Why do white parents think black kids are accepted into private school only because of their race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FWIW, the black children and parents at the independent school our child goes to tend to have very race-neutral names. The black parents I know there seem pretty affluent and are highly educated. I don't think parents at this school make the assumptions OP referred to. But the school is very racially and ethnically diverse, so maybe that makes a difference. It's not one of the most prestigious or "big three" schools. I suspect the attitudes the OP referred to are not evenly distributed across the area's independent schools, and the diversity of the student body and families makes a big difference.

But what's a race-neutral name in a majority white Anglo society? Are you sure you wouldn't call them "white" names? Hmmm....this will take more time and thought to sort out than I should be spending when I'm at work. Must....stop...cogitating.....now!

Well,to add to the cogitating, isn't part of what's going on here the issue of whether to assimilate or not to assimilate? African-Americans, Asian-Americans - all the other hyphenated Americans. If you assimilate, if basically for lack of a better phrase you "act white," whether it's how you dress, shop, live, name your kids, etc., you're bound to be more easily accepted by White America.

[Anonymous]

That is making the assumption that White America is America. Assimilation is usually used in terms of a group coming in and becoming like the group that is here. I have no factual or historical statistics, but I would dare say that many AA families have been in this country as long as or longer than many white families. Hence, American culture is just as much defined by AA culture as it is by white culture, unless you base your argument on the premise of "what is white is right."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is making the assumption that White America is America. Assimilation is usually used in terms of a group coming in and becoming like the group that is here.

While I agree that assimilation involves acclimating and acculturizing to the existing local culture, I didn't see this happening with the group that was already here for 25,000 years, when the religious white people invaded. The white religious rejects from Europe tried to proselityze the Native Americans to Christianity and eventually slaughtered them for being "savages." Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Assimilation is usually used in terms of a group coming in and becoming like the group that is here."

I'm not sure that's right. Certainly it's true in Europe, for example, where lots of immigrants are entering a culture that both pre-exists them and remains dominant in a political and social sense.

Maybe we need to move this discussion to the idea of assimilating with the "dominant" culture. I.e. politically and economically dominant, not necessarily the longest residing. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

On the other hand, assimilation is a two pronged progress. The dominant adjusts to 'foreing' amongst them, and the 'foreing' adjusts to the way of the land.

Eg the gypsies in Europe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Assimilation is usually used in terms of a group coming in and becoming like the group that is here.

The British had civilian populations in China/Hong Kong for 100+ years, the Russians have been in Central Asia over 100 years, and the French had given birth in North Africa to generations of French kids. I met a 3rd generation Frenchman born in Algeria who is about 65 and doesn't speak a lick of Arabic/local language. The Brits, French, & Russians are/were cloistered in their own schools, social circles, day-to-day life without assimilating.

I don't see the Brits speaking Chinese or taking on Chinese names or the Russians taking on Turkic names but rather the locals Russianized their last names to add "ov" or "ova" at the end. In the former French colonies, many locals are born with French first names.

Which is more dominant? The existing culture or the invading culture?

[Anonymous]

Wow, an intelligent, thoughtful discourse about a thorny racial/cultural issue with no name calling or insults!! I love it!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Assimilation is usually used in terms of a group coming in and becoming like the group that is here.

The British had civilian populations in China/Hong Kong for 100+ years, the Russians have been in Central Asia over 100 years, and the French had given birth in North Africa to generations of French kids. I met a 3rd generation Frenchman born in Algeria who is about 65 and doesn't speak a lick of Arabic/local language. The Brits, French, & Russians are/were cloistered in their own schools, social circles, day-to-day life without assimilating.

I don't see the Brits speaking Chinese or taking on Chinese names or the Russians taking on Turkic names but rather the locals Russianized their last names to add "ov" or "ova" at the end. In the former French colonies, many locals are born with French first names.

Which is more dominant? The existing culture or the invading culture?

In those countries, obviously the existing culture.

But all of these countries themselves had waves of immigrants that formed their modern culture, and we don't talk about the original settlers still being the dominant culture. In Turkey, for example, Ghenghis Khan and many others may have settled Turkey at one time or another, but it's the invading Arabs who established the dominant culture there. Another example, Britain thousands of years ago had waves of immigrants from the Celts, Vikings and Saxons, and Normandy, but nobody still talks about any of these groups still being the dominant culture there. The only difference with the US is that were talking a few hundred years versus a thousand years in these other countries. I'm trying to be value-neutral about this, not favoring one culture over another. I just think it's a political and economic fact.

[Anonymous]

Excellent discussion. Thanks everyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Assimilation is usually used in terms of a group coming in and becoming like the group that is here.

The British had civilian populations in China/Hong Kong for 100+ years, the Russians have been in Central Asia over 100 years, and the French had given birth in North Africa to generations of French kids. I met a 3rd generation Frenchman born in Algeria who is about 65 and doesn't speak a lick of Arabic/local language. The Brits, French, & Russians are/were cloistered in their own schools, social circles, day-to-day life without assimilating.

I don't see the Brits speaking Chinese or taking on Chinese names or the Russians taking on Turkic names but rather the locals Russianized their last names to add "ov" or "ova" at the end. In the former French colonies, many locals are born with French first names.

Which is more dominant? The existing culture or the invading culture?

In those countries, obviously the existing culture.

But all of these countries themselves had waves of immigrants that formed their modern culture, and we don't talk about the original settlers still being the dominant culture. In Turkey, for example, Ghenghis Khan and many others may have settled Turkey at one time or another, but it's the invading Arabs who established the dominant culture there. Another example, Britain thousands of years ago had waves of immigrants from the Celts, Vikings and Saxons, and Normandy, but nobody still talks about any of these groups still being the dominant culture there. The only difference with the US is that were talking a few hundred years versus a thousand years in these other countries. I'm trying to be value-neutral about this, not favoring one culture over another. I just think it's a political and economic fact.

I'm talking more recent history, like less than 200 years. When the Celts and the Vikings invaded Britain, did they speak the local language of thd Brits or did they impose their own language and culture within a couple hundred years of their invasion?

[Anonymous]

It's interesting to argue this, especially as I've always wished I chose history instead of what I do now.

But before we continue I have to say I'm not sure where we're going with it. Is it to argue that DC private schools should bend more to other cultures, including AA? Yes, I'd agree with that. But it remains a fact that the school admissions offices indisputably have all the power in this arrangement (much to all of our regret). And others have documented here that they aren't bending all that much. I.e., they probably give less weight to kids with ethnic-sounding names.

So what would be our conclusion, however we wind up on the issue of assimilation? That families should stop trying to assimilate? That might be valuable from a number of perspectives, but I submit that they might be hurting their chances for admission to the schools we keep discussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So what would be our conclusion, however we wind up on the issue of assimilation? That families should stop trying to assimilate? That might be valuable from a number of perspectives, but I submit that they might be hurting their chances for admission to the schools we keep discussing.

I think that's a question that different people will answer differently. One of the privileges of being a nonhispanic white person is that you don't have to think about it (unless you're an outsider of another sort, e.g. poor, gay or female) compared to other people who will have to confront these issues on a daily basis. I can't say what choice I think people will make, just that it should be something carefully thought through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what would be our conclusion, however we wind up on the issue of assimilation? That families should stop trying to assimilate? That might be valuable from a number of perspectives, but I submit that they might be hurting their chances for admission to the schools we keep discussing.

I think that's a question that different people will answer differently. One of the privileges of being a nonhispanic white person is that you don't have to think about it (unless you're an outsider of another sort, e.g. poor, gay or female) compared to other people who will have to confront these issues on a daily basis. I can't say what choice I think people will make, just that it should be something carefully thought through.

Assimilation has its costs. Loss of identity being one. Life is more fun with interesting people. I see so many Scandinavians who get bored with each other flocking to far away places just to experience new things, they are called culture vultures. When I was in Europe, I met two Mormon missionaries who were getting ready to come back home. I asked them what they missed most about the U.S., one of them said, "black people".
It would be sooo dull if we were all "the same". We could all have names like Arthur, David, Paul, Anne, and Sarah, that's easy, but Suri is cute, so is Keesha, Orli, Yael, Mairead, Tyrone, Barack and Dexter. We should try to accept as much of other cultures as we can tolerate. That's a start. Then, hopefully we can at least understand the other things that we find objectionable. But a name?! Heck, that's one of the easy things to live with.

[Anonymous]

How sad. still black vs white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed, 17:26, good analysis. As well, I have been on hiring committees and it is quite striking to me how much I want to hire people who are exactly like me. I have a comfort level with people like me which I may mistake for a judgment about competence. I am conscious of these feelings and admit them (at least anonymously) and I suspect there are a number of people who are not aware of this dynamic. I am very careful not to give in to this but I can see how easy it is to discriminate unintentionally.

Case in point: Researchers have found that resumes with Black-identified names like Rakeisha are less likely to excite interest and lead to a call-back than resumes with typical white names like Jennifer. And the resumes are exactly the same.

Thank you for making this point. I've been fortunate enough to go to private school and a top 10 college and what I realize is when you get to the working world it really starts to become who you know and some of what the PP was mentioning about comfort level. So you can make the argument as an AA female that there was an advantage in the private school admission. But as the admissions person told my dad - I would have done well anywhere and though my public school high school wasn't in the "best" neighborhood, there were the few kids that went on to Ivy schools. However, once you get to the working world you find out lots of people have internships because their parents worked at the company in a position to get them an internship or at a minimum tell them about an opportunity that may not have been really publicized, employee referrals get you a call back quicker than a cold call/blind resume, getting on a certain project happens because you happen to know so and so or were at this networking event and they feel comfortable around you. If your parents and your friends aren't in a position because they have been denied opportunities because of their race and the people at the company are uncomfortable around someone of a different background (and I will say some of this could be from lack of exposure) any advantage that may have been gained in education/admissions at the end of the day really only gets your foot in the door. Someone that may have never taken a look for all those reasons mentioned above well say - oh I see you went to so and so - and you get the initial benefit of the doubt. I like to think over time things will change - I think the who you know and comfortable factor will always be there but as the who you know pool has a more diverse background and people become more comfortable with people from other backgrounds things will change.