Stanford apologizes for limiting Jewish students in 1950s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

CalTech is color blind and mostly merit based.
Asian: 35%
White: 23%
Hispanic: 22%
Mixed 9%
International: 8%
Black: 3%

Male: 55%
Female: 45%


Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help
There's no problem with this as long as it was fair and everyone got same opportunity as an individual.
This is way to go for higher education. No need for artificial racial quota.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

Wow, way to miss the point entirely. I don’t know about Stanford but have you read the Harvard materials? They viewed Asian American students as robots without personality as a rule and gave them low points on personality, not because of anything shown in an individual’s application but because they were Asian American.

When URMs do it, it's dedication, perseverance, and passion.
When Asians do, it' being robots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m Irish-Italian. My great-grandparents and grandparents were immigrants in the Irish slums and Italian ghettos —when do we get an apology? They faced severe discrimination “Irish need not apply” here in the US.

I’m always puzzled when intelligent people cite this argument. The acculturation process for immigrants from most countries in Europe, excluding Jews, was extremely different from others. Like one generation versus generations of systemic barriers.

I'm not the pp you quoted, but your response reveals your ignorance of the Irish immigration experience. Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/education-stanford-university-bce7f81c2d8f953ac18f034401546f2e

Schools are still limiting Asian sutdents today.

Apology to Asian Americans coming in 2090.

Some Jewish people will have to do some apologizing too, hopefully before then.

LOL I clicked to say exactly that. When is the apology to asians coming

For what? For not having 100% Asian population because they could if they just looked at stats?

Maybe for systemically rating Asian students much lower on "personality"?

That's known as racism.

[Anonymous]

It's embarrassing that any ethnic group or race group of the current generation in the US blaming something happened in the past for their current status. When does it end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

CalTech is color blind and mostly merit based.
Asian: 35%
White: 23%
Hispanic: 22%
Mixed 9%
International: 8%
Black: 3%

Male: 55%
Female: 45%


Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help
There's no problem with this as long as it was fair and everyone got same opportunity as an individual.
This is way to go for higher education. No need for artificial racial quota.

Caltech stopped being wholly merit based years ago. You can track the peak, and then decline in Asian admissions, and the differential in grad rates by race is huge -- 96% for asians, 91% for whites, 76% for hispanic, 50% for blacks -- which suggests that there's a difference in the level of preparation or ability of the incoming students in a way readily explanable by admissions having a thumb on the scales.

[Anonymous]

It is asinine and meaningless for Stanford today to apologize for what a completely different set of people did in the 1950s, and even more so for things Leland Stanford did in the 1800s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

CalTech is color blind and mostly merit based.
Asian: 35%
White: 23%
Hispanic: 22%
Mixed 9%
International: 8%
Black: 3%

Male: 55%
Female: 45%


Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help
There's no problem with this as long as it was fair and everyone got same opportunity as an individual.
This is way to go for higher education. No need for artificial racial quota.

Yes, Caltech, a private institution, has chosen their own criteria for admission. A quick glance shows that AA is only 3% while they are 13.6% of the population, and all other races are severely under-represented except Asians and Hispanics. Any freshman year stats student could make that case that is evidence of extreme racial bias somewhere.

But the reason few complain about it is that Caltech gets to chose whoever they want for whatever reason as long as they do not break the law. Like it or not. People respect those that run Caltech, believe they know what is best for Caltech, and do not believe they are racists, even though the statistics would strongly indicate otherwise. They KNOW it isn't racism even though at first glance it appears to be so.

See?

/oh and you patronizing comment about "Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help" is disgusting, racist and sexist. You probably are also.

[Anonymous]

My Jewish mother was accepted at Stanford in the 50s and didn’t go. Maybe it’s just as well given the unwelcoming environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/education-stanford-university-bce7f81c2d8f953ac18f034401546f2e

Schools are still limiting Asian sutdents today.

Apology to Asian Americans coming in 2090.

Some Jewish people will have to do some apologizing too, hopefully before then.

Keep this thread about Stanford's past treatment of Jewish applicants.

Their are tons of Asian "Harvard won't accept my 1600 SAT kid" grievance threads on DCUM.
LOL I clicked to say exactly that. When is the apology to asians coming

For what? For not having 100% Asian population because they could if they just looked at stats?

Maybe for systemically rating Asian students much lower on "personality"?

That's known as racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m Irish-Italian. My great-grandparents and grandparents were immigrants in the Irish slums and Italian ghettos —when do we get an apology? They faced severe discrimination “Irish need not apply” here in the US.

I’m always puzzled when intelligent people cite this argument. The acculturation process for immigrants from most countries in Europe, excluding Jews, was extremely different from others. Like one generation versus generations of systemic barriers.

I'm not the pp you quoted, but your response reveals your ignorance of the Irish immigration experience. Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself again.

People who are familiar with the issue know that some groups (including Irish and Italian immigrants) were seen as “not quite white” and faced particular challenges and ALSO that that’s nothing like either the legacy of chattel slavery in this country nor the vigorously enforced antisemitic policies pursued in this country until a few decades ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

CalTech is color blind and mostly merit based.
Asian: 35%
White: 23%
Hispanic: 22%
Mixed 9%
International: 8%
Black: 3%

Male: 55%
Female: 45%


Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help
There's no problem with this as long as it was fair and everyone got same opportunity as an individual.
This is way to go for higher education. No need for artificial racial quota.

Yes, Caltech, a private institution, has chosen their own criteria for admission. A quick glance shows that AA is only 3% while they are 13.6% of the population, and all other races are severely under-represented except Asians and Hispanics. Any freshman year stats student could make that case that is evidence of extreme racial bias somewhere.

But the reason few complain about it is that Caltech gets to chose whoever they want for whatever reason as long as they do not break the law. Like it or not. People respect those that run Caltech, believe they know what is best for Caltech, and do not believe they are racists, even though the statistics would strongly indicate otherwise. They KNOW it isn't racism even though at first glance it appears to be so.

See?

/oh and you patronizing comment about "Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help" is disgusting, racist and sexist. You probably are also.

No it's not the result that determines if it was racism when they selected students with color blind policy.
How can you be racially biased when they were color blind??
It's the method. If you discriminate individuals because of their race, that's racism and against law.
Affirmative action is extra help. It's just the fact. You seem to promote racism and sexism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

Wow, way to miss the point entirely. I don’t know about Stanford but have you read the Harvard materials? They viewed Asian American students as robots without personality as a rule and gave them low points on personality, not because of anything shown in an individual’s application but because they were Asian American.

When URMs do it, it's dedication, perseverance, and passion.
When Asians do, it' being robots.

Let's keep this thread about Stanford's past treatment of Jewish applicants.

There are tons of Asian "Harvard rejected my 1600 SAT kid" and "why isn't TJ 100% Asian" grievance threads on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

CalTech is color blind and mostly merit based.
Asian: 35%
White: 23%
Hispanic: 22%
Mixed 9%
International: 8%
Black: 3%

Male: 55%
Female: 45%


Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help
There's no problem with this as long as it was fair and everyone got same opportunity as an individual.
This is way to go for higher education. No need for artificial racial quota.

Yes, Caltech, a private institution, has chosen their own criteria for admission. A quick glance shows that AA is only 3% while they are 13.6% of the population, and all other races are severely under-represented except Asians and Hispanics. Any freshman year stats student could make that case that is evidence of extreme racial bias somewhere.

But the reason few complain about it is that Caltech gets to chose whoever they want for whatever reason as long as they do not break the law. Like it or not. People respect those that run Caltech, believe they know what is best for Caltech, and do not believe they are racists, even though the statistics would strongly indicate otherwise. They KNOW it isn't racism even though at first glance it appears to be so.

See?

/oh and you patronizing comment about "Females and minorities in the school are extremely proud because everybody knows they got no extra help" is disgusting, racist and sexist. You probably are also.

Is the race of a student negatively impacted in the admission decision?
If yes, then that's racism and discrimination. No individual need to suffer that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purposefully keeping people of one religion out because you don't like them is very different than keeping racial balances even in your cohort to better achieve your mission. To insinuate that they are the same is ignorant and insulting.

One is done specifically, to a specific group (Jewish is not a race, BTW) and one is going to naturally seem like a disadvantage to whichever race is over-represented in the applicant pool and seem like a benefit to whichever race is under-represented.

If any one race stopped applying to Stanford, their admissions rate would shoot up. If another race applied in much larger numbers, their rate would drop. Regardless of what race it is. Is that racism then?

Under-represented is the key. For any race, at any school where they are under-represented that seeks balance in their admissions policies.

I understand it seems unfair - this whole process is unfair in a lot of ways - but the alternative is worse.

Wow, way to miss the point entirely. I don’t know about Stanford but have you read the Harvard materials? They viewed Asian American students as robots without personality as a rule and gave them low points on personality, not because of anything shown in an individual’s application but because they were Asian American.

When URMs do it, it's dedication, perseverance, and passion.
When Asians do, it' being robots.

Let's keep this thread about Stanford's past treatment of Jewish applicants.

There are tons of Asian "Harvard rejected my 1600 SAT kid" and "why isn't TJ 100% Asian" grievance threads on DCUM.

Hisoty is for learning today from the past mistake and progress for the future.