BU group offers white scholarship

[Coda]

Award meant to protest race-based scholarships

Looking to draw attention to what they call the "worst form of bigotry confronting America today," Boston University's College Republicans are circulating an application for a "Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship" that requires applicants be at least 25 percent Caucasian.

"Did we do this to give a scholarship to white kids? Of course not," the scholarship reads. "Did we do it to trigger a discussion on what we believe to be the morally wrong practice of basing decisions in our schools and our jobs on racial preferences rather than merit? Absolutely."

The scholarship, which is privately funded by the BUCR without the support of the university, is meant to raise awareness, group members say. BUCR member argue that racial preferences are a form of "bigotry." The group has a similar view on affirmative action.

The application for the $250 scholarship, due Nov. 30, requires applicants be full-time BU undergraduate students and one-fourth Caucasian and maintain at least a 3.2 cumulative GPA. Applicants must submit two essays, one describing the applicant's ancestry and one describing "what it means to you to be a Caucasian-American today."

BUCR President Joe Mroszczyk said he spoke to Dean of Students Kenneth Elmore before publicly releasing the scholarship to make sure it would be legal. Mroszczyk said BUCR members also talked to others beforehand, some of whom were initially "agitated or upset" but understood the point after members explained themselves, he said.

"If you give out a white scholarship, it's racist, and if you give out a Hispanic scholarship, it is OK," the College of Arts and Sciences senior said. "It is the main point. We are not doing this scholarship as a white-supremacy scholarship."

La Fuerza Co-Chair Sara-Marie Pons, who is also on the Admissions Student Diversity Board, said although she agrees with BUCR's claim that racial preference is "contradictory to our American ideals of freedom and equality," she feels American history justifies today's affirmative action." Our country oppressed people of color for centuries while everyone else who was 'preferred' continued to succeed and lead our country in all aspects," the School of Management senior said in an email. "The goal of a university in striving to admit more students of color is a positive movement to increase the diversity of its institution." continued:

http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/...epublisher.com

[Gary Sisco]

They had race-based educational opportunities for centuries. What's the point?

White Americans have had and still have affirmative action every day. They just call it normal life when white people benefit from it. For anyone else, it's "affirmative action."

The facts of American education disprove any other contention, including very much today.

[Gary Sisco]

Poison Ivy
Sep 21st 2006
From The Economist print edition

Not so much palaces of learning as bastions of privilege and hypocrisy


AMERICAN universities like to think of themselves as engines of social justice, thronging with “diversity”. But how much truth is there in this flattering self-image? Over the past few years Daniel Golden has written a series of coruscating stories in the Wall Street Journal about the admissions practices of America's elite universities, suggesting that they are not so much engines of social justice as bastions of privilege. Now he has produced a book—“The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates”—that deserves to become a classic.

Mr Golden shows that elite universities do everything in their power to admit the children of privilege. If they cannot get them in through the front door by relaxing their standards, then they smuggle them in through the back. No less than 60% of the places in elite universities are given to candidates who have some sort of extra “hook”, from rich or alumni parents to “sporting prowess”. The number of whites who benefit from this affirmative action is far greater than the number of blacks.

The American establishment is extraordinarily good at getting its children into the best colleges. In the last presidential election both candidates—George Bush and John Kerry—were “C” students who would have had little chance of getting into Yale if they had not come from Yale families. Al Gore and Bill Frist both got their sons into their alma maters (Harvard and Princeton respectively), despite their average academic performances. Universities bend over backwards to admit “legacies” (ie, the children of alumni). Harvard admits 40% of legacy applicants compared with 11% of applicants overall. Amherst admits 50%. An average of 21-24% of students in each year at Notre Dame are the offspring of alumni. When it comes to the children of particularly rich donors, the bending-over-backwards reaches astonishing levels. Harvard even has something called a “Z” list—a list of applicants who are given a place after a year's deferment to catch up—that is dominated by the children of rich alumni.

University behaviour is at its worst when it comes to grovelling to celebrities. Duke University's admissions director visited Steven Spielberg's house to interview his stepdaughter. Princeton found a place for Lauren Bush—the president's niece and a top fashion model—despite the fact that she missed the application deadline by a month. Brown University was so keen to admit Michael Ovitz's son that it gave him a place as a “special student”. (He dropped out after a year.)

Most people think of black football and basketball stars when they hear about “sports scholarships”. But there are also sports scholarships for rich white students who play preppie sports such as fencing, squash, sailing, riding, golf and, of course, lacrosse. The University of Virginia even has scholarships for polo-players, relatively few of whom come from the inner cities.

You might imagine that academics would be up in arms about this. Alas, they have too much skin in the game. Academics not only escape tuition fees if they can get their children into the universities where they teach. They get huge preferences as well. Boston University accepted 91% of “faculty brats” in 2003, at a cost of about $9m. Notre Dame accepts about 70% of the children of university employees, compared with 19% of “unhooked” applicants, despite markedly lower average SAT scores.

Why do Mr Golden's findings matter so much? The most important reason is that America is witnessing a potentially explosive combination of trends. Social inequality is rising at a time when the escalators of social mobility are slowing (America has lower levels of social mobility than most European countries). The returns on higher education are rising: the median earnings in 2000 of Americans with a bachelor's degree or higher were about double those of high-school leavers. But elite universities are becoming more socially exclusive. Between 1980 and 1992, for example, the proportion of disadvantaged children in four-year colleges fell slightly (from 29% to 28%) while the proportion of well-to-do children rose substantially (from 55% to 66%).

Mr Golden's findings do not account for all of this. Get rid of affirmative action for the rich, and rich children will still do better. But they clearly account for some differences: “unhooked” candidates are competing for just 40% of university places. And they raise all sorts of issues of justice and hypocrisy. What is one to make of Mr Frist, who opposes affirmative action for minorities while practising it for his own son?

The poor left behind
Two groups of people overwhelmingly bear the burden of these policies—Asian-Americans and poor whites. Asian-Americans are the “new Jews”, held to higher standards (they need to score at least 50 points higher than non-Asians even to be in the game) and frequently stigmatised for their “characters” (Harvard evaluators persistently rated Asian-Americans below whites on “personal qualities”). When the University of California, Berkeley briefly considered introducing means-based affirmative action, it rejected the idea on the ground that “using poverty yields a lot of poor white kids and poor Asian kids”.

There are a few signs that the winds of reform are blowing. Several elite universities have expanded financial aid for poor children. Texas A&M has got rid of legacy preferences. Only last week Harvard announced that it was getting rid of “early admission”—a system that favours privileged children—and Princeton rapidly followed suit. But the wind is going to have to blow a heck of a lot harder, and for a heck of a lot longer, before America's money-addicted and legacy-loving universities can be shamed into returning to what ought to have been their guiding principle all along: admitting people to university on the basis of their intellectual ability.

****************

So ... do these children exhibit their intellectualy ability from birth if white or economically privileged, or what?

[Coda]

I did my undergrad studies at B.U. back in the mid 80s. At that time the school student population was about 80% U.S. born and 20% foreign. It was affectionately known as B-Jew due to a huge Jewish population and also within close proximity to B.C. (Boston College) which was mostly Christian.

The student population today is about 80% foreign and 20% U.S. The Jewish population is now a distinct minority, in fact it's difficult to determine any one population as having a majority. This is truly an international school today.

I found the article a bit funny when reading it because of how diverse the student population has become. This school is not for parents with thin wallets and a $250 scholarship won't even cover one semesters worth of books so this clearly is intended to start a discussion about race.

When I look at the students walking down Commonwealth Ave today, the proportion of blacks seems to be unchanged in the past 20 years. I see considerably, and I mean considerably less whites today. The largest populations seem to be Asian and Indian with an increasing number coming from South America.

[Coda]

I was writing my response when you posted that last piece Gary. I agree with about everything in there as it relates to B.U. except that they're not U.S. centric anymore. They cater to the affluent from across the world and if given two affluent people - one from the U.S. and the other from foreign soil, I bet they pick the foreigner.

[Gentle Giant]

So high-yellows can apply?

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Coda

I was writing my response when you posted that last piece Gary. I agree with about everything in there as it relates to B.U. except that they're not U.S. centric anymore. They cater to the affluent from across the world and if given two affluent people - one from the U.S. and the other from foreign soil, I bet they pick the foreigner.

Yes, but that's because the rules generally force foreigners to pay up front, and to pay the entire full freight tuition.

[Al in NYC]

Re: the original post. Are most white folks really that stone-headed ignorant about our history, or are they simply that afraid of losing their privileged position (or both)?

Speaking of admission practices and the preservation of privilege, you do realize Coda the history of just why BU had so many Jewish students, don't you?

[groover]

Originally Posted by Coda

Looking to draw attention to what they call the "worst form of bigotry confronting America today," Boston University's College Republicans are circulating an application for a "Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship" that requires applicants be at least 25 percent Caucasian.

There are plenty of non-white Americans who are at least 25 percent Caucasian, though I doubt they consider themselves Caucasian-Americans. "High-yellows", quadroons, and octaroons should be eligible, though they may get a better deal than $250 via other scholarship programs.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Re: the original post. Are most white folks really that stone-headed ignorant about our history, or are they simply that afraid of losing their privileged position (or both)?

Speaking from my lofty perch as a Really White Guy, I answer loud and proud:

"BOTH."

[Al in NYC]

I'm pretty damn white myself, but having grown up and lived in areas that were mostly non-white I'm always dumbfounded at just how totally clueless and mean-spirited some white folks seem when I read stuff like what Coda posted here.

I mean, affirmative action for white people? Seriously? The whole history of the continent has been nothing but affirmative action for white people ever since we set foot here.

[Coda]

Speaking of admission practices and the preservation of privilege, you do realize Coda the history of just why BU had so many Jewish students, don't you?

No, but I'm interested to hear the story behind it. At the time when I was in school I thought it was unusual but never researched why.

[Gentle Giant]

I know that the founding of Brandeis University was a response to a quota on Jewish students that other area universtities maintained.

[jesus marion joseph]

It must have been a love of John Silber.

[Al in NYC]

GG is right on the money. BU gained a large Jewish student population because, like NYU or Chicago or several other schools, it discriminated less against Jews than did the Ivy League schools. The Ivies all placed severe limits on Jewish admissions because they were worried about preserving their white character and social standing, and many other prestigious colleges wouldn't admit Jews under any circumstances. Immigrant and overly "hebriac-looking" Jews were kept out of the Ivies altogether. So, of course, even after Ivy League discrimination had eased many of these other schools kept their popularity with Jewish students and their families. As GG notes, the situation in the Boston area was so bad that Brandeis was founded specifically to serve excluded Jewish students.

While Jews were limited, blacks and other non-whites were practically excluded from all colleges, as they were from most institutions in American life, with only a handful admitted at any time to predominantly white colleges, if they were admitted at all. Pervasive discrimination that held into living memory for many of us, and still in some significant measure persists today.

[Pete C]

By the way, don't assume that the East Asian and South Asian students you see on the campus aren't native born Americans.

[Noj]

Is it the Michael Richards Scholarship Fund?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

It must have been a love of John Silber.

AKA "The One-Armed Bandit."

What a scumbag...

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

They had race-based educational opportunities for centuries. What's the point?

White Americans have had and still have affirmative action every day. They just call it normal life when white people benefit from it. For anyone else, it's "affirmative action."

The facts of American education disprove any other contention, including very much today.

Perfect post Gary, and particularly impressive coming from a white man. Some people truly get it.

Ok, well I better get outta here. I'd hate to get busted for agreeing while black.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Perfect post Gary, and particularly impressive coming from a white man. Some people truly get it.

Ok, well I better get outta here. I'd hate to get busted for agreeing while black.

It's hard not to think you've hit a home run when you were born at third base.

[Gary Sisco]

James -- To steal a buddy's line: I'm not white; I'm Irish. ;-0

[HLJ]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

They had race-based educational opportunities for centuries. What's the point?

White Americans have had and still have affirmative action every day. They just call it normal life when white people benefit from it. For anyone else, it's "affirmative action."

The facts of American education disprove any other contention, including very much today.

Word to this my friend.Peace and all that.