a university. I really don't see how black people lacking some advantage enjoyed by whites would add anything overly valuable. Diversity to me would mean an array of ideas and backgrounds. I simply fail to see how raising the black population of a school from 6% to 10% would accomplish that. Sure, the additional black students may have different ideas and backgrounds, but so would the white people they're replacing. I'm not attempting to make this into an affirmative action debate, I just think our society's ideas about diversity are fairly skewed.

Of course. I've been talking about race the whole time--the social construction of race categories and how European ethnic groups (often referenced as white ethnic groups) assimilated into the white race category.

Ethnically and culturally, yes, as long as you're in touch and loyal to your specific background. But when it comes time to simply be "white" and identify as such, you and the Iceland-American will potentially have a great deal in common.

So what you're saying isn't in constrast to what I said so I will remember not to repeat myself. ;)

Do you automatically think "affirmative action" when you see blacks at predominantly white institutions? :)

No, but I automatically think "affirmative action" when discussing universities trying to increase the on-campus diversity.

That isn't always a safe assumption, since most people don't know the specific methods universities use to get a more diverse student body. Sometimes it is as simple as opening recruitment to predominently black or Hispanic high schools whose students have the test scores and grades but no one comes to talk to them about colleges. Also, some universities offer grants and scholarships that attract a more diverse student body.

The whites don't own those applicant slots in the first place. So a literal "replacing" of whites is taking place but that wording is a bit disturbing to me.

But truth be told "affirmative action" (in the broad sense) has been used for decades to keep some institutions predominently white. ;)

You're right, whites don't own those spots. However, the majority of qualified applicants applying to good schools are white. Likewise, the majority of qualified applicants getting rejected are white. The simple fact is that affirmative action has kept white applicants from being accepted. The question is whether less qualified minorities have been given their "spot." I imagine the answer is yes, but that isn't my immediate concern. Schools in the past have been fairly open about accepting the minority candidate over a white one when their qualifications are identical. In the UM case, the school claimed this was to foster diversity on campus, which can provide an environment conducive for education. However, my opinion is that such practices constitute racial discrimination, and that the practices do not serve the purpose of "fostering diversity" any better than accepting the white applicant would, considering the broad diversity that exists among whites.

So are you assuming that every non-white person in college is there because a white person got rejected? What happened to people getting to college on their own merits? Last time I checked, there were qualified people of EVERY race.

I went to college with kids like you, they took one look at me in engineering courses and decided I was there because of affirmative action, when in actuality, I didn't have a single "minority" scholarship, but I had a bunch because I was an out-of-state student.

People don't complain until their opportunity hoarding is challenged. Discrimination is fine until they THINK they are on the receiving end. Without universities admitting to it, how many rejects actually KNOW for a FACT that they were denied for less qualified minority applicants? Not many. As opposed to the discovery of covert and overt practices of racial and ethnic, gender, social class, and religious exclusion at many institutions over the years. That's something to sing about and that's why we have affirmative action efforts (that benefit more than blacks and Hispanics, despite what the media tells people).

So back to the topic of achieving diversity. Affirmative action is simply ONE of the means through which diversity is achieved so no need to continue down that road. I just wanted to ask why you brought up affirmative action. ;)

I brought up affirmative action because its become a blanket term used to describe efforts by universities to increase diversity. I imagine you'll agree with my version of its usage. As for opportunity hoarding, I imagine this is some effort by you to justify the racial discrimination against some whites in the application process, but it holds little weight with me.

To jubilence, who obviously saw the first few lines of my post and jumped to conclusions, i'd like to ask where I said all minorities are admitted because a white kid got screwed. This will probably take you a while, considering I didn't say it, nor did I even come remotely close to implying it. Better luck next time.

Are you sure you didn't come close to implying it? The above shows that you said that you think less qualified minorities have been given the spots that would have went to qualified applicants who are white.

Try again.

Gotcha. Just know that affirmative action isn't a blanket term. You should've qualified your tangent with a more accurate depiction of affirmative action.

No, I am providing a holistic approach to "affirmative action." Why get rid of affirmative action when merit has never been the sole determinant of educational and occupational standing? If it has been "good for the goose" for decades, it is certainly "good for the gander"--especially if the gander can now be placed on a level field to compete with the goose.

I don't consider the leveling of the playing field to be "(reverse) racial discrimination," anyway. I think whites' complaints of reverse racial discrimination are self-important, presumptive and audacious.


She saw that you leaped from "diversity" to "affirmative action." Her conclusion is the same as when I asked you about seeing black students and automatically thinking "affirmative action." It's your fault...better luck next time. ;)

Ah, engineering school. Where the white guys (and the professors) all assume you must be an idiot who just got in for diversity if you're black, Hispanic, or -gasp!- female. :rolleyes:

Jubilance, and all the rest of you on here who are minority women in engineering and sciences, you all take a lot of crap and you all amaze me. I could never have lasted at my engineering undergrad if I hadn't been holed up in my little liberal arts major haven, and I only have one strike against me.

I've pretty much not been involved in this conversation, but I do take offense to being told exactly who I identify with and such. The idea that you only identify with those inside your own race is stupid, exclusionary, and biased. And the idea that race necessarily tops ethnicity, especially in white people, is equally stupid.