Stanford apologizes for limiting Jewish students in 1950s

[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.

THIS! Antisemitism is worthy of recognizing and addressing - past and present - on its own. Facing this terrible thing does not detract at all from other injustices, which are also important. Stanford apology is 100% appropriate. To say you applaud efforts to shed light on antisemitism does nothing to lessen other wrongs. I am Irish Italian, not Jewish, not Asian, not Black, not indigenous - I applaud all efforts to address past and present wrongs.
Thank you PP!

[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.

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.

Just like Berkeley - Berkeley is legally banned from giving blacks/Hispanics racial preferences in admissions but but they still do it anyway.

[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.

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.

Just like Berkeley - Berkeley is legally banned from giving blacks/Hispanics racial preferences in admissions but but they still do it anyway.

Oh that's probably they went test blind

[Anonymous]

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

Schools are still limiting Asian sutdents today.

Yup -- I'm a Stanford alum, and this was my first thought when I got a heads-up email from the school earlier this week.

[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.

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]

No it's not the result that determines if it was racism when they selected students with color blind policy.

Uhh, yes it is, and it doesn't mean there is blatant racsim in the policy, it means the policy is biased and doesn't account for racism in the facets of the process. It's EXACTLY how it is always determined.

How can you be racially biased when they were color blind??

The process and its parts can be biased. Just how they showed standardized tests are culturally biased. https://study.com/academy/lesson/cultural-bias-in-standardized-testing.html

It's the method. If you discriminate individuals because of their race, that's racism and against law.

Yes, and seeking balance in admissions does not discriminate against any individual because of their race. Any race which is under-represented will benefit, as Asians do at many LACs where they are under-represented from the same policy.

Affirmative action is extra help. It's just the fact. You seem to promote racism and sexism.

Racial balance in college admissions is NOT affirmative action, and if you don't even know the difference there is no reason to continue this discussion as you are uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simplistic. First off, be suspicious of anyone who lumps the enslavement of Africans in the Americas with anti-semitism. They are very distinct, just as the discrimination against certain European groups prior to 1960 is also distinct. Jewish people were never enslaved in the US. The closest thing to enslavement of Africans and their decedents in the US is the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Antisemitism is terrible but belongs in a different conversation than the institutional deprivation of an entire race of people of their freedom.

Second, you gloss right over how and why Irish and Italian immigrants "became" white in the US -- it was part of a systemic effort to reinforce racism against black people in the US as well as a way to quash workers movements that might have united oppressed groups. This is significant because white Jews in the US have undergone a similar process, as have some Asian groups (though that is made more complex by the size of Asian American populations in certain parts of the US which has entrenched racism views about Asians in a way that is actually most similar to how antisemitism grew across Europe before WWII, where Jews were viewed as too powerful and successful. The Jewish population in the US also experiences antisemitism but is too small at this point to garner this kind of reaction.

You have to do all the homework. It's complex.

[Anonymous]

Why is it so hard to say we just promote people by merit, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or whatever your personal treats?
When I ask a brain surgeon to operate on me, I just want the doctor who is best at his work, i.e. merit, and nothing else. Why anything else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to say we just promote people by merit, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or whatever your personal treats?
When I ask a brain surgeon to operate on me, I just want the doctor who is best at his work, i.e. merit, and nothing else. Why anything else?

Define "merit."

The brain surgeon graduated from med school. You have no clue what his MCAT scores were.

For a lot of people, merit means standardized test scores - and nothing else.

Elite college AOs don't think that way, nor should they.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it's not the result that determines if it was racism when they selected students with color blind policy.

Uhh, yes it is, and it doesn't mean there is blatant racsim in the policy, it means the policy is biased and doesn't account for racism in the facets of the process.  It's EXACTLY how it is always determined.

Umm, No it's not. Correlation is not causation. It may be something else.  You need to point out what part of policy is biased rather than being vague.  
If there is bias, fixt that problem rather than discriminating. 

How can you be racially biased when they were color blind??

The process and its parts can be biased.  Just how they showed standardized tests are culturally biased. https://study.com/academy/lesson/cultural-bias-in-standardized-testing.html

Then fix the process rather than discriminating. How are tests biased to give Asians advantage?  by valuing Math? Again don't be vague.

It's the method. If you discriminate against individuals because of their race, that's racism and against the law.

Yes, and seeking balance in admissions does not discriminate against any individual because of their race.  Any race which is under-represented will benefit, as Asians do at many LACs where they are under-represented from the same policy.

It does discriminate against individuals in the name of diversity or racial balance/quota.  

Affirmative action is extra help. It's just the fact. You seem to promote racism and sexism.

Racial balance in college admissions is NOT affirmative action, and if you don't even know the difference there is no reason to continue this discussion as you are uninformed.

LMAO big failure.
The difference is only in your head and you seem delusional  
They are exactly the same shit. Where are you trying to go with this nonsense? Affirmative action is not ok but artificail racial balance is good???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented, such as education and employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to say we just promote people by merit, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or whatever your personal treats?
When I ask a brain surgeon to operate on me, I just want the doctor who is best at his work, i.e. merit, and nothing else. Why anything else?

Define "merit."

The brain surgeon graduated from med school. You have no clue what his MCAT scores were.

For a lot of people, merit means standardized test scores - and nothing else.

Elite college AOs don't think that way, nor should they.

'race' or 'legacy' is not "merit"
Merit is not just stanardized test scores.
If we follow merit from the beginning to the end all along, we have trust in the society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

THIS! Antisemitism is worthy of recognizing and addressing - past and present - on its own. Facing this terrible thing does not detract at all from other injustices, which are also important. Stanford apology is 100% appropriate. To say you applaud efforts to shed light on antisemitism does nothing to lessen other wrongs. I am Irish Italian, not Jewish, not Asian, not Black, not indigenous - I applaud all efforts to address past and present wrongs.
Thank you PP!

Thank you! NP here. Any time antisemitism is actually addressed, conversation always immediately veers to center another, larger group, or to tangentially related politics. It’s frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Umm, No it's not. Correlation is not causation. It may be something else.  You need to point out what part of policy is biased rather than being vague.  
If there is bias, fixt that problem rather than discriminating. 

Sorry to do this, but umm yes it is. The result indicates there is a problem. Unless you think certain races are just naturally less able then others. Go ahead, go there if you want.

Then fix the process rather than discriminating. How are tests biased to give Asians advantage?  by valuing Math? Again don't be vague.

Sure, fix the test. Or discount it. Guess which one is easier for the colleges, and is happening.

It's the method. If you discriminate against individuals because of their race, that's racism and against the law.

Yes, correct, and that's why there is no "don't admit Asians" policy at any college.

It does discriminate against individuals in the name of diversity or racial balance/quota.  

Really? So Asians are discriminated against when they apply to, say, Washington & Lee? Or Howard? Or BYU?

LMAO big failure.
The difference is only in your head and you seem delusional  
They are exactly the same shit. Where are you trying to go with this nonsense? Affirmative action is not ok but artificail racial balance is good???

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented, such as education and employment.

No they are not the same thing, they are done differently and for different reasons. Again, if you can't understand that difference, you either are choosing not to or are incapable of it. I guess the former.

[Anonymous]

So the Jewish kids rejected in 1950 are now 90 and don't give a f*ck.

Just fix things going forward for all races, ethnicities and genders and mive along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the Jewish kids rejected in 1950 are now 90 and don't give a f*ck.

Just fix things going forward for all races, ethnicities and genders and mive along.

But it was the 50's, so the younger of that group is closer to 80. And being a child of one of them I can tell you they do care because they have faced a lifetime of discrimination and exclusion. I still encounter antisemitism from people who don't know I am 1/2 Jewish.