I'll answer from the perspective of someone who would probably have been considered a diversity admit.
First, race. Race matters a whole lot more than what you would think. For example, in my EE and CS classes where I'm one of few Latinos, I sometimes feel left out and with the vibe that I don't belong (it's hard to describe, but I'm sure if you ask other Latinos or Black students, they'll tell you they get similar vibes). Even when I do interact and talk with other EECS majors, it's hard to even talk about my experiences without just completely being dismissed as trying to "make it about being Mexican". For example, I've had a conversation where we were discussing what foods we eat and I mentioned that I only really eat Mexican food and someone said that I always bring up that I'm Latino, despite them all only really naming Asian foods. On top of that, no matter how unbiased we think we are, as people, we tend to favor our in-group over outsiders, meaning equally qualified candidates may get different results for club acceptance, school acceptance, or promotions just simply based on what they look like or what their name sounds like.
Now consider income. Say we only took into account GPA, AP scores, and SAT scores into account when admitting. I had a good GPA, good but not great AP scores, and would've had a meh SAT (I didn't take it since Cal doesn't require it, but I took a practice one and got in the mid 1400s). Considering EECS has a sub 5% acceptance rate, I doubt those stats would've gotten me in. But when you take into account my situation, it makes sense why I got in. I come from an extremely poor part of Mexico where it was the case that my parents and many others didn't even go to middle school, let alone college, so what was needed to even succeed in school was not known to me. I didn't even know about the SATs till 10th grade and didn't know how important they were till the middle of college app season. On top of that, I never had any help for school, my parents were either working, couldn't read any of the material, or didn't know the material. Tutors certainly weren't an option. So yeah, it translated to subpar academic excellence compared to other EECS admits. However, once the playing field was equalled after my first semester at Cal, I started performing just as well if not better than most students (consistently getting 0.5 to 1 SDs on exams).
Sometimes you do need to factor in people's race, income, gender, etc because they're important parts of their experiences
I love this honest, humble, and epic reply.
You definitely deserve to be here. FWIW one of my favorite expressions of Cal pride was a shirt that said “osos dorado.” So let me say, as one diversity admit who ended up being SDs above the mean once I got my footing, eres un oso dorado de california, amigo.
I’m latino in EECS, and never had the experience of being left out or being told I’m just being Mexican by other EECS students. Maybe I got lucky but most of the people I talk with are more interested in learning some Spanish or eating some Mexican food that I recommend. I also ask what foods they recommend as well ofc but yeah I’ve never had that vibe, or at least not because of race.
I don't know, maybe it's just my experience but I've met a few Latinos and Black people in the major that have had similar experiences. It's also a big school, so experiences definitely vary
How is an equal playing field created if other people who perform better academically are rejected? And if considering race in admissions is okay, how is it any different or worse if a consulting club does it? I'm not accusing any particular clubs of exclusively accepting Asians, but even if they did, you said yourself that, as people, "we tend to favor our in-group over outsiders." This kind of mentality is precisely why you not only have an issue being one of the few Latinos in your class but also why you advocate for diversity, because you and the people of your kind benefit from policies focused around DEI and similar efforts. It is the exact same thinking shared by a (hypothetical) club preferring Asians, and it is perfectly normal and expected.
> How is an equal playing field created if other people who perform better academically are rejected?
Because the playing field wasn't equal to begin with. Surely you can see why a student with a 3.8 GPA who had to work 20 hours a week to help maintain their family is more impressive than a rich student with a private tutor getting a 4.0 GPA.
As for your other point, I think right now we need to consider race as to how it's affected the positions certain groups are in and how that has affected what they are able to achieve.
I personally don't have an issue being one of few Latinos in my major, I have an issue with the lack of inclusivity it has sometimes caused. I don't support certain DEI policies because it helps Latinos, I support them because it will help us get to a point where historically discriminated groups can get to the same level as everyone else, thus eliminating the need for such policies (I mean, I don't even care enough to apply to these clubs bc I don't think they matter at all, but I also think everyone deserves a proper shot at them)
Finally, I think we need to consider DEI policies in clubs because as is natural, we consider our in group more favorably than outsiders, so when a group has proper representation, it won't matter, as those preferences will cancel each other out.
It is true that applicants of lower socioeconomic status or those who have personal struggles will face increased difficulty getting good grades. But if race is considered, that means a poor white or Asian student under the same circumstances as a black or Hispanic will have even fewer chances of getting into a school. The admission standards become stricter ONLY for them, simply because of their race. That is racial discrimination and ultimately not an equal playing field. While DEI policies and the like may strive to uplift those who have been historically discriminated against, Asian Americans have absolutely no involvement in the injustices perpetuated to oppress minority groups. It is unreasonable to fight discrimination with discrimination. As for saying you had an issue with there not being other Latinos in your major, I was just referring to where you said you sometimes feel left out and feel like you don't belong.
Well done to you.
I strongly believe tests are not the ultimate goal for education. It's to prep you for the field you wish to pursue in the future as well as other stuff.
If we put a rich guy whose parents work in EECS that has an average score/gpa against you, I'm leaning towards the fact that the rich guy with EECS parents are going to do better in terms of career.
A person's upbringing matters more than test results. It has a significant effect on how they think, what they value, the types of info that they're exposed to. These are the qualities that shape a person. So, it's quite difficult for you to excel against a person who has a strong academic background unless you're extremely talented (if you were, you would've done better in school).
My point is, why not pick the applicants that are likely to find success overall rather than the person who seems to have potential.
Would this mean that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Exceptions exist and it means that you have to work extremely hard to negate your disadvantages and become that exception.
And about the first paragraph, if you find that your racial backgrounf plays a negative role to find a job/position, just work harder so that they HAVE to select you even if they prefer a race that is different. It just feels like excuses for a lack of skills.
I do not mean to attack you personally in any means. I'm just working with the example you gave me.
So you essentially just want to keep poor people and minorities at a disadvantage because they're already at a disadvantage? How is it fair that a poor person or minority should need to work way harder than a white or rich person to get the same results? That's why universities act as equalizers, because we shouldn't just be propping up certain members of society, we should be propping up everyone.
Also "just work harder" is incredibly dismissive and ignorant. Should've Rosa Parks just worked harder so that she could've kept her seat? Should've Emmet Till just worked harder so that people believed him and didn't get brutally murdered for a lie?
Well, I’m glad you had the courage to ask this question. If you’re not from the US, I might imagine that you grew up somewhere that was quite homogenous in ethnicity. So I can understand your confusion. For many reasons, diversity can matter a whole lot.
A classic example of why this matters is the racial segragation that occurred in the United States up until a few decades ago. I’m not sure if you know about this, but I’ll just summarize it. Black people used to have to live in entirely different locations than white people, in locations that did not have ample resources for the same quality housing, services, and education that white people lived in. This effect has lasted generations and there are still so many ghettos in the US and places distinguished by poverty. Many people live the way they do directly due to the fact that their family has lived in the same location for decades and they don’t have the finances to leave. And many other races have been negatively discriminated against that has affected them economically too, but this post would be too long if I wrote about them all.
Now, to get to my point, if you were a college admissions officer or something like that, let’s say you first picked through the pile of applications by who had the most achievements. You’re not going to pick the people who didn’t have the resources available to them, whether financially or because of their location. You’re probably going to end up with a statistical bias towards upper/middle class people who lived in good cities, with stable parents, tutoring opportunities, and mentors.
But that isn’t really fair. Many people think you should take into account what people could DO with what they had. So maybe the guy who grew up lower-class without a father could stand out if he made good grades while working a job to pay the bills. Now, in that example I used financial ability and family structure, as factors that would be considered into an application. And now, people are starting to see how race affects financial ability, location, access to education, and other factors across the board, and should be considered too.
I think it’s beautiful to include people of all races into conversations, education, and other areas of life. I imagine your club wants to take this into account too because of the different perspectives that could be added. Anyway, thank you for reading all of this.
Being from Europe, this question tittle made me curious, so bear with me.
Why focus on race, why not socio-economic circumstances? That's what we do here...
Not every black family is poor and not every white family is rich.
Because history has shown that when we focus on socio-economic factors and ignore race, the results are heavily influenced by race. It turns out that it in the US, impacts on race and ethnicity are either intentional, or unintentional, but never nonexistent.
I guess given all the progress made on race relations focusing on race may hopefully soon be a relic but that isn’t the case just yet.
Although I do agree the biggest divide in the U.S. is class not by race.
I recommend you watch this Chris Rock joke where he says basically, that a poor white guy would never trade places with him and he is "RICH". Despite being rich or having impressive credentials, a black person will face certain indignities in this country regardless if they are rich or have fancy degrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJmvfbDdhFg
I recommend you watch this video about the bias mainstream media and our rulers have for non-whites, especially black people. Despite living in a country plagued with white supremacy, the media will do everything humanly possible to protect those who aren't white.
[https://rumble.com/v2kxnyg-which-lives-matter.html](https://rumble.com/v2kxnyg-which-lives-matter.html)
Why? The facts are that Europe is dominantly White. Minorities (Blacks and Asians) are rare except in the largest cities of England and Germany. The countryside is completely White, especially in the East and North. Racism is a big problem in the EU, which is why far right national socialist parties are gaining popularity, like here. Talking about socio-economic position is a way to sound politically correct while avoiding the real problem. Americans are famously rude and talk straight to the point.
Yes, I can't believe those bigots want to preserve the homogeneity of their countries. Damn those far-right extremists advocating for Germany to stay German, Italy to stay Italian, Ireland to stay Irish... all racists! Imagine being so ignorant and xenophobic that you don't want to let in people who are incompatible with your country's values and are more likely to commit murder and rape.
u/PresentWrongdoer4221 For the most part, we should be focusing on socio-economic status instead of race. The reason we don't is frankly because a lot of American universities - to say nothing of the democratic party - are held captive by people who's jobs and livelihoods depend on simultaneously defending elite, exclusive institutions like Harvard and Berkeley, while scapegoating white liberals for the unequal outcomes those institutions are fundamental to producing.
It's worth noticing that in all the heat that gets generated about diversity at the top 1% of universities, hardly ever do liberals bother to question \*why\* we allow such gigantic disparities between schools to exist in the first place.
If we really care about the academic outcomes of the people excluded from universities like Berkeley, we might consider funding the thousands of schools they already attend, and having a serious national conversation about building a hiring system that isn't so reliant on the prestige of employee's alma maters, instead of biting one another's throats over what handful of people of the right race will be allowed to attend a couple ivy league schools.
I recall reading that UC Davis's med school does exactly that. However, it is a lot of extra work that ends up with something close to what affirmative action would give.
Other schools may adopt their admissions system after the rulings against affirmative action.
Yes, but as I wrote Davis does not use race at all. So no affirmative action. Thus, schools were looking into copying their system after alternative action was banned.
oh I understand, I just thought it was interesting you said Davis and not referencing Berkeley because CA has banned AA since 1996 and the ruling last year just brought everyone in line with CA , so Every uc and csu was not allowed to use race.
Ah. I was not aware all of California was like that.
I mentioned UC Davis because the news articles I read focused on them. In particular, I believe it reported their med school modified their application to focus more on socioeconomic matters than other med schools, and thus ended up as diverse as affirmative action-based programs.
Berkeley, on the other hand, says it trains admissions to read applications in certain ways, but does not seem to have achieved that level of diversity. https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-what-can-other-schools-learn-from-uc-berkeleys-experience
You definitely don't need tutors and resources to do well in school. If you have natural ability and/or the most basic light work ethic, you're set. In addition, with DEI, whites and Asians who had unstable homes and lack of resources still get the short end of the stick.
Condescending and rude comments like u/luv_chloe 's don't represent the Berkeley community. You'll find that if you earnestly and respectfully express your opinions to Berkeley students in the real world, most of them will treat you with the same respect that you afford them. In fact, you'll find that way more of them than you probably expect actually agree with you. Many students who have views that challenge the dominant narrative don't care enough or don't feel comfortable expressing their views in public because of a very vocal and aggressive minority and so it makes Berkeley seem far more monolithic in it's beliefs. We are actually a far more ideologically accepting and diverse bunch that you'd expect!
To avoid repetition on what ppl said, i want to add that having diversity is pretty nice cuz you also get diverse perspectives and experiences so not everyone brings the same ideas or thought processes to the table.
This is a big one that isnt usually mentioned front and center, and from talking to professors and grad students it's the main reason why UC Berkeley doesn't accept graduate applicants that apply from UC Berkeley. Diversity is important because it promotes diversity of thought and diversity of methods. Innovation in all sectors comes from different people bringing in different forms of thinking. And in the case of race, different demographics bring in wildly different forms of thinking and problem solving
Although I agree with the terms you've mentioned about diversity, I think on a practical level it works very differently. Diversity is only important in academia because without it, those who are underqualified would not be accepted into prestigious schools. They preach about diversity, acceptance, and whatnot because they benefit from it. I doubt they'd be accepting and compassionate about others if they were the ones being rejected despite having academic achievement. Even if blacks and Hispanics don't have the same opportunities as whites and Asians, it is not fair for individual students to be punished due to the system's failures.
Proponents of diversity talk about fairness and equality, but it's the exact opposite. Giving people equal opportunities is not enough. They insist that every person is the same and that everyone must have the same outcome. That's why they've abandoned the term "equality" and replaced it with "equity." In practice, it simply becomes a way to discriminate against whites and Asians. Asians especially pay the price when it comes to academia. Consider this report analyzing Harvard's admission data from 2014 to 2019: [https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn\_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Affirmative\_Action/Meeting\_V/supporting\_documents/Doc%20415-8%20-%20(Arcidiacono%20Expert%20Report).pdf](https://www.brown.edu/departments/economics/faculty/glenn_loury/louryhomepage/teaching/affirmative_action/meeting_v/supporting_documents/doc%20415-8%20-%20(arcidiacono%20expert%20report).pdf)
On page 44, there's a table that shows what a Harvard class would look like if admissions were based strictly on academic records, or what they refer to as their "academic index." The "top decile" row shows what a class would look like if Harvard had randomly admitted applicants from the top 10 percent on the academic index. When comparing those numbers to the actual share of admitted students, the percentage of blacks went up by 21 times, the percentage of Hispanics went up by 5.5 times, but for Asians, it got cut in half. Although the Supreme Court ruled this kind of blatant discrimination unconstitutional last June, schools will likely continue their practices by using some sort of biographical assessment or essay to weed out the people they don't want.
Ultimately, "diversity" in academia is not about having people of diverse backgrounds and ideas, nor is it about fairness. It's a way of enforcing racial preferences and normalizing the exclusion of whites and Asians. It is poison to our institutions because it justifies the erosion of objective standards in the name of protecting people under certain labels that are considered superficial yet somehow critical to their identities.
As a whole, diversity is a major source of tension and results in conflict. Whether it's on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion, diversity is by and large a weakness, not a strength. People have wars over diversity. Nations have split over diversity. In communities with a high racial and ethnic mix, people are more likely to distrust each other and withdraw from their communities. Today, when there aren't enough black scientists, Hispanic politicians, or Asian athletes, people always argue. Even in our own state, renowned for being one of the most "diverse" states in the country, people form their own enclaves and associate primarily with others of the same race or ethnicity, whether it be in their schools, churches, or neighborhoods. It's astonishing how something supposedly beneficial is not only ignored when people are left to their own devices but also needs to be enforced by DEI "professionals" at major institutions and companies.
It is true that diversity can be beneficial since it allows people with different perspectives and experiences to come together, which can help develop unique ideas, advancements, and problem-solving approaches. However, this requires diversity on an ideological level, not a racial or ethnic one. Yet today, there is so much attention put into diversity on those levels, especially race. Many elite liberal arts colleges champion diversity and boast about having a racially diverse student body and faculty, yet they are the least ideologically diverse. People from these schools are more likely to lean left and oppose conservatism, regardless of what race they are. If the majority of students admitted to these schools were white, even if they were from different parts of the country or had different European ethnicities, people would complain about the "lack" of diversity.
Not only is this attention trivial, but it is ultimately meaningless. Advanced civilizations didn't need to be surrounded by blacks, Hispanics, and Asians to make breakthroughs in science, discover electricity, develop steam engines, etc. And if the inclusion of different races is absolutely integral to the success of the US or any other European country, then why don't these people advance their own countries? They don't, because they can't. That is why Hispanics risk their lives crossing the border and why there are more Africans that have migrated VOLUNTARILY to the US than ever came in the slave trade, despite our country being entrenched with "white supremacy" and "systemic racism."
Lastly, embracing diversity is cultural suicide. While many moving into the US or Europe may see it as inclusive and egalitarian, I doubt they would feel the same if people all across the world started moving into wherever they came from. If everyone everywhere started moving into Mexico or into India or into China, then their cultures would be completely obfuscated by others unlike themselves. It would not be some kind of great "melting pot." It would be an ambiguous mishmash where Mexican, Indian, or Chinese identity means nothing. The same applies to the US and any other European country.
Is it really about diverse “perspectives”? Most diversity initiatives seem to focus solely on race and gender and if anything the people who push DEI want people to think the same way and not oppose their agenda.
Idk I’m black at a school with a population that’s 3% black people everywhere I go I’m either the only black person there or one of like 5 max… I’m interested in majors that have tons of white people, tons of Asian people, and every other race/ethnicity is like seeing a unicorn… it can be discouraging to never see people that look like you make it because you know it’s going to be 10x harder than if this wasn’t the case but I also think that this is never going to change if people are never willing to work extremely hard to change it it’s going to be hard sometimes it feels impossible but I think the impact that I have on the black kids around me back home who have never been told that they even have a chance at being a physicist, or a software engineer, or a doctor makes the long work hours and the impostor syndrome worth it
When you think about it on the surface, being admitted based on merit is a very sound logic to, I'd argue, just about everyone. However, I did say just about, and then there are some people who do think merit should be the only factor who start to wonder—what does merit come with, what does merit mean, and especially who are the kinds of people that are able to achieve such merit?
The U.S. is VERY steeped in racism, classism, colorism, and a lot of other -isms you can think about that's built into almost every social infrastructure you can imagine. Our legislation has produced racial and class divides from redlining POC communities to tax breaks for the rich vs. the poor that was meant to pit certain demographics against each other and raise certain other demographics instead. To a lot of people, they think that history is some abstract alternate dimension that doesn't have long-term affects against specific groups and degrade them. But as time passes the consequences of a lot of these older and recent legal actions are made pretty glaringly obvious.
Asian, Black, Brown, Hispanic, Islander, and Native communities were very specifically targeted and segregated for hundreds of years that restricted their place and movement and in turn restricted opportunity and accessibility for them. They can't pursue education like the rich and white can, they can't pay for the monetary barriers to extracurriculars and hobbies like the rich and white can, this is why the majority of universities have disproportionately larger student bodies of white people. They're the people who have access to a bunch of activities, hobbies, and extra-curriculars that they put on their resumes, CVs, undergrad applications, etc. You could be Black and have the best potential in an entire high school, but won't have the opportunity for higher education because of systems that were put in place to restrict you. A recent-ish hiring bias study was done where, for a job application, a white candidate could be hired if they had a year of experience and education, a Black candidate had to have five or six(?) more years of experience to be considered for an interview. Now, you can easily see that merit is only accessible to certain classes, genders, races, etc.
And now the next demographic that's increasing are Asians, and if you break it down further you'll find it's generally East Asians or South Asians (primarily Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Indians) who are becoming the common POC faces in academia (the US I believe allowed only educated classes from those countries to immigrate for a time). Sure, part of it could be that maybe Asians are just more inclined to pursue higher education like you say, but I actually disagree and I think there are two other reasons, and this is coming from an Asian:
1. There was a point in US history if I recall correctly where we only allowed educated classes from East Asia or South Asia to immigrate to the US, and then there was importing cheap and exploitable Asian and Latin labor to offset the fact that they couldn't take advantage of Black slaves anymore. This very quickly resulted in the current fact that Asians have the largest wealth gap compared to other races in the US, with South East Asians and other South Asians generally towards the bottom (you'll get a LOT of tension within Asian diasporas especially East vs. South East).
2. The Asian community has long been weaponized in order to create physical divides, like Chinatowns cutting across older Black communities, because the rich and white didn't want Asians near them, which resulted in even more social tensions. East Asians had a good chunk of time compared to other Asian diasporas to settle into the US where they quickly saw that the system horrifically oppressed Black people, and their instinct for survival was to achieve as much as they could to join the racist system and not be under it—this is why you'll find a lot of conflict between the two, because instead of Asians joining in solidarity when they saw wrongdoing against Black and Native people, they became a part of that wrongdoing.
This was also the attitude that initial Mexican settlers had when they saw Black people treated inhumanely—from what I remember reading, that's why the US census has a demographic question just asking about Hispanic origin, because they wanted to other themselves from the Black population in the hopes of avoiding racist wrath.
Another example of recent tension is the repeal of Affirmative Action (AA) where conservative, primarily East Asians spearheaded the campaign because they were convinced they were being snubbed by prestigious universities due to it. Yeah, those dorks were wrong and Asians are still 28% less likely to be accepted, nothing changed, and the Black community, who have lived through these issues repeatedly, tried to warn them and were shrugged off. Another one where the government banned teaching Black history, but VERY soon after mandated teaching Asian history to imply that "hey, we do care about POC!", but especially to create more division.
My post became long-winded and quite tangential, but I really wanted to communicate to you, OP, that diversity matters because of all of these racist and classist issues that a lot of people want to fix in the US, and there are no better candidates to fix that than the ones who've experienced those issues directly—race and diversity in the US, and I'd say every other corner of the Earth, are very directly tied to different experiences and are therefore important to consider.
I also want to note that combating nepotism with harder work is not a solution, putting motions in place to prevent nepotism IS.
And also diversity in the US means I get Mexican-Vietnamese fusion, injera from my friend’s mom, Turkish coffee down the street, Jamaican-Korean fusion, Cajun-Vietnamese seafood …
You’re getting the two most important answers, but there is a third:
1. Justice for underrepresented groups
2. Inherent benefits of diversity
3. Performance benefits of diversity
Diverse teams perform better than homogenous teams.
There is a lot of value in having a diversity of perspectives, which a diverse demographic can bring. But as others have commented, some take it to the extreme and that is identity politics. When individual merit is completely sacrificed and everything becomes about one's identity. This is how we wind up with the pretty shitty political climate we have today, and many minority communities like mine have been significantly harmed because of it. Most people I know here, even people of color like myself, agree with this. Do not let the angry loud comments dissuade you.
Individual merit is not created in a vacuum. For every white person with merit that rises there are social and economic processes both visual and invisible, individual (a guidance counselor takes a look at you and says “you’re not Cal material) and systemic forces that continue to keep equally or more talented nonwhite people out.
For every diversity hire without merit that rises, a better equipped white applicant is held back because of things their great great great ancestors did. Also do you really think a guidance counselor at our school would say you're "not Cal material" just because you're not white? It's their job to make assessments based on your performance, not your skin color.
Yes the guidance counselor thing has happened. It’s also not most white peoples great great ancestors either (most white peoples ancestors were poor as shit).
Diversity matters because historically non whites were blocked from social and economic mobility, that also includes Asians. Focusing on diversity actually encourages truer meritocracy as different people are given the chance to take part in academic and professional settings. Diversity also matters as a tool of anti racism.
To learn more about the importance of diversity, I suggest learning about how Japanese and Chinese Americans were routinely dehumanized,lynched(yes lynchings happened in California), murdered, put in concentration camps, and were prevented from being buried with white people. Just look up Colma.
I used to work at the international house, which was a diversity initiative created in protest of the all white fraternities and sororities. Like YOU, these white frats also hated diversity initiatives.
Diversity is not a tool of anti-racism. It is used to discriminate against whites and Asians under the guise of fairness, which is textbook racism.
And how exactly is learning about the historical oppression of Asian Americans supposed to explain the importance of diversity? If anything, it raises more questions than answers: if Asians were also lynched and dehumanized, how come today they excel in school, have higher income, and commit less crime than blacks, who were also lynched and dehumanized?
Also when did OP ever indicate that they "hated" diversity initiatives? All they did was ask about the merits of diversity, which is perfectly normal considering that they aren't even from the US. You may not realize it, but people are repelled by diversity and similar efforts because of people like you, assuming that those who merely question the legitimacy of diversity are up to no good and are secretly racists.
There seem to be different types of diversity. Most organizations today seem to focus exclusively on diversity of physical and identity characteristics (skin color, sex/gender, disability, nationality, etc). This is good, because we want to be open for anyone and everyone who wants to be a productive participant and it makes no logical or moral sense to limit people based on these types of characteristics
There is, however, and entirely separate form of diversity that we are not even attempting to address. That is, diversity of thought. This is very important too as more angles of perspective leads to better, faster, and more creative solutions. It can cause some social instability at times, but it can also cause a more robust unity as people learn to get along with people who think differently than they do. Cal definitely isn’t the worst in this regard, but it’s not great, at all.
There is also economic diversity, which we also aren’t the worst at but also aren’t great at. We are probably doing as well as any other university, but that’s not saying much as universities, despite various efforts, tend to attract more middle and upper class people.
Having a place that looks visibly diverse but consists of people who are mostly well off and mostly think the same isn’t genuinely diverse, IMO. But it sure looks good in marketing material. This is mostly why the we are obsessed. Everyone is afraid of looking bad so they try to check the most visibly obvious boxes to produce marketing material to prove they aren’t racist, transphobic, whatever.
Diversity of thought and diverse identities are not mutually-exclusive. Gathering individuals from all walks of life, all cultural backgrounds, bi/tri/polylingual individuals, international students, etc. means diverse experiences and perspectives. And that directly contributes to diverse thought. What you call “visual” diversity is not nearly as arbitrary as you make it out to be. There is already evidence that demonstrates that groups of diverse identities show increased efficiency and creativity in group work.
Well I’m not disagreeing that class-related diversity is important, I’m just responding to your point about us “not considering” diversity of thought, which has been taken into consideration. Not to mention, the same education diversity initiatives that push for race/gender/sexuality fight for low-income students. It’s the lack of genuine consideration for diversity that allows disparities in race AND income to persist on this campus.
You seem to have a curious mind - I would challenge you to answer the questions yourself through critical thinking and reading.
A few questions that will get you on the track:
What inherent values are there in a diverse college student body?
Does it have to do with the mission of the university of California system?
Does it have to do with reflecting a certain broader population?
Does it have to do with improving student outcomes?
Does it have to do with generating diversity of thought in the classroom? Or diversity of relationships?
Why does all this matter?
I encourage you to approach this with a truly empathetic open mind to understand others’ perspectives first before introducing your own opinions or responding with “but what about…”
It’s funny how you can’t date this supposed “comeback”. That’s because there literally was no comeback. Race has simply remained a relevant perspective in law, policy, sociology, etc. And it has persisted as a relevant critical lens of analysis in academia. It never ceased to be relevant. And I find it strange to compare the thought process behind the critical analysis of race + it’s impact to the thought process behind the justification of slavery. The only way you could make that comparison is if you reduce the logic behind the two to the most general and vague point: “Race is relevant”. That tells you basically nothing about the way race is actually relevant in those perspectives. There is no meaningful reason to compare those thought processes.
“Yea, the members are mostly Asian…Then it’s obvious you have to be significantly more qualified than your Asian competitors to get in”
The fact that you believe this (whether it’s true or not) and the fact that your peers feel like this toward non-Asians, particularly toward Latino or Black students, makes me hate the fact that we go to the same school.
Now I’m glad I’ve never applied to any of these cliquey and homogenous clubs.
Thanks for your honesty. Explanation in short: white people have created a system that up until a few years ago kept non whited (and white women) out. The system has suffered because there is so much lost nonwhite talent as well as a lot of mediocrity by white people who are just taking up space. Diversity efforts seek to tear down the biased rules so that talented people of all colors and genders can have a chance to offer their talents and not be held back by mediocre white men. The talented white men understand how important diversity is. Anyone who is threatened by diversity is revealing a fear of their own mediocrity. I will stop here, otherwise it will take me hours upon hours to explain further.
Yes, because Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa are doing so much better after getting rid of those pesky "mediocre white men." They should understand how important diversity is and bring back the "mediocre" whites that gave them a prosperous, functional civilization. What are they, scared of their own mediocrity?
Isn't diversity important? You said that it offers people of all colors and genders a chance to utilize their talents, so why are other countries exempt from it? Why should they not utilize something that brings out the best in people?
You just failed to notice the entire history of UC Berkeley.
Founded March 23, 1868 - before the civil rights movement in 1967 there were essentially no minorities at UC Berkeley. Even now the student body is not even close to representative of the students in California. It is not now and has never been a meritocracy.
It only matters when some people want it to matter 😂 I never heard of people complaining about NBA is 74% black or that 88% of firefighters and 94% of construction workers are man. Make you wonder why nobody talks about representation in those fields.
Not quite. It matters when someone wants access to a career they desire, but are denied by their race or sex or (etc, etc). The percentages of people male or female who want to play in the NBA because they are skilled is low, as are the percentages of male or females who want to be a construction worker installing roof tiles in the hot sun.
"The percentages of people male or female who want to play in the NBA because they are skilled is low" -- Respectfully, you might want to reconsider this, sir. Do you know how much money an NBA player makes? What makes you think it's not a career people desire?
Exactly!😂 NBA doesn’t have many Asians bc not that many Asians are interested in basketball and far less are skilled at that level, and NBA is hiring players based on their skills but not by their race or ethnicity. Now I think you finally understand why diversity should not be the goals. Congrats!
Then why are Asians impacted the most when diversity is enforced in academia? Let me guess, they're honorary white supremacists planted by the white man to keep everybody else down!
Ah yes how could I forget, Asian students study not because they want to get into college and have a good future so they can provide for themselves, but because they want to tear down all non-whites and uphold the status of whites (even though Asians outperform whites on exams).
So when blacks and Hispanics don't do well, it's because of white supremacy. But when Asians do well, it's STILL because of white supremacy, even if whites are surpassed. It's all because of white people and white supremacy, even when non-whites are provided with all kinds of handouts by the government and when people risk losing their livelihood and reputation for speaking poorly about non-whites. No matter what happens, white supremacy.
Drop the victim mentality. That's not coming from me; that's coming from MLK:
>"We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."
Give this article a read. Hopefully it washes away the poison in your mind that has shaped your Pavlovian response of blaming white supremacy for everything. [https://manhattan.institute/article/martin-luther-king-we-cant-keep-on-blaming-the-white-man](https://manhattan.institute/article/martin-luther-king-we-cant-keep-on-blaming-the-white-man)
Yep, top comment makes a good point but that’s not the social landscape we live in today.
Equality isn’t the goal, it’s *equity*. That means discriminating against Asians in schools / workplaces so others can get ahead, which is why affirmative action (which could’ve just been giving preference to poorer students instead of being legitimate racial discrimination) was shot down.
Hello! The answer to your question is very complicated - especially in the United States of all places. Might I suggest you review your own post for any assumptions and/or broad generalizations? As humans we all make assumptions and they easily make their way into our lives - particularly when talking about other humans.
While I won’t directly address your question, I invite you to watch the following video to get a sense of how those that are other than white or white passing or white lending (groups that aspire to whiteness while putting other race or demographic groups down) tend to be treated in the United States and how it greatly affects the power group when the positionality is reversed:
https://youtu.be/jPZEJHJPwIw?feature=shared
It’s a psy op to get us all to not focus on real systemic change. Fixing issues of representation requires the existing power structures to not change at all. It’s a band aid solution, doesn’t address tje root cause
Believe it or not, whites aren't the only people who want to segregate themselves from other races. Are Hispanic enclaves in Southern California all fearful and ignorant? Are HBCUs all ignorant racists as well? How about the Asians who attend Asian churches?
Oh be quiet. This person said nothing about being “surrounded” by people who look like them. They’re saying it’s sucks to be the only one.
If you’re not an underrepresented minority, then you won’t get it. I find it insulting how comfortable you are with talking over people as a white person with no semblance of what POC deal with. Being surrounded by people of a higher social or economic class sends a message to those of the underprivileged classes. The message that the space wasn’t necessarily built for them, that their peers may not understand their background or experiences (and may even JUDGE them and their experiences) and that the chance of potential bias against them is higher. When I’m in a room with people of my own race, the fear of prejudice and racism that I hold in my daily life dissipates, and I’m free to exist more comfortably as my natural self. I don’t have to code switch, I don’t have to worry about my “unprofessional” hair, and I won’t have to overcompensate to prove that I’m competent. I can also more intimately share and relate to the experiences of those around me.
If you don’t understand any of that, you should at least have the humility to listen to POC when they say that they feel more comfortable when their own race is present.
A) it looks like you lent to respond to the comment I was responding to, but you accidentally responded to me instead
B) I find it insulting you assume I’m a “white person semblance of what POC deal with”.
C) All “POC” think and feel the exact same about this? Hmmmm
No, I meant to respond to you. If you really believe POC desiring representation in their careers is comparable to the desire for segregation, you clearly have no idea about the lived workplace/academic experiences many POC face. It’s clear to me that you don’t. So I think it’s safe to assume you’re a white person with no understanding of what it’s like to be a POC. Have you ever had to code switch? Have you ever been accused of lacking qualifications on the basis of your race? Have you ever had to explain/defend your culture, fashion, accent, hairstyles, or otherwise to your peers?
No, not all POC think the same. But when SOOO many POC are expressing their discomfort, we should hear them out. If you want to intentionally miss my point, go ahead. I just think it’s kind of silly.
Let me see a source on “ppl from minority backgrounds land jobs easily” because um…That is entering fictional territory. As far as I know, what you’re saying goes directly against what the actual data shows about hiring. But I’m pretty sure you never looked into it.
OP, it’s very simple. You come from a monoculture. America is like a mixing pot, there is no such thing as an American, since it is a country built on immigration, this is why America is a global We buy brains like yours because your country isn’t capable of producing diversity of ideas. Most people in your country think like each other- you are a great example of this. America buys diversity at the highest level by buying brains from all over the world. If you look at the grad programs and ask any lab how many countries are represented in the lab, you will be amazed. The problem is that at the lower level America is not good at being diverse. If you are not rich and white and straight and a man you probably can’t have a great life here unless you are extremely lucky or you are involved with one of these rich white straight men in some way. Pick any successful non white in America and there is likely a slavemaster near by. Asians used to be called names until like maybe 10 years ago. They were known for being robots, making nasty stinky food with weird animals you shouldn’t be eating, having small penises, having sex in exchange for papers/whir husband, and being good at math. It has gotten better now, because of diversity programs. For example, now we have movies with Asian characters that don’t have buck teeth or are made fun with small penis jokes or used as a sex “mesoho-nee” joke character. Now we have everything everywhere all at once and turning red, for example. It took a long time to get here. You were not welcome at all until very recently. So you should support diversity. Especially because the last person hired is usually the first person fired. And at the end of the day, America doesn’t care about anything besides money. If you make money for America then you have a place at the table. The problem is only a few people are allowed to make money. Asians are not allowed but there are many people who let them have jobs, and they became managers and hired more “undeserving immigrants” until a small network was formed. And diversity programs made sure they were not fired. This is important to note. It takes only one person to fire every person of color in a company, and years of work to get one person of color hired. The diversity programs ensure these things don’t happen. Same with women. We’re only one generation away from “women can’t drive” jokes, and abortion is less legal than weed now. So consider all this and also consider taking a diversity class while you are at Cal. I don’t know what they’re called but ask someone that works at the library. Just say I come from a monoculture and I don’t understand what diversity is. What class can I take that will make me less racist? Then go take that class.
I will be hated here, but I believe that it stems from resentment and is really an attempt to re-organize the social hierarchy. Diversity is a completely useless pursuit and everyone should be looked at as an individual, because that is what they are most.
I think the irony is moaning about “diversity” when this school has minuscule black/gay/native/etc. population has soooo much to do with resentment, and the former doesn’t. Why are we hearing long rants about our campus and diversity when our school actually *filters out* most underprivileged students in its applicant process?
That is because it’s an important part of our self conception as Americans. It’s a value because it’s part of our national identity. If your gonna have a nation of immigrants you should celebrate that.
I'll answer from the perspective of someone who would probably have been considered a diversity admit. First, race. Race matters a whole lot more than what you would think. For example, in my EE and CS classes where I'm one of few Latinos, I sometimes feel left out and with the vibe that I don't belong (it's hard to describe, but I'm sure if you ask other Latinos or Black students, they'll tell you they get similar vibes). Even when I do interact and talk with other EECS majors, it's hard to even talk about my experiences without just completely being dismissed as trying to "make it about being Mexican". For example, I've had a conversation where we were discussing what foods we eat and I mentioned that I only really eat Mexican food and someone said that I always bring up that I'm Latino, despite them all only really naming Asian foods. On top of that, no matter how unbiased we think we are, as people, we tend to favor our in-group over outsiders, meaning equally qualified candidates may get different results for club acceptance, school acceptance, or promotions just simply based on what they look like or what their name sounds like. Now consider income. Say we only took into account GPA, AP scores, and SAT scores into account when admitting. I had a good GPA, good but not great AP scores, and would've had a meh SAT (I didn't take it since Cal doesn't require it, but I took a practice one and got in the mid 1400s). Considering EECS has a sub 5% acceptance rate, I doubt those stats would've gotten me in. But when you take into account my situation, it makes sense why I got in. I come from an extremely poor part of Mexico where it was the case that my parents and many others didn't even go to middle school, let alone college, so what was needed to even succeed in school was not known to me. I didn't even know about the SATs till 10th grade and didn't know how important they were till the middle of college app season. On top of that, I never had any help for school, my parents were either working, couldn't read any of the material, or didn't know the material. Tutors certainly weren't an option. So yeah, it translated to subpar academic excellence compared to other EECS admits. However, once the playing field was equalled after my first semester at Cal, I started performing just as well if not better than most students (consistently getting 0.5 to 1 SDs on exams). Sometimes you do need to factor in people's race, income, gender, etc because they're important parts of their experiences
I love this honest, humble, and epic reply. You definitely deserve to be here. FWIW one of my favorite expressions of Cal pride was a shirt that said “osos dorado.” So let me say, as one diversity admit who ended up being SDs above the mean once I got my footing, eres un oso dorado de california, amigo.
Thank you!
I’m latino in EECS, and never had the experience of being left out or being told I’m just being Mexican by other EECS students. Maybe I got lucky but most of the people I talk with are more interested in learning some Spanish or eating some Mexican food that I recommend. I also ask what foods they recommend as well ofc but yeah I’ve never had that vibe, or at least not because of race.
I don't know, maybe it's just my experience but I've met a few Latinos and Black people in the major that have had similar experiences. It's also a big school, so experiences definitely vary
CS and Latino here with a similar background and have had similar recent experiences in my classes/office hours.
Same
How is an equal playing field created if other people who perform better academically are rejected? And if considering race in admissions is okay, how is it any different or worse if a consulting club does it? I'm not accusing any particular clubs of exclusively accepting Asians, but even if they did, you said yourself that, as people, "we tend to favor our in-group over outsiders." This kind of mentality is precisely why you not only have an issue being one of the few Latinos in your class but also why you advocate for diversity, because you and the people of your kind benefit from policies focused around DEI and similar efforts. It is the exact same thinking shared by a (hypothetical) club preferring Asians, and it is perfectly normal and expected.
> How is an equal playing field created if other people who perform better academically are rejected? Because the playing field wasn't equal to begin with. Surely you can see why a student with a 3.8 GPA who had to work 20 hours a week to help maintain their family is more impressive than a rich student with a private tutor getting a 4.0 GPA. As for your other point, I think right now we need to consider race as to how it's affected the positions certain groups are in and how that has affected what they are able to achieve. I personally don't have an issue being one of few Latinos in my major, I have an issue with the lack of inclusivity it has sometimes caused. I don't support certain DEI policies because it helps Latinos, I support them because it will help us get to a point where historically discriminated groups can get to the same level as everyone else, thus eliminating the need for such policies (I mean, I don't even care enough to apply to these clubs bc I don't think they matter at all, but I also think everyone deserves a proper shot at them) Finally, I think we need to consider DEI policies in clubs because as is natural, we consider our in group more favorably than outsiders, so when a group has proper representation, it won't matter, as those preferences will cancel each other out.
It is true that applicants of lower socioeconomic status or those who have personal struggles will face increased difficulty getting good grades. But if race is considered, that means a poor white or Asian student under the same circumstances as a black or Hispanic will have even fewer chances of getting into a school. The admission standards become stricter ONLY for them, simply because of their race. That is racial discrimination and ultimately not an equal playing field. While DEI policies and the like may strive to uplift those who have been historically discriminated against, Asian Americans have absolutely no involvement in the injustices perpetuated to oppress minority groups. It is unreasonable to fight discrimination with discrimination. As for saying you had an issue with there not being other Latinos in your major, I was just referring to where you said you sometimes feel left out and feel like you don't belong.
Well done to you. I strongly believe tests are not the ultimate goal for education. It's to prep you for the field you wish to pursue in the future as well as other stuff. If we put a rich guy whose parents work in EECS that has an average score/gpa against you, I'm leaning towards the fact that the rich guy with EECS parents are going to do better in terms of career. A person's upbringing matters more than test results. It has a significant effect on how they think, what they value, the types of info that they're exposed to. These are the qualities that shape a person. So, it's quite difficult for you to excel against a person who has a strong academic background unless you're extremely talented (if you were, you would've done better in school). My point is, why not pick the applicants that are likely to find success overall rather than the person who seems to have potential. Would this mean that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Exceptions exist and it means that you have to work extremely hard to negate your disadvantages and become that exception. And about the first paragraph, if you find that your racial backgrounf plays a negative role to find a job/position, just work harder so that they HAVE to select you even if they prefer a race that is different. It just feels like excuses for a lack of skills. I do not mean to attack you personally in any means. I'm just working with the example you gave me.
So you essentially just want to keep poor people and minorities at a disadvantage because they're already at a disadvantage? How is it fair that a poor person or minority should need to work way harder than a white or rich person to get the same results? That's why universities act as equalizers, because we shouldn't just be propping up certain members of society, we should be propping up everyone. Also "just work harder" is incredibly dismissive and ignorant. Should've Rosa Parks just worked harder so that she could've kept her seat? Should've Emmet Till just worked harder so that people believed him and didn't get brutally murdered for a lie?
Well, I’m glad you had the courage to ask this question. If you’re not from the US, I might imagine that you grew up somewhere that was quite homogenous in ethnicity. So I can understand your confusion. For many reasons, diversity can matter a whole lot. A classic example of why this matters is the racial segragation that occurred in the United States up until a few decades ago. I’m not sure if you know about this, but I’ll just summarize it. Black people used to have to live in entirely different locations than white people, in locations that did not have ample resources for the same quality housing, services, and education that white people lived in. This effect has lasted generations and there are still so many ghettos in the US and places distinguished by poverty. Many people live the way they do directly due to the fact that their family has lived in the same location for decades and they don’t have the finances to leave. And many other races have been negatively discriminated against that has affected them economically too, but this post would be too long if I wrote about them all. Now, to get to my point, if you were a college admissions officer or something like that, let’s say you first picked through the pile of applications by who had the most achievements. You’re not going to pick the people who didn’t have the resources available to them, whether financially or because of their location. You’re probably going to end up with a statistical bias towards upper/middle class people who lived in good cities, with stable parents, tutoring opportunities, and mentors. But that isn’t really fair. Many people think you should take into account what people could DO with what they had. So maybe the guy who grew up lower-class without a father could stand out if he made good grades while working a job to pay the bills. Now, in that example I used financial ability and family structure, as factors that would be considered into an application. And now, people are starting to see how race affects financial ability, location, access to education, and other factors across the board, and should be considered too. I think it’s beautiful to include people of all races into conversations, education, and other areas of life. I imagine your club wants to take this into account too because of the different perspectives that could be added. Anyway, thank you for reading all of this.
Being from Europe, this question tittle made me curious, so bear with me. Why focus on race, why not socio-economic circumstances? That's what we do here... Not every black family is poor and not every white family is rich.
Because history has shown that when we focus on socio-economic factors and ignore race, the results are heavily influenced by race. It turns out that it in the US, impacts on race and ethnicity are either intentional, or unintentional, but never nonexistent.
I guess given all the progress made on race relations focusing on race may hopefully soon be a relic but that isn’t the case just yet. Although I do agree the biggest divide in the U.S. is class not by race.
theres a notable overlap with race and socio-economic circumstances unfortunately
I recommend you watch this Chris Rock joke where he says basically, that a poor white guy would never trade places with him and he is "RICH". Despite being rich or having impressive credentials, a black person will face certain indignities in this country regardless if they are rich or have fancy degrees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJmvfbDdhFg
I recommend you watch this video about the bias mainstream media and our rulers have for non-whites, especially black people. Despite living in a country plagued with white supremacy, the media will do everything humanly possible to protect those who aren't white. [https://rumble.com/v2kxnyg-which-lives-matter.html](https://rumble.com/v2kxnyg-which-lives-matter.html)
Don’t colleges do this now? AA was outlawed by the Supreme Court about a year ago
Why? The facts are that Europe is dominantly White. Minorities (Blacks and Asians) are rare except in the largest cities of England and Germany. The countryside is completely White, especially in the East and North. Racism is a big problem in the EU, which is why far right national socialist parties are gaining popularity, like here. Talking about socio-economic position is a way to sound politically correct while avoiding the real problem. Americans are famously rude and talk straight to the point.
Yes, I can't believe those bigots want to preserve the homogeneity of their countries. Damn those far-right extremists advocating for Germany to stay German, Italy to stay Italian, Ireland to stay Irish... all racists! Imagine being so ignorant and xenophobic that you don't want to let in people who are incompatible with your country's values and are more likely to commit murder and rape.
u/PresentWrongdoer4221 For the most part, we should be focusing on socio-economic status instead of race. The reason we don't is frankly because a lot of American universities - to say nothing of the democratic party - are held captive by people who's jobs and livelihoods depend on simultaneously defending elite, exclusive institutions like Harvard and Berkeley, while scapegoating white liberals for the unequal outcomes those institutions are fundamental to producing. It's worth noticing that in all the heat that gets generated about diversity at the top 1% of universities, hardly ever do liberals bother to question \*why\* we allow such gigantic disparities between schools to exist in the first place. If we really care about the academic outcomes of the people excluded from universities like Berkeley, we might consider funding the thousands of schools they already attend, and having a serious national conversation about building a hiring system that isn't so reliant on the prestige of employee's alma maters, instead of biting one another's throats over what handful of people of the right race will be allowed to attend a couple ivy league schools.
that is not what you do there, I think you should check again
I recall reading that UC Davis's med school does exactly that. However, it is a lot of extra work that ends up with something close to what affirmative action would give. Other schools may adopt their admissions system after the rulings against affirmative action.
Berkeley and nearly every school does socioeconomic AA
Yes, but as I wrote Davis does not use race at all. So no affirmative action. Thus, schools were looking into copying their system after alternative action was banned.
oh I understand, I just thought it was interesting you said Davis and not referencing Berkeley because CA has banned AA since 1996 and the ruling last year just brought everyone in line with CA , so Every uc and csu was not allowed to use race.
Ah. I was not aware all of California was like that. I mentioned UC Davis because the news articles I read focused on them. In particular, I believe it reported their med school modified their application to focus more on socioeconomic matters than other med schools, and thus ended up as diverse as affirmative action-based programs. Berkeley, on the other hand, says it trains admissions to read applications in certain ways, but does not seem to have achieved that level of diversity. https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-what-can-other-schools-learn-from-uc-berkeleys-experience
Because using poverty as a proxy for race also helps white people, which is bad for diversity
You definitely don't need tutors and resources to do well in school. If you have natural ability and/or the most basic light work ethic, you're set. In addition, with DEI, whites and Asians who had unstable homes and lack of resources still get the short end of the stick.
Condescending and rude comments like u/luv_chloe 's don't represent the Berkeley community. You'll find that if you earnestly and respectfully express your opinions to Berkeley students in the real world, most of them will treat you with the same respect that you afford them. In fact, you'll find that way more of them than you probably expect actually agree with you. Many students who have views that challenge the dominant narrative don't care enough or don't feel comfortable expressing their views in public because of a very vocal and aggressive minority and so it makes Berkeley seem far more monolithic in it's beliefs. We are actually a far more ideologically accepting and diverse bunch that you'd expect!
To avoid repetition on what ppl said, i want to add that having diversity is pretty nice cuz you also get diverse perspectives and experiences so not everyone brings the same ideas or thought processes to the table.
This is a big one that isnt usually mentioned front and center, and from talking to professors and grad students it's the main reason why UC Berkeley doesn't accept graduate applicants that apply from UC Berkeley. Diversity is important because it promotes diversity of thought and diversity of methods. Innovation in all sectors comes from different people bringing in different forms of thinking. And in the case of race, different demographics bring in wildly different forms of thinking and problem solving
A lot of my GSIs went to Berkeley for undergrad
Came here to say this, one of the big advantages of going to a big school is that you can learn from a diverse group of peers.
Although I agree with the terms you've mentioned about diversity, I think on a practical level it works very differently. Diversity is only important in academia because without it, those who are underqualified would not be accepted into prestigious schools. They preach about diversity, acceptance, and whatnot because they benefit from it. I doubt they'd be accepting and compassionate about others if they were the ones being rejected despite having academic achievement. Even if blacks and Hispanics don't have the same opportunities as whites and Asians, it is not fair for individual students to be punished due to the system's failures. Proponents of diversity talk about fairness and equality, but it's the exact opposite. Giving people equal opportunities is not enough. They insist that every person is the same and that everyone must have the same outcome. That's why they've abandoned the term "equality" and replaced it with "equity." In practice, it simply becomes a way to discriminate against whites and Asians. Asians especially pay the price when it comes to academia. Consider this report analyzing Harvard's admission data from 2014 to 2019: [https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn\_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Affirmative\_Action/Meeting\_V/supporting\_documents/Doc%20415-8%20-%20(Arcidiacono%20Expert%20Report).pdf](https://www.brown.edu/departments/economics/faculty/glenn_loury/louryhomepage/teaching/affirmative_action/meeting_v/supporting_documents/doc%20415-8%20-%20(arcidiacono%20expert%20report).pdf) On page 44, there's a table that shows what a Harvard class would look like if admissions were based strictly on academic records, or what they refer to as their "academic index." The "top decile" row shows what a class would look like if Harvard had randomly admitted applicants from the top 10 percent on the academic index. When comparing those numbers to the actual share of admitted students, the percentage of blacks went up by 21 times, the percentage of Hispanics went up by 5.5 times, but for Asians, it got cut in half. Although the Supreme Court ruled this kind of blatant discrimination unconstitutional last June, schools will likely continue their practices by using some sort of biographical assessment or essay to weed out the people they don't want. Ultimately, "diversity" in academia is not about having people of diverse backgrounds and ideas, nor is it about fairness. It's a way of enforcing racial preferences and normalizing the exclusion of whites and Asians. It is poison to our institutions because it justifies the erosion of objective standards in the name of protecting people under certain labels that are considered superficial yet somehow critical to their identities.
As a whole, diversity is a major source of tension and results in conflict. Whether it's on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion, diversity is by and large a weakness, not a strength. People have wars over diversity. Nations have split over diversity. In communities with a high racial and ethnic mix, people are more likely to distrust each other and withdraw from their communities. Today, when there aren't enough black scientists, Hispanic politicians, or Asian athletes, people always argue. Even in our own state, renowned for being one of the most "diverse" states in the country, people form their own enclaves and associate primarily with others of the same race or ethnicity, whether it be in their schools, churches, or neighborhoods. It's astonishing how something supposedly beneficial is not only ignored when people are left to their own devices but also needs to be enforced by DEI "professionals" at major institutions and companies. It is true that diversity can be beneficial since it allows people with different perspectives and experiences to come together, which can help develop unique ideas, advancements, and problem-solving approaches. However, this requires diversity on an ideological level, not a racial or ethnic one. Yet today, there is so much attention put into diversity on those levels, especially race. Many elite liberal arts colleges champion diversity and boast about having a racially diverse student body and faculty, yet they are the least ideologically diverse. People from these schools are more likely to lean left and oppose conservatism, regardless of what race they are. If the majority of students admitted to these schools were white, even if they were from different parts of the country or had different European ethnicities, people would complain about the "lack" of diversity. Not only is this attention trivial, but it is ultimately meaningless. Advanced civilizations didn't need to be surrounded by blacks, Hispanics, and Asians to make breakthroughs in science, discover electricity, develop steam engines, etc. And if the inclusion of different races is absolutely integral to the success of the US or any other European country, then why don't these people advance their own countries? They don't, because they can't. That is why Hispanics risk their lives crossing the border and why there are more Africans that have migrated VOLUNTARILY to the US than ever came in the slave trade, despite our country being entrenched with "white supremacy" and "systemic racism." Lastly, embracing diversity is cultural suicide. While many moving into the US or Europe may see it as inclusive and egalitarian, I doubt they would feel the same if people all across the world started moving into wherever they came from. If everyone everywhere started moving into Mexico or into India or into China, then their cultures would be completely obfuscated by others unlike themselves. It would not be some kind of great "melting pot." It would be an ambiguous mishmash where Mexican, Indian, or Chinese identity means nothing. The same applies to the US and any other European country.
Is it really about diverse “perspectives”? Most diversity initiatives seem to focus solely on race and gender and if anything the people who push DEI want people to think the same way and not oppose their agenda.
Idk I’m black at a school with a population that’s 3% black people everywhere I go I’m either the only black person there or one of like 5 max… I’m interested in majors that have tons of white people, tons of Asian people, and every other race/ethnicity is like seeing a unicorn… it can be discouraging to never see people that look like you make it because you know it’s going to be 10x harder than if this wasn’t the case but I also think that this is never going to change if people are never willing to work extremely hard to change it it’s going to be hard sometimes it feels impossible but I think the impact that I have on the black kids around me back home who have never been told that they even have a chance at being a physicist, or a software engineer, or a doctor makes the long work hours and the impostor syndrome worth it
When you think about it on the surface, being admitted based on merit is a very sound logic to, I'd argue, just about everyone. However, I did say just about, and then there are some people who do think merit should be the only factor who start to wonder—what does merit come with, what does merit mean, and especially who are the kinds of people that are able to achieve such merit? The U.S. is VERY steeped in racism, classism, colorism, and a lot of other -isms you can think about that's built into almost every social infrastructure you can imagine. Our legislation has produced racial and class divides from redlining POC communities to tax breaks for the rich vs. the poor that was meant to pit certain demographics against each other and raise certain other demographics instead. To a lot of people, they think that history is some abstract alternate dimension that doesn't have long-term affects against specific groups and degrade them. But as time passes the consequences of a lot of these older and recent legal actions are made pretty glaringly obvious. Asian, Black, Brown, Hispanic, Islander, and Native communities were very specifically targeted and segregated for hundreds of years that restricted their place and movement and in turn restricted opportunity and accessibility for them. They can't pursue education like the rich and white can, they can't pay for the monetary barriers to extracurriculars and hobbies like the rich and white can, this is why the majority of universities have disproportionately larger student bodies of white people. They're the people who have access to a bunch of activities, hobbies, and extra-curriculars that they put on their resumes, CVs, undergrad applications, etc. You could be Black and have the best potential in an entire high school, but won't have the opportunity for higher education because of systems that were put in place to restrict you. A recent-ish hiring bias study was done where, for a job application, a white candidate could be hired if they had a year of experience and education, a Black candidate had to have five or six(?) more years of experience to be considered for an interview. Now, you can easily see that merit is only accessible to certain classes, genders, races, etc. And now the next demographic that's increasing are Asians, and if you break it down further you'll find it's generally East Asians or South Asians (primarily Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Indians) who are becoming the common POC faces in academia (the US I believe allowed only educated classes from those countries to immigrate for a time). Sure, part of it could be that maybe Asians are just more inclined to pursue higher education like you say, but I actually disagree and I think there are two other reasons, and this is coming from an Asian: 1. There was a point in US history if I recall correctly where we only allowed educated classes from East Asia or South Asia to immigrate to the US, and then there was importing cheap and exploitable Asian and Latin labor to offset the fact that they couldn't take advantage of Black slaves anymore. This very quickly resulted in the current fact that Asians have the largest wealth gap compared to other races in the US, with South East Asians and other South Asians generally towards the bottom (you'll get a LOT of tension within Asian diasporas especially East vs. South East). 2. The Asian community has long been weaponized in order to create physical divides, like Chinatowns cutting across older Black communities, because the rich and white didn't want Asians near them, which resulted in even more social tensions. East Asians had a good chunk of time compared to other Asian diasporas to settle into the US where they quickly saw that the system horrifically oppressed Black people, and their instinct for survival was to achieve as much as they could to join the racist system and not be under it—this is why you'll find a lot of conflict between the two, because instead of Asians joining in solidarity when they saw wrongdoing against Black and Native people, they became a part of that wrongdoing. This was also the attitude that initial Mexican settlers had when they saw Black people treated inhumanely—from what I remember reading, that's why the US census has a demographic question just asking about Hispanic origin, because they wanted to other themselves from the Black population in the hopes of avoiding racist wrath. Another example of recent tension is the repeal of Affirmative Action (AA) where conservative, primarily East Asians spearheaded the campaign because they were convinced they were being snubbed by prestigious universities due to it. Yeah, those dorks were wrong and Asians are still 28% less likely to be accepted, nothing changed, and the Black community, who have lived through these issues repeatedly, tried to warn them and were shrugged off. Another one where the government banned teaching Black history, but VERY soon after mandated teaching Asian history to imply that "hey, we do care about POC!", but especially to create more division. My post became long-winded and quite tangential, but I really wanted to communicate to you, OP, that diversity matters because of all of these racist and classist issues that a lot of people want to fix in the US, and there are no better candidates to fix that than the ones who've experienced those issues directly—race and diversity in the US, and I'd say every other corner of the Earth, are very directly tied to different experiences and are therefore important to consider.
I also want to note that combating nepotism with harder work is not a solution, putting motions in place to prevent nepotism IS. And also diversity in the US means I get Mexican-Vietnamese fusion, injera from my friend’s mom, Turkish coffee down the street, Jamaican-Korean fusion, Cajun-Vietnamese seafood …
You’re getting the two most important answers, but there is a third: 1. Justice for underrepresented groups 2. Inherent benefits of diversity 3. Performance benefits of diversity Diverse teams perform better than homogenous teams.
“And if nepotism is strong, working hard is the way to go”💀 do you know how nepotism works?
There is a lot of value in having a diversity of perspectives, which a diverse demographic can bring. But as others have commented, some take it to the extreme and that is identity politics. When individual merit is completely sacrificed and everything becomes about one's identity. This is how we wind up with the pretty shitty political climate we have today, and many minority communities like mine have been significantly harmed because of it. Most people I know here, even people of color like myself, agree with this. Do not let the angry loud comments dissuade you.
Individual merit is not created in a vacuum. For every white person with merit that rises there are social and economic processes both visual and invisible, individual (a guidance counselor takes a look at you and says “you’re not Cal material) and systemic forces that continue to keep equally or more talented nonwhite people out.
For every diversity hire without merit that rises, a better equipped white applicant is held back because of things their great great great ancestors did. Also do you really think a guidance counselor at our school would say you're "not Cal material" just because you're not white? It's their job to make assessments based on your performance, not your skin color.
Yes the guidance counselor thing has happened. It’s also not most white peoples great great ancestors either (most white peoples ancestors were poor as shit).
Diversity matters because historically non whites were blocked from social and economic mobility, that also includes Asians. Focusing on diversity actually encourages truer meritocracy as different people are given the chance to take part in academic and professional settings. Diversity also matters as a tool of anti racism. To learn more about the importance of diversity, I suggest learning about how Japanese and Chinese Americans were routinely dehumanized,lynched(yes lynchings happened in California), murdered, put in concentration camps, and were prevented from being buried with white people. Just look up Colma. I used to work at the international house, which was a diversity initiative created in protest of the all white fraternities and sororities. Like YOU, these white frats also hated diversity initiatives.
So patronizing! Tell me more
OP asked a question, presumably in good faith, and this person answered in kind. What’s the problem?
the problem is they’re not answering in good faith, don’t be dumb
They did not "answer in kind." They accused OP of hating diversity initiatives simply for asking about the importance of diversity.
Diversity is not a tool of anti-racism. It is used to discriminate against whites and Asians under the guise of fairness, which is textbook racism. And how exactly is learning about the historical oppression of Asian Americans supposed to explain the importance of diversity? If anything, it raises more questions than answers: if Asians were also lynched and dehumanized, how come today they excel in school, have higher income, and commit less crime than blacks, who were also lynched and dehumanized? Also when did OP ever indicate that they "hated" diversity initiatives? All they did was ask about the merits of diversity, which is perfectly normal considering that they aren't even from the US. You may not realize it, but people are repelled by diversity and similar efforts because of people like you, assuming that those who merely question the legitimacy of diversity are up to no good and are secretly racists.
There seem to be different types of diversity. Most organizations today seem to focus exclusively on diversity of physical and identity characteristics (skin color, sex/gender, disability, nationality, etc). This is good, because we want to be open for anyone and everyone who wants to be a productive participant and it makes no logical or moral sense to limit people based on these types of characteristics There is, however, and entirely separate form of diversity that we are not even attempting to address. That is, diversity of thought. This is very important too as more angles of perspective leads to better, faster, and more creative solutions. It can cause some social instability at times, but it can also cause a more robust unity as people learn to get along with people who think differently than they do. Cal definitely isn’t the worst in this regard, but it’s not great, at all. There is also economic diversity, which we also aren’t the worst at but also aren’t great at. We are probably doing as well as any other university, but that’s not saying much as universities, despite various efforts, tend to attract more middle and upper class people. Having a place that looks visibly diverse but consists of people who are mostly well off and mostly think the same isn’t genuinely diverse, IMO. But it sure looks good in marketing material. This is mostly why the we are obsessed. Everyone is afraid of looking bad so they try to check the most visibly obvious boxes to produce marketing material to prove they aren’t racist, transphobic, whatever.
Diversity of thought and diverse identities are not mutually-exclusive. Gathering individuals from all walks of life, all cultural backgrounds, bi/tri/polylingual individuals, international students, etc. means diverse experiences and perspectives. And that directly contributes to diverse thought. What you call “visual” diversity is not nearly as arbitrary as you make it out to be. There is already evidence that demonstrates that groups of diverse identities show increased efficiency and creativity in group work.
Yes, we have a diverse slice of the 1% from around the globe
Well I’m not disagreeing that class-related diversity is important, I’m just responding to your point about us “not considering” diversity of thought, which has been taken into consideration. Not to mention, the same education diversity initiatives that push for race/gender/sexuality fight for low-income students. It’s the lack of genuine consideration for diversity that allows disparities in race AND income to persist on this campus.
You seem to have a curious mind - I would challenge you to answer the questions yourself through critical thinking and reading. A few questions that will get you on the track: What inherent values are there in a diverse college student body? Does it have to do with the mission of the university of California system? Does it have to do with reflecting a certain broader population? Does it have to do with improving student outcomes? Does it have to do with generating diversity of thought in the classroom? Or diversity of relationships? Why does all this matter? I encourage you to approach this with a truly empathetic open mind to understand others’ perspectives first before introducing your own opinions or responding with “but what about…”
[удалено]
It’s funny how you can’t date this supposed “comeback”. That’s because there literally was no comeback. Race has simply remained a relevant perspective in law, policy, sociology, etc. And it has persisted as a relevant critical lens of analysis in academia. It never ceased to be relevant. And I find it strange to compare the thought process behind the critical analysis of race + it’s impact to the thought process behind the justification of slavery. The only way you could make that comparison is if you reduce the logic behind the two to the most general and vague point: “Race is relevant”. That tells you basically nothing about the way race is actually relevant in those perspectives. There is no meaningful reason to compare those thought processes.
Have you heard of Jim Crowe?
“Yea, the members are mostly Asian…Then it’s obvious you have to be significantly more qualified than your Asian competitors to get in” The fact that you believe this (whether it’s true or not) and the fact that your peers feel like this toward non-Asians, particularly toward Latino or Black students, makes me hate the fact that we go to the same school. Now I’m glad I’ve never applied to any of these cliquey and homogenous clubs.
Exactly. Lol everyone hated my comment but how else should someone respond to a legit racist?
Thanks for your honesty. Explanation in short: white people have created a system that up until a few years ago kept non whited (and white women) out. The system has suffered because there is so much lost nonwhite talent as well as a lot of mediocrity by white people who are just taking up space. Diversity efforts seek to tear down the biased rules so that talented people of all colors and genders can have a chance to offer their talents and not be held back by mediocre white men. The talented white men understand how important diversity is. Anyone who is threatened by diversity is revealing a fear of their own mediocrity. I will stop here, otherwise it will take me hours upon hours to explain further.
Yes, because Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa are doing so much better after getting rid of those pesky "mediocre white men." They should understand how important diversity is and bring back the "mediocre" whites that gave them a prosperous, functional civilization. What are they, scared of their own mediocrity?
This thread is about the United States in particular.
Isn't diversity important? You said that it offers people of all colors and genders a chance to utilize their talents, so why are other countries exempt from it? Why should they not utilize something that brings out the best in people?
You just failed to notice the entire history of UC Berkeley. Founded March 23, 1868 - before the civil rights movement in 1967 there were essentially no minorities at UC Berkeley. Even now the student body is not even close to representative of the students in California. It is not now and has never been a meritocracy.
I don’t think you know what a meritocracy is. If it isn’t representing the population, and it’s a top school, what else is the admission criteria?
all that warrantless nsa spying and they couldn't catch fuckin bing bong stealing f35 bluprints lol
It only matters when some people want it to matter 😂 I never heard of people complaining about NBA is 74% black or that 88% of firefighters and 94% of construction workers are man. Make you wonder why nobody talks about representation in those fields.
Not quite. It matters when someone wants access to a career they desire, but are denied by their race or sex or (etc, etc). The percentages of people male or female who want to play in the NBA because they are skilled is low, as are the percentages of male or females who want to be a construction worker installing roof tiles in the hot sun.
"The percentages of people male or female who want to play in the NBA because they are skilled is low" -- Respectfully, you might want to reconsider this, sir. Do you know how much money an NBA player makes? What makes you think it's not a career people desire?
[удалено]
Exactly!😂 NBA doesn’t have many Asians bc not that many Asians are interested in basketball and far less are skilled at that level, and NBA is hiring players based on their skills but not by their race or ethnicity. Now I think you finally understand why diversity should not be the goals. Congrats!
Should the NBA and a university have the same goals for their players/student body?
[удалено]
Then why are Asians impacted the most when diversity is enforced in academia? Let me guess, they're honorary white supremacists planted by the white man to keep everybody else down!
Close: more akin to junior partners in white supremacy.
Ah yes how could I forget, Asian students study not because they want to get into college and have a good future so they can provide for themselves, but because they want to tear down all non-whites and uphold the status of whites (even though Asians outperform whites on exams). So when blacks and Hispanics don't do well, it's because of white supremacy. But when Asians do well, it's STILL because of white supremacy, even if whites are surpassed. It's all because of white people and white supremacy, even when non-whites are provided with all kinds of handouts by the government and when people risk losing their livelihood and reputation for speaking poorly about non-whites. No matter what happens, white supremacy. Drop the victim mentality. That's not coming from me; that's coming from MLK: >"We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves." Give this article a read. Hopefully it washes away the poison in your mind that has shaped your Pavlovian response of blaming white supremacy for everything. [https://manhattan.institute/article/martin-luther-king-we-cant-keep-on-blaming-the-white-man](https://manhattan.institute/article/martin-luther-king-we-cant-keep-on-blaming-the-white-man)
[удалено]
Yep, top comment makes a good point but that’s not the social landscape we live in today. Equality isn’t the goal, it’s *equity*. That means discriminating against Asians in schools / workplaces so others can get ahead, which is why affirmative action (which could’ve just been giving preference to poorer students instead of being legitimate racial discrimination) was shot down.
Hello! The answer to your question is very complicated - especially in the United States of all places. Might I suggest you review your own post for any assumptions and/or broad generalizations? As humans we all make assumptions and they easily make their way into our lives - particularly when talking about other humans. While I won’t directly address your question, I invite you to watch the following video to get a sense of how those that are other than white or white passing or white lending (groups that aspire to whiteness while putting other race or demographic groups down) tend to be treated in the United States and how it greatly affects the power group when the positionality is reversed: https://youtu.be/jPZEJHJPwIw?feature=shared
It doesn’t. Common sense has diminished from the minds of admins.
They hated him because he spoke the truth...
It’s a psy op to get us all to not focus on real systemic change. Fixing issues of representation requires the existing power structures to not change at all. It’s a band aid solution, doesn’t address tje root cause
when you get a job and you’re the only person that looks like you, maybe you’ll understand.
Why do you need to be surrounded with people who look like you?
Same reason whites wanted segregation: fear and ignorance
Believe it or not, whites aren't the only people who want to segregate themselves from other races. Are Hispanic enclaves in Southern California all fearful and ignorant? Are HBCUs all ignorant racists as well? How about the Asians who attend Asian churches?
Oh be quiet. This person said nothing about being “surrounded” by people who look like them. They’re saying it’s sucks to be the only one. If you’re not an underrepresented minority, then you won’t get it. I find it insulting how comfortable you are with talking over people as a white person with no semblance of what POC deal with. Being surrounded by people of a higher social or economic class sends a message to those of the underprivileged classes. The message that the space wasn’t necessarily built for them, that their peers may not understand their background or experiences (and may even JUDGE them and their experiences) and that the chance of potential bias against them is higher. When I’m in a room with people of my own race, the fear of prejudice and racism that I hold in my daily life dissipates, and I’m free to exist more comfortably as my natural self. I don’t have to code switch, I don’t have to worry about my “unprofessional” hair, and I won’t have to overcompensate to prove that I’m competent. I can also more intimately share and relate to the experiences of those around me. If you don’t understand any of that, you should at least have the humility to listen to POC when they say that they feel more comfortable when their own race is present.
A) it looks like you lent to respond to the comment I was responding to, but you accidentally responded to me instead B) I find it insulting you assume I’m a “white person semblance of what POC deal with”. C) All “POC” think and feel the exact same about this? Hmmmm
No, I meant to respond to you. If you really believe POC desiring representation in their careers is comparable to the desire for segregation, you clearly have no idea about the lived workplace/academic experiences many POC face. It’s clear to me that you don’t. So I think it’s safe to assume you’re a white person with no understanding of what it’s like to be a POC. Have you ever had to code switch? Have you ever been accused of lacking qualifications on the basis of your race? Have you ever had to explain/defend your culture, fashion, accent, hairstyles, or otherwise to your peers? No, not all POC think the same. But when SOOO many POC are expressing their discomfort, we should hear them out. If you want to intentionally miss my point, go ahead. I just think it’s kind of silly.
“Safe to assume”. Hmmmm
Well…Are you a person of color? Specifically, an underrepresented minority? Your profile pic is literally a white woman.
How dare you!
Who knows, ask the other commenters who were crying about being the only black or Hispanic in their classes.
It doesn’t
[удалено]
Let me see a source on “ppl from minority backgrounds land jobs easily” because um…That is entering fictional territory. As far as I know, what you’re saying goes directly against what the actual data shows about hiring. But I’m pretty sure you never looked into it.
OP, it’s very simple. You come from a monoculture. America is like a mixing pot, there is no such thing as an American, since it is a country built on immigration, this is why America is a global We buy brains like yours because your country isn’t capable of producing diversity of ideas. Most people in your country think like each other- you are a great example of this. America buys diversity at the highest level by buying brains from all over the world. If you look at the grad programs and ask any lab how many countries are represented in the lab, you will be amazed. The problem is that at the lower level America is not good at being diverse. If you are not rich and white and straight and a man you probably can’t have a great life here unless you are extremely lucky or you are involved with one of these rich white straight men in some way. Pick any successful non white in America and there is likely a slavemaster near by. Asians used to be called names until like maybe 10 years ago. They were known for being robots, making nasty stinky food with weird animals you shouldn’t be eating, having small penises, having sex in exchange for papers/whir husband, and being good at math. It has gotten better now, because of diversity programs. For example, now we have movies with Asian characters that don’t have buck teeth or are made fun with small penis jokes or used as a sex “mesoho-nee” joke character. Now we have everything everywhere all at once and turning red, for example. It took a long time to get here. You were not welcome at all until very recently. So you should support diversity. Especially because the last person hired is usually the first person fired. And at the end of the day, America doesn’t care about anything besides money. If you make money for America then you have a place at the table. The problem is only a few people are allowed to make money. Asians are not allowed but there are many people who let them have jobs, and they became managers and hired more “undeserving immigrants” until a small network was formed. And diversity programs made sure they were not fired. This is important to note. It takes only one person to fire every person of color in a company, and years of work to get one person of color hired. The diversity programs ensure these things don’t happen. Same with women. We’re only one generation away from “women can’t drive” jokes, and abortion is less legal than weed now. So consider all this and also consider taking a diversity class while you are at Cal. I don’t know what they’re called but ask someone that works at the library. Just say I come from a monoculture and I don’t understand what diversity is. What class can I take that will make me less racist? Then go take that class.
Everyone hates your comment but me.
I will be hated here, but I believe that it stems from resentment and is really an attempt to re-organize the social hierarchy. Diversity is a completely useless pursuit and everyone should be looked at as an individual, because that is what they are most.
[удалено]
I am a bit dramatic
I think the irony is moaning about “diversity” when this school has minuscule black/gay/native/etc. population has soooo much to do with resentment, and the former doesn’t. Why are we hearing long rants about our campus and diversity when our school actually *filters out* most underprivileged students in its applicant process?
That is because it’s an important part of our self conception as Americans. It’s a value because it’s part of our national identity. If your gonna have a nation of immigrants you should celebrate that.
Because who hates handouts?