I’m curious to hear where readers are on this issue of quotas, desegregation, and diversity, specifically with regard to how it affects South Asian students in primary and secondary schools (K-12).

the only area where it would affect south asians directly as an ethnic group is in parts of NJ & NY right? where else do we have the critical mass? otherwise, we'll just little brown stars in the multiracial firmament.

I don't get it, are you saying desi's only live in NY/NJ?

http://tazzystar.blogspot.com/2006/08/where-my-desis-at-and-look-they-be-non.html

Secondly, Is this a public or private school?

concentration. policies obviously aren't going to take account a group that is less than 1% of the local population.

i beleive that quotas are neccessary, but shouldn't be determined by ethnicity, but family's income. because there is such thing as poor indian american and rich african american families.

Shlok, I have a feeling that school systems that currently use various kinds of racial balancing/diversity systems may end up going the route you suggest -- family income, rather than race -- if the court rules against "desegregationism" next week.

HMF, this is a public school with selective admission (based, normally, on test scores).

And Razib, isn't it possible that immigrant minority groups could be a factor even where they constitute only a small slice of the population? In this case, it's not stated anywhere how much of the 40% minority quota at IS 239 is underrepresented minorities, and how much is East and South Asian students. Perhaps the Desi factor in this case might involve forcing school districts to either be more specific in how they define "minorities," or reconsider the generalized rhetoric of "diversity" to include a greater emphasis on economic equity.

Finally, it does strike me as an interesting irony that at the college level, East and South Asians are not considered “underrepresented minorities,” while in this case, Nikita Rau is clearly being defined as a “minority” student.

This would not be surprising if properly understood. Black and Hispanic minorities are good minorities because they underachieve to such a large extent and need government assistance. Asian minorities are a bad minority because they achieve and do it without the help of government institutions. If this is understood, then it's easy to analayze any situation. In the case of colleges, Asians are not minorities because they crowd out Blacks and Hispanics. In the case of the above mentioned school, Asians are minorities because they crowd out Blacks and Hispanics for the 40% quota.

In the case of the above mentioned school, Asians are minorities because they crowd out Blacks and Hispanics for the 40% quota.

VC, did you see this specified anywhere, or are you just speculating on that?

We know Nikita Rau's ethnicity, but we don't know the ethnic background of the rest of the 40%. If you have seen the ethnic breakdown of the school specified somewhere, please help us out by giving a link. It's entirely possible that Nikita Rau is one of very few Asian or brown students at the school.

It's entirely possible that Nikita Rau is one of very few Asian or brown students at the school.

the only area where it would affect south asians directly as an ethnic group is in parts of NJ & NY right?

Ok, so here's the link that I've found for IS 239. It's a little hard to say exactly what happened to Nikita Rau based on this data. It's entirely possible that Nikita was kept out to make room for another minority student since the Asian/Pacific Islander percentage is higher (28.2%) than those of other minorities. But I'll allow for the fact that this may not be the case.

http://schools.nyc.gov/Common/Templates/MainTemplate/CommonMainTemplate.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7b1A54F0B2-4E2F-403B-9B23-1635240B1F52%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fOurSchools%2fRegion7%2fK239%2fAboutUs%2fStatistics%2fregister%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest

From the Post article:

When Nikita recently applied to Mark Twain, she took an admission test geared toward music students and scored a 79. In May, the Education Department sent her parents a letter that said Nikita was not accepted - even though white students who scored lower on the same test were admitted. Officials told the Raus that because Nikita is classified as a minority, she would need to score at least 84.4 to be accepted, while white students needed to score 77 or more.

What going on here? Are Asians bringing up the curve? Why wouldn't the Chancellor scrap standards where black and hispanics have to score higher than whites. Am i missing something?

The Supreme Court's decision regarding the racial assignment plans of two public school districts should be issued tomorrow. The plans at issue concern the use of race as a tie-breaker in assigning students to "over-subscribed" public schools. Several legal commentators have suggested, based on whether the Justices have already authored opinions in certain cases from this term, that the Chief Justice will be writing the opinion in these two cases. As a result, one may expect the circuit court rulings in favor of the school districts to be reversed, and that the Chief Justice's opinion to be based on narrow grounds in order to command a majority and for the Court to speak (as much as possible) with one voice.

Well, Coney Island reaffirms how unfashionable it is by declaring brown the new black.

I am opposed to affirmative action in all its form.

I am opposed to affirmative action in all its form.

Personally, I prefer passive-aggression. But do whatever you think works for you.

Sirc, the Chancellor appears to be waiting for the Supreme Court decision. I agree with you that he should act independently of the Supreme Court, and do what is right. As Dave's helpful comment #11 suggests, the ruling that's probably coming down tomorrow may not speak directly to this precise case. The Louisville and Seattle cases are about racial criteria in over-subscribed regular schools; this is a case of a quota in a "special" school.

Unless Roberts declares the whole principle of diversity dead (he might), the decision might still leave some ambiguity about the policies at IS 239.

Oye Rahula, kabhi serious bhi ho ja, yaara!

I am opposed to affirmative action in all its form.

Then you should be opposed to the plethora of white recipients who've received more "affirmative action" benefits than anyone else in the US.

I think there is something postive in having such quotas --obviously not for some like Nikita. This is a school for the gifted and perhaps a different issue to a normal school.

In UK many schools have a near 90%+ asian kids and in some they are of the same religion.
This type of quotas would be welcome in these areas.
Perhaps a better mix of colours and even religion might help us get along with each other. It would mean that some kids would have to travel far to attend but Im sure would be worth it.

Sorry, Amitabh, but I've nothing useful to contribute, and a long night of work contributes to excessive punchiness :)

Seriously, what I'm curious about is how much leeway do local administrators and chancellors have in practice, and how that interacts with court orders. Specifically, one of the articles seems to indicate that the chancellor has the power to override this decision. What is the meaning of a court order then?

Perhaps a better mix of colours and even religion might help us get along with each other. It would mean that some kids would have to travel far to attend but Im sure would be worth it.

Wait a gosh darn okkaly dokkaly minute. When the same reason is used to support AA in the states, as to combat the large white-dominated everything-industry, for example, it's met with scorn and disdain that it's 'reverse-racist', 'anti-American' and 'against everything MLK stood for!'

But when it's to combat an Asian majority, all of a sudden it's a social service?!?!

From the NY Sun:
"I think probably that court order is no longer necessary," Mr. Klein said at a press conference yesterday. He stopped short of taking any action, saying he will wait for a U.S. Supreme Court decision due this week.
Rau's lawyer:
If the justices deem considerations of race unconstitutional, Ms. Arnold said she will ask the court that first handed down the decision to vacate it.

But she vowed to fight the decision even if the court defends race considerations. She said she would argue that Mark Twain's current quotas are antiquated and do not match the district's actual makeup.

well all I know is that I'm going to have trouble getting into med school just because I'm brown, despite not really ever being connected to the medical community either through my cultural community or my family. my race has nothing to do with my ability or inability to be a doctor and i've taken to calling myself Bangladeshi as opposed to Indian (don't worry, I'm at least bengali) on the central application to see what difference it might make, seeing as I really have no choice but to play their game

ehhh..Sorry about the formatting/unnecessary bolding..I meant to blockquote to indicate quotes

From the Post article:

When Nikita recently applied to Mark Twain, she took an admission test geared toward music students and scored a 79. In May, the Education Department sent her parents a letter that said Nikita was not accepted - even though white students who scored lower on the same test were admitted. Officials told the Raus that because Nikita is classified as a minority, she would need to score at least 84.4 to be accepted, while white students needed to score 77 or more.

What going on here? Are Asians bringing up the curve? Why wouldn't the Chancellor scrap standards where black and hispanics have to score higher than whites. Am i missing something?

This is an interesting tidbit. I read a book a few years ago about the recruitment process for college admissions among elite universities and liberal arts colleges that was written by a career counselor for a private high school (the name escapes me today). Anyway, one of the students that was profiled was Asian student (I think Chinese-American) from Palo Alto who was trying to get into an Ivy League. She was rejected from several elite schools. The interesting thing was that her grades, extracurricular activities and test scores were comprable to students of other ethnicities that were admitted to the schools that rejected her. In fact, she was more impressive than some of the other students profiled. One of the possible theories as to why she was rejected was that she was not held to the standard of all applicants, but was held instead to a standard of applicants in her demographic. The theory was that she had to perform better than other Asian students in order to get in and that performing better than the general pool of applicants was not enough.

I don't know where I stand on affirmative action. I think it is good in that it can operate to rectify past discrimination (which was its original purpose), but when the quotas from another time are rigidly adhered to, the end result is that some really qualified students are systematically excluded from specialty programs. If schools are going to adhere to quotas, they need to appreciate that demographic groups and their respective needs will fluctuate with time and the quotas need to be adapted. Perhaps for this reason, socio-economic criteria rather than race is a better measurement.

Shlok in #4, Amardeep in #5

An economic and need based form of affirmative action is something some of us have been trying to advocate for the reservation system in India for sometime now. Oft given explanations include

1. Caste based discrimination affects even those who are relatively not poor.

2. A person of a particular caste even if not economically poor when given such an opportunity will later act as a seed (in the form of encouragement, economic and other forms of support) to promote such development in his own caste.

3. Even if someone is economically well to do, the support structure for education in backward castes in terms of the community and within the home is discouraging or at least inadequate.

Plus there is the politics of it all which does not allow it to happen in India.

I think these issues will be quite relevant to even race based affirmative action in the US.One thing that matters more here and is something never considered in India is disparity which may tilts the equation towards race based affirmative action in the US even more.

coney island is mostly black and puerto rican. I don't think it was 60% white in 1974. It was crazy in 1974 and throughout the 80s and still mostly black and puerto rican back then, at least as far back as early 80s. Desegregation is not about making the schools mirror the community in which they are, but the exact opposite -- hence the boston riots of the same year when black kids got bused into mostly white south boston. Desegregation says even if the neighborhoods are segregated, as they are, let's mix up the schools through busing, presumably so the kids won't grow up to be the racist gorillas that their parents are.

South asians in NYC, especially bengalis from bangladesh, don't share that high income/high education demographic profile that many south asians in other parts of the US have, including much of NJ, and this might account for and justify their status as "underrepresented" minority, though I don't know if that's the case here, and most south asians (except, interestingly enough guyanese and trinis) don't qualify for lots of "minority" scholarships.

Mark Twain is public (as is any school that begins with PS or IS (public school/Intermediate school).

One of the possible theories as to why she was rejected was that she was not held to the standard of all applicants, but was held instead to a standard of applicants in her demographic. The theory was that she had to perform better than other Asian students in order to get in and that performing better than the general pool of applicants was not enough.

If I recall, the first chapter of Dinesh D'Souza's illiberal education tells the story of a similar case, i think involving berkely. california did indeed compare applicants only to other members of their ethnic group, essentially giving whites preferential treatment over asians, as is happening now at Mark Twain. SCOTUS eventually declared the admissions program unconstitutional as they surely will in regards to Mark Twain if it gets that far.

The two cases before the Supreme Court will likely address quotas. For example, the circuit court in the Parents case held that:

the District's 15 percent plus or minus variance is not a quota because it does not reserve a fixed number of slots for students based on their race, but instead it seeks to enroll a critical mass of white and nonwhite students in its oversubscribed schools in order to realize its compelling interests.

[T]he District uses the racial tiebreaker to admit students whose presence will move the overall student body closer to the preferred ratio.... By its nature, the tiebreaker aims for a rigid, predetermined ratio of white and nonwhite students, and thus operates to reach “a fixed number or percentage.".... The District created a quota when it established the predetermined, preferred ratio of white and nonwhite students.

For those interested, the circuit court's opinion in the Parents case is available here in .pdf format. The opinion in the companion case is available here also in .pdf format.

I don't expect this little girl to get much sympathy from SASA type organizations. Most are are pro-affirmative action despite the fact that it does not benefit the desi community.I expect any support that she does receive from desi "progressives" to be along the lines that the quota allocation should be changed to reflect current demographics rather than questioning raced based preferences altogether

I don't expect this little girl to get much sympathy from SASA type organizations. Most are are pro-affirmative action despite the fact that it does not benefit the desi community.

strangely, i admire the sasa type organizations for their stand on principle, as opposed to whatever happens to benefit desis. just because a policy results in a particular group being under-represented, doesn't make it unfair.

Listen! African-Americans have been the most disadvantaged. Have you heard of a poor Indian in America? Indians are NOT a disadvantaged minority.

The best thing to do is do away with all quotas. Unfortunately, this country has an ugly past history of racism, so there would be a lot of fierce opposition from certain quotas. Then again, I wonder whether, in 200 or 300 years, these same groups which claim to be on the bottom rung of every performance marker because of discrimination, will cite racism as the excuse?

*From certain quarters, excuse me.

Manju- My point is that it is odd for groups to form based on ethnicity, rally vocally when second rate academics of the same ethnicity don't get tenure but then pursue policies that make it harder for "co-ethnics" to gain admission.

From the New York Post article:

When Nikita recently applied to Mark Twain, she took an admission test geared toward music students and scored a 79. Officials told the Raus that because Nikita is classified as a minority, she would need to score at least 84.4 to be accepted, while white students needed to score 77 or more.

"Maybe you should have worked harder and got an 85"

How many of y'all have parents who would say that? I can think of atleast 1 Mr and Mrs XYZ who would.

So this is the Mutiny on vacation? :)

School Desegregation and Affirmative Action are different things, and are occasionally in short-term conflict, though supposedly subserving the same long term goal. (Although in the literal sense, one is acting affirmatively to enforce both, AA now connotes mainly the college-level and workplace actions to reduce and eliminate educational and job discrimination. And while AA was sold as a means of correcting past discrimination - really, given that prejudice and discrimination are continuing facts of life, it should be here to stay, with continual refinement of the socio-economic criteria for obtaining preferences or qualifying for quotas. The free-market, to say nothing of humans, is imperfect, and this is a way of correcting the imperfections that human prejudice brings). Desegregation is related to AA in that, a desegregated grade school environment, it was thought, would contribute to a lessening of the adult prejudice that made AA necessary.

The earlier minimum but now 'maximum' of 40% is exactly what you would want if the goal is to 'desegregate' schools. The idea is not to have a majority brown-black school, even if that mirrors local demographics. Otherwise, the school is still in effect segregated. Another way of looking at it is that the school district is mandating a minimum white representation in that school, and so relaxing school standards for whites. In other words, the AA in this school here is for the whites, so that the school does not become majority black-brown.

There are other interesting issues here - the parents seem to feel that this decision (age 11) would impact her Harvard-Princeton-Yale chances - really? I have trouble believing that. And even if it did, is that really the end of the world? (No). The article does note another 'talented and gifted' school in the same district that Nikita could attend. It's not clear why that's not good enough. The other interesting issue is whether the very process of tracking students and differentially allocating resources to schools - and thus creating 'talented and gifted' schools - is not in itself so discriminatory in impact that it should be given up in favor of a more equitable distribution of resources to schools and districts, and let the kids sort themselves out in high school.

TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE POST BUT

i just wanted to stop by and say "hi" and i fucken luv your blog. i can't believe i haven't heard of it before. i eat brown intellectual blogs for breakfast!

thank you for doing your thing,
a fan
j.f. bennett

Don't blame the AA blame the white man on that ,maybe if more minorities stuck together it would be a different story. Apathy kills.

Listen! African-Americans have been the most disadvantaged. Have you heard of a poor Indian in America? Indians are NOT a disadvantaged minority.

"Black people yelling racism, white people yelling reverse racism, chinese people yelling sideways-racism. And the Indians ain't yelling shit cuz they dead. Don't nobody have it worse than the American Indian, everyone needs to just calm the fuck down."
-Chris Rock

the school's a public magnet school.

Shortly after I graduated from my public magnet high school (that required a college-like admissions process), the school turned towards affirmative action and put aside it's purely merit-based system. My class of 420 had about 8 black people, and 20 hispanic people, most of which weren't quite the underpriviledged types. The rest were your standard intelligent asian or white suburban kid (everyone at the school was intelligent). In response to the affirmative action, the alumni, students and parents went ballistic. That system didn't even use racial quotas, even though racial quotas was the obvious stupid goal. Instead, it used "regional" quotas for various parts of the county that fed into the school. I -believe-, but I'm not sure, that the school's since gone back on some of the stuff it tried to do since then. I think instead the school board decided to offer free admissions-test lessons and stuff like that. Not too bad.

The fact that this isnt just any old public school is very important. This is a school that you apply to. This is a school where everyone around you is smart, intelligent. Everyone will go to a top-50 college. There will be your usual sex and drugs, but there are no idiots that throw their life and potential away. Peer pressure is awesome there. What sort of diversity do you want there, keeping in mind that most of this environment is only possible due to the objective nature of the admissions process?

"If we make it to 300 years from now, there's not going to be any more white people, there's not going to be any more black people. Everybody's going to be BEIGE. The whole world's mixing. Eventually we're all going to become some sort of hybrid mix of Chinese & Indian. They're the two largest populations in the world. So you can run from us now...." RUSSELL PETERS

The sooner these schools realize it & change their racial quotas...the better!

fwiw, New York has for years had a huge white flight problem in the public schools, so it's not impossible that the quota was set years ago in an attempt to keep the school from being majority-minority (which is to say, sadly, in our school system, dumped).

This does sound odd to me, because the elementary school my kid went to was about 20% white, and the middle school she's going to is predominantly asian.

Coney Island, sadly, is a strange place.

It's a great mystery to me how people, white-identified or non-white identified can actually be constrained by racial quotas in America, because with the exception of racial profiling by police officers, race is based on momentary self-identification in America. As far as I can tell (and I have a law degree from a top 5 American law school) there's nothing stopping Nikita Rau from situationally identifying as white so as to bypass the minority-restrictive quota. And then situationally changing her mind and identifying as south asian or something else in a different context when that's more in her interest. Of course, that doesn't work for racial profiling by police officers (and who knows what brown racial group they'd profile her as) but it seems to me that it would work for the purpose of checking of racial self-identification boxes when applying to schools.

Yes, I have known some poor working-class Indians in America. Spend some time in New Jersey or Queens. And some of my friends have gone through horrific ordeals, because of individual racists, institutional racism and of course post-9/11 government profiling. Brown immigrants in the US are disadvantaged minorities, even if that disadvantage takes different forms than the oppression faced by African Americans and Native Americans (and gay Americans, for that matter). The key is whether oppressed groups can learn to work together in solidarity, instead of fighting each other for scraps from the table... none of us are going to be free unless all of us are.

Now thats what I am trying to say Sarah. Let's stick together and stop the BS.

Looks like the Supreme Court has just ruled against this sort of thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/us/28cnd-scotus.html?hp

there's nothing stopping Nikita Rau from situationally identifying as white so as to bypass the minority-restrictive quota.

This is nonsense. Race has always been a social phenomenon, if she checked white because happened to be shopping at the Gap for 3 hours that day, the moment she walked on the school premises, not a single person would identify her that way. Secondly, there's no way of knowing which race is "beneficial" pre-emptively, given her score.

my first take on this mornings scotus decision is that klein should immediately go to the courts and ask that the order imposing racial quotas be dropped, as it is clearly illegal, and restore rau's constitutional rights by admitting her. this is a no-brainer.

although today's decision was a victory for a race-neutral and individual (as opposed to group) rights interpretation of the constitution, it is worth noting that the "diversity" exception, first put forth by justice powell in bakke, remains...although it is very narrow. i gather that kennedy's opinion, like powells, is the controlling one, and in it he re-affirms the belief that race can be taken into account as long as it is one of many factors and as long as it is done for the purpose of diversity. although the diversity exception is a minority view, it ironically becomes the rule of law since it is part of a majority ruling. (i hope that made sense).

please note that the way powell and kennedy are using diversity is very different from mlk's shackled runner metaphor or any view of AA to help the disadvantaged. It fact, i would argue that their view of AA is meant to help whites, since they are the ones who would presumably benefit from a diversity of backgrounds inhabiting their campus and classrooms. it is very narrow, and obviously only applies to classrooms (as opposed to the workplace) where a learning environment may be made arguably better by a diversity of backgrounds being present.

i think, in the past, left-leaning admissions officers ran with the bakke diversity exception as a way to get lesser qualified racial minorities admitted at the expense of the individuals right to equal protection, and scotus has consistently since reeled that in.

This is nonsense. Race has always been a social phenomenon

HMF, what Dave says is true. You are confusing the use of race by administrators with how it plays out in daily life. Check out this New York Times article from a while ago.

April 12, 2006
The DNA Age
Seeking Ancestry in DNA Ties Uncovered by Tests
By AMY HARMON

Alan Moldawer's adopted twins, Matt and Andrew, had always thought of themselves as white. But when it came time for them to apply to college last year, Mr. Moldawer thought it might be worth investigating the origins of their slightly tan-tinted skin, with a new DNA kit that he had heard could determine an individual's genetic ancestry.

The results, designating the boys 9 percent Native American and 11 percent northern African, arrived too late for the admissions process. But Mr. Moldawer, a business executive in Silver Spring, Md., says they could be useful in obtaining financial aid.

"Naturally when you're applying to college you're looking at how your genetic status might help you," said Mr. Moldawer, who knows that the twins' birth parents are white, but has little information about their extended family. "I have three kids going now, and you can bet that any advantage we can take we will."

Genetic tests, once obscure tools for scientists, have begun to influence everyday lives in many ways. The tests are reshaping people's sense of themselves — where they came from, why they behave as they do, what disease might be coming their way.

It may be only natural then that ethnic ancestry tests, one of the first commercial products to emerge from the genetic revolution, are spurring a thorough exploration of the question, What is in it for me?

Many scientists criticize the ethnic ancestry tests as promising more than they can deliver. The legacy of an ancestor several generations back may be too diluted to show up. And the tests have a margin of error, so results showing a small amount of ancestry from one continent may not actually mean someone has any.

Given the tests' speculative nature, it seems unlikely that colleges, governments and other institutions will embrace them. But that has not stopped many test-takers from adopting new DNA-based ethnicities — and a sense of entitlement to the privileges typically reserved for them.

Prospective employees with white skin are using the tests to apply as minority candidates, while some with black skin are citing their European ancestry in claiming inheritance rights.

One Christian is using the test to claim Jewish genetic ancestry and to demand Israeli citizenship, and Americans of every shade are staking a DNA claim to Indian scholarships, health services and casino money.

"This is not just somebody's desire to go find out whether their grandfather is Polish," said Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University who has studied the social impact of the tests. "It's about access to money and power."

Driving the pursuit of genetic bounty are start-up testing companies with names like DNA Tribes and Ethnoancestry. For $99 to $250, they promise to satisfy the human hunger to learn about one's origins — and sometimes much more. On its Web site, a leader in this cottage industry, DNA Print Genomics, once urged people to use it "whether your goal is to validate your eligibility for race-based college admissions or government entitlements."

Tony Frudakis, the research director at DNAPrint, said the three-year-old company had coined the term American Indian Princess Syndrome to describe the insistent pursuit of Indian roots among many newly minted genetic genealogists. If the tests fail to turn up any, Mr. Frudakis added, "this type of customer is frequently quite angry."

DNAPrint calls the ethnic ancestry tests "recreational genomics" to distinguish them from the more serious medical and forensic applications of genetics. But as they ignite a debate over a variety of genetic birthrights, their impact may be further-reaching than anyone anticipated.

Some social critics fear that the tests could undermine programs meant to compensate those legitimately disadvantaged because of their race. Others say they highlight an underlying problem with labeling people by race in an increasingly multiracial society.

"If someone appears to be white and then finds out they are not, they haven't experienced the kinds of things that affirmative action is supposed to remedy," said Lester Monts, senior vice provost for student affairs at the University of Michigan, which won the right to use race as a factor in admissions in a 2003 Supreme Court decision.

Still, Michigan, like most other universities, relies on how students choose to describe themselves on admissions applications when assigning racial preferences.

Ashley Klett's younger sister marked the "Asian" box on her college applications this year, after the elder Ms. Klett, 20, took a DNA test that said she was 2 percent East Asian and 98 percent European.

Whether it mattered they do not know, but she did get into the college of her choice.

"And they gave her a scholarship," Ashley said.

Pearl Duncan has grander ambitions: she wants a castle.

A descendant of Jamaican slaves, Ms. Duncan had already identified the Scottish slave owner who was her mother's great-great-grandfather through archival records. But the DNA test confirming her 10 percent British Isles ancestry gave her the nerve to contact the Scottish cousins who had built an oil company with his fortune.

"It's one thing to feel satisfied to know something about your heritage, it's another to claim it," said Ms. Duncan, a writer in Manhattan. "There's a kind of checkmateness to the DNA."

The family's 11 castles, Ms. Duncan noted, were obtained with the proceeds of her African ancestors' labor. Perhaps they could spare one for her great-great-great-grandfather's black heirs? In case the paper records she had gathered were not persuasive, she invited male family members to take a DNA test that can identify a genetic signature passed from father to son. So far, no one has taken her up on the offer. Her appeal, Ms. Duncan said, is mostly playful. Less so is her insistence that the Scots stop referring to their common ancestors as simply "Virginia and West India merchants."

"By acknowledging me, the Scots are beginning to acknowledge that these guys were slaveholders," she said.

Other slave descendants, known as the Freedmen, see DNA as bolstering their demand to be reinstated as members of the Indian tribes that once owned their ancestors. Under a treaty with the United States, the "Five Civilized Tribes" — Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, Seminoles and Cherokees — freed their African slaves and in most cases made them citizens in the mid-1800's. More recently, the tribes have sought to exclude the slaves' descendants, depriving them of health benefits and other services.

At a meeting in South Coffeyville, Okla., last month, members of the Freedmen argued that DNA results revealing their Indian ancestry underscore the racism of the tribe's position that their ancestors were never true Indians.

"Here's this DNA test that says yes, these people can establish some degree of Indian blood," said Marilyn Vann, a Cherokee Freedwoman who is suing for tribal citizenship in federal court. "It's important to combat those who want to oppress people of African descent in their own tribe."

As the assets of some tribes have swelled in the wake of the 1988 federal law allowing them to build casinos, there has been no shortage of petitioners stepping forward to assert their right to citizenship and a share of the wealth. Now, many of them are wielding genetic ancestry tests to bolster their claim.

"It used to be 'someone said my grandmother was an Indian,' " says Joyce Walker, the enrollment clerk who regularly turns away DNA petitioners for the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, which operates the lucrative Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut. "Now it's 'my DNA says my grandmother was an Indian.' "

Recognizing the validity of DNA ancestry tests, some Indians say, would undermine tribal sovereignty. They say membership requires meeting the criteria in a tribe's constitution, which often requires documenting blood ties to a specific tribal member. DNA tests cannot pinpoint to which tribe an individual's ancestor belonged.

But if tribes are perceived as blocking legitimate DNA applicants to limit payouts of casino money, experts say, it could damage their standing to enforce the treaties conferring the financial benefits so many covet.

"Ancestry DNA tests are playing a part in the evolution of what the American public thinks matters," said Kim Tallbear, an American Indian studies professor at Arizona State University. "And tribes are dependent on the American public's good will, so they may have to bend."

Under no such pressure, Israeli authorities have so far denied John Haedrich what he calls his genetic birthright to citizenship without converting to Judaism. Under Israel's "law of return," only Jews may immigrate to Israel without special dispensation.

Mr. Haedrich, a nursing home director who was raised a Christian, found through a DNA ancestry test that he bears a genetic signature commonly found among Jews. He says his European ancestors may have hidden their faith for fear of persecution.

Rabbis, too, have disavowed the claim: "DNA, schmeeNA," Mr. Haedrich, 44, said the rabbi at a local synagogue in Los Angeles told him when he called to discuss it.

Undeterred, Mr. Haedrich has hired a lawyer to sue the Israeli government. As in America, he argues, DNA is widely accepted as evidence in forensics and paternity cases, so why not immigration?

"Because I was raised a gentile does not change the fact that I am," Mr. Haedrich wrote in a full-page advertisement in The Jerusalem Post, "a Jew by birth."

Shonda Brinson, an African-American college student, is still trying to figure out how best to apply her DNA results on employment forms.

In some cases, she has chosen to write in her actual statistics — 89 percent sub-Saharan African, 6 percent European and 5 percent East Asian. But she figures her best bet may be just checking all relevant boxes.

"That way, of the three categories they won't be able to determine which percentage is bigger," Ms. Brinson said.

The whole concept of Affirmative Action is unfair at the individual level.

What I really can't understand is how people think that it 'rectifies' the discrimination of the past!!

Isn't it true that it was one set of people who were discriminated against, and a whole different set of people who are claiming it's benefits?? Also how do you acertain that a set B are the descendants of set A who were discriminated against, and set D descended from set C who did the discrimination?

It's appaling how even educated people (even Desis, who're actually hurt by it) make these pathetic claims of 'rectification' to justify such a socialist concept.

The whole concept of Affirmative Action is unfair at the individual level.

What I really can't understand is how people think that it 'rectifies' the discrimination of the past!!

Isn't it true that it was one set of people who were discriminated against, and a whole different set of people who are claiming it's benefits?? Also how do you acertain that a set B are the descendants of set A who were discriminated against, and set D descended from set C who did the discrimination?

It's appaling how even educated people (even Desis, who're actually hurt by it) make these pathetic claims of 'rectification' to justify such a socialist concept.

Well, they say that the present generations suffer from the discimination of their foremother/fathers, because their discrimination caused them to be constantly set-back, which resulted in a lack of being able to properly provide oppurtunities to their offspring, and their offspring's offspring, etc. A cycle. So affirmative action is meant to break that cycle.

It's also a way to control for the 'affirmative action' that's always been given to rich white men-- legacy scholarships, old boys' networks, etc. How else would George W. Bush ever have gotten into Yale?

It's also a way to control for the 'affirmative action' that's always been given to rich white men-- legacy scholarships, old boys' networks, etc. How else would George W. Bush ever have gotten into Yale?

Yale is private, isn't it?

If public/taxpayer-funded schools have racial preferences, then it is a bad thing. In private clubs, people should be allowed to dig whatever graves they want to put themselves in...

Well, they say that the present generations suffer from the discimination of their foremother/fathers, because their discrimination caused them to be constantly set-back, which resulted in a lack of being able to properly provide oppurtunities to their offspring, and their offspring's offspring, etc. A cycle. So affirmative action is meant to break that cycle.

We've seen how the cycle is broken, in India...

The richest of the 'underpriveleged' have an accelerated rate of reform, in the name of the poorest ones. And a whole group of middle-class taxpayers end up paying the government to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEMSELVES. Nice justice.

I doubt if this stupid quota system helps even 20% of those discriminated against in the past. And surely the richest 20% in any case.

I personally believe that quotas in the United States of America MUST be race based, and not income based. Americans of African descent faced hardship solely> because of their race for a few hundred years in North America, therefore to reverse the disgusting effect this has had on black Americans we must give them quotas solely> because of their race. If white people are poor, they can't blame the government. The government doesn't owe them any quotas. If Americans of African descent are poor, then they can blame 200 years of slavery, 100 years of blatant discrimination and 50 years of obvious but better hidden discrimination by the majority of America.

However I do believe that if we are ever able to bring black Americans up to the level of other Americans, the quota system must end. I also believe that Africans who arrived later (in the 80s and 90s) deserve no quotas because they did not historically face hardship from the US government. The US government doesn't owe them quotas.

It's a bad idea to make the comparison between India's quotas and America's quotas. The Republic of India never mistreated it's SC&STs, but the United States of America did mistreat its blacks. The Indian government has no real obligation to have quotas as it has always stood for equality, and many high ranking government guys have been low castes. But the US historically stood for racism and anti-blackism, so they must impliment quotas if they wish to be fair.

What I really can't understand is how people think that it 'rectifies' the discrimination of the past!!

Isn't it true that it was one set of people who were discriminated against, and a whole different set of people who are claiming it's benefits??

Abhinay, Affirmative Action is meant to counter the current and ongoing prejudice against people of color that is endemic in the US. It *was* sold as a way of "rectifying" the discrimination of the past, when it was started in the late 1960s, but really, that was because the majority otherwise may not have supported it (even though the US economy at the time was booming like it never has since. The unemployment rate among white adult males in 1969, around the time AA was introduced, for example, was 1.9%. In the period since, it has been as high as four times that, but rarely been less than twice that. The level of passive support for AA is usually a strong function of current economic indicators.)

The majority population is usually in severe denial about the existence of color prejudice, but it is easier to get them to acknowledge that there were severe injustices "in the past". This is why the past is brought up, and it does serve as a way of tugging at their collective conscience.

But AA is really a way of acknowledging that humans are imperfect, that visible minorities exist, and that they suffer discrimination in the labor market. Also, while it was initially seen as a 'civil rights' issue, I think it ought to be seen as a market intervention instead. Like all regulatory mechanisms, AA needs to be continually fine-tuned, to avoid creating vested interests, and to see that it is really doing the job it was intended to do. But really, it is something that should be there as long as there are racial minorities, and as long as human beings, in acting on their human instincts, practice discrimination in the workplace.

Abhinay, Affirmative Action is meant to counter the current and ongoing prejudice against people of color that is endemic in the US. It *was* sold as a way of "rectifying" the discrimination of the past, when it was started in the late 1960s, but really, that was because the majority otherwise may not have supported it

chachaji:

i don't think this is historically correct. AA was originally sold as a way of rectifying past discrimination because it was aimed solely at blacks. since they experienced state sponsored discrimination they needed additional protection above and beyond the '64 civil rights act (that would presumably be enough for those of us of color whose ancestors freely came here on airplanes or snuck in and not on slave ships), the argument goes. it's called the shackled runner metaphor as championed by mlk and it was meant to be temporary. namrata's view (55), while more crudely put, more or less mimics mlk's and the civil rights movement at the time.

the watershed moment that changed this was bakke, which found AA unconstitutional unless race was taken into account as one of many factors and as long as it is done for the purpose of diversity. in order to pass constitutional scrutiny, AA had to embrace other minorities and since then, the descendants of slave owners (white women) and relatively privileged browns like you and i have tried to get our slice of the American pie on the backs of black Americans.

actually chachaji, rereading your comment i don't think we are too far apart on how AA originated and i think it is true that some sold it that way. I would just not play down the role of slavery and government-sponsered discrimination as the justification for a policy that, at least on the surface, is profoundly un-american in so much that it violates the 13th ammendment and (less importantly) the '64 civil rights act.

If you are upset by this decision write polite letters to Carol Moore, the principal of the school, and Chancellor Klein at the Department of Education and let them know why you think this is wrong. If they hear from enough people they might let her in the school:

Carol Moore, Principal
Mark Twain Intermediate School #239 for the Gifted & Talented
2401 Neptune Avenue -- Brooklyn, NY 11224
Ph. 718-266-0814 -- Fax. 718-266-0814
Email: cmoore@schools.nyc.gov

Noblekinsman writes, “[C]oney island is mostly black and puerto rican. I don't think it was 60% white in 1974.”

I’m not sure whether this is an observation or based on statistical data. All the data I am familiar with places whites far and away the majority. A recent study found Coney Island to be almost 75% white. Check it out.

Afro American asks, “Have you heard of a poor Indian in America? Indians are NOT a disadvantaged minority.” Yes, I have. Not only heard but seen with my own eyes all over NYC, dude.

Dave writes:

“It's a great mystery to me how people, white-identified or non-white identified can actually be constrained by racial quotas in America, because with the exception of racial profiling by police officers, race is based on momentary self-identification in America.”

Racial identification is voluntary information (or in your words “momentary self-identification") on college applications. But you know as well as I that if a white person filled out an application for college admission and they checked off African-American, for example, and they subsequently secured a slot in a program or received a scholarship based on that misidentification, they would not only be disqualified once they were found out, they would most likely be refused admission becaused they *lied* on their application. In other words, there are penalties for this sort of thing.

Here is an experiment. Try changing your ethnic/racial identity willy-nilly on federal grants, loans, and other government paperwork and you’ll see how “momentary” this racial identity stuff is. If you claim to be Latino and are not, for example, and get a small-business grant or some other form of government funding based on that misidentification you will be looking at serious time for defrauding the government.

Hi Manju, thanks for your clarifying comment, and for mentioning Bakke and explaining how that affected the meaning and implementation of AA.

Affirmative action helped out white women more than it did Black people. I love how people say we don't need it but they would not have gotten their job without it.

Yale is private, isn't it?

If public/taxpayer-funded schools have racial preferences, then it is a bad thing. In private clubs, people should be allowed to dig whatever graves they want to put themselves in...

Yale receives over $200 million in federal R&D funding every year. Every institution receiving such funds is required to engage in Affirmative Action to ensure equal employment opportunities, and in addition, educational institutions probably also have obligations to ensure a diverse student body.

Yale receives over $200 million in federal R&D funding every year. Every institution receiving such funds is required to engage in Affirmative Action to ensure equal employment opportunities, and in addition, educational institutions probably also have obligations to ensure a diverse student body.

is this true chachaji? finding AA constitutionally legal is a far cry form it being governmentally mandated? what type of AA are you talking about?

I was going to suggest that we withhold federal R&D funds to colleges that engage in legacy preferences, just as the bush admin withholds funds from universities that refuse to allow the military on campus. probably we should include those schools that do not adhere to the free speech principle, as documented by the film Indoctrinate U. This would ensure a fairer, more diverse campus without having to resort to unconstitutional means.

Manju, I found this nice 6-page brief on the State Department website: Federal Affirmative Action Law: A brief history (pdf file). I don't think I can improve on it. Read the last paragraph on p.2 for the specific answer to your question. Excutive Order 11246, as amended, appears to be the crucial bit.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and do not play one on SM!

Abhinay, Affirmative Action is meant to counter the current and ongoing prejudice against people of color that is endemic in the US

Well, again here's why I think that is unfair.

a. There is prejudice, but can you measure it? If not, why have a quantitative legislation on such a subjective concept?
b. Same point again, who are the people that discriminate and who are the ones suffering from it? It always ends up that the people who did
wrong in the first place are still free to discriminate, whereas people who don't have an interest in discriminating end up taking the brunt

If Yale has government funding, then it's a pity. Maybe if the government takes out its funding, Yale would have the incentive to get the best and brightest, irrespective of color/race.

You (people from India) don't deal with racism. You (people from India) own stores in our communities (black and brown). If you were to go onto most all white campuses they would fully accept you. And you don't get followed around in stores by security ever.

If you want to disprove me just give the proof that you deal with racism in America.

Abhinay, I think you're making an argument for fine-tuning AA - and I readily concede that it can be implemented in ways that leave the beneficiaries of past discrimination, and present discriminators - intact, while harming those who had nothing to do with past discrimination and are against it today. The big question is whether the impact on society as a whole is more beneficial than the individual unfairness that can occasionally result in even the very best designed programs. That's why there is legal redress, and in the most egregious cases, people go to the Courts. So a little 'unfairness', occassionally, to some people, will probably always happen. Courts will/can decide when it is going too far in the other direction.

As far as measuring prejudice - there are any number of difficulties in doing so directly - since it apppears subjective, and is something that people do not readily own up to. I mentioned this earlier too. So you measure not prejudice itself, but its impact on labor market achievement of different groups ('races'), and normalize that for the pool of qualified candidates from different races. Then you work towards ensuring that the pool of qualified candidates from all races matches the demographic indices. So, for example, you ask how many people of a particular race are lawyers, physicists, doctors, etc, employed as such. Then you ask how many of each race were educated or have degrees in those fields, in the local area. Then you first try to get those ratios to come out roughly the same, while trying to improve the availability of candidates of under-represented races through educational opportunities.

why is racial equality the goal. i should think getting the best scoring people into school regardless of race should be the goal.

i should think getting the best scoring people into school regardless of race should be the goal.

I'm really confused on my stance on affirmative action, and reading everyone's comments, I still find myself arguing to myself what I just believed in yesterday.

One thing about "best scoring people" - is this really what we want?--- won't the best scoring people not exactly mean that someone is more intelligent but more likely it means that someone has access to resources (money to take test-prep scores, tutors in hs, etc) that would make them more likely to score higher on tests? Couldn't it be that a score that is average made by someone who has overcome economic disadvantages and racial discrimination, be just as or more intelligent, than I child who took the Kaplan SAT course and didn't have to struggle through life?

Or perhaps test scores are the most unbiased means of equating someone's capabilities?

But does that make sense? - I mean tests are obviously biased toward the wealthy; and perhaps have racial biases as well.

But does wealth really make up for a strong family unit. Couldn't a poor child who grew up in a nurturing environment have had better resources than a child from wealthy parents, but who was neglected and abused.?

I'm so confused.

You (people from India) don't deal with racism. You (people from India) own stores in our communities (black and brown). If you were to go onto most all white campuses they would fully accept you. And you don't get followed around in stores by security ever.

If you want to disprove me just give the proof that you deal with racism in America.

Ever heard of FWB-- Flying While Brown? I have Indian friends who've been strip-searched, detained and humiliated with racial slurs in airports with some regularity. I have a friend who got pulled over weekly during his commute in North Jersey-- during one stop, while they searched his trunk, they told him that he should shave his beard because it looked too Muslim. That friend is a Sikh who shaved and stopped wearing his turban after 9/11 because he was receiving death threats on the street. He also had a cousin who was beaten, dropped off by the side of the road (he is blind) and called a raghead by white racists. Two other friends were accosted in a movie theater parking lot (after a screening of 'Borat'), spat at and called n--gers.

Oh, and then there were the racist anti-immigrant rallies in Hazleton, PA and Riverside, NJ. And that whole 'macaca' business...

But does wealth really make up for a strong family unit. Couldn't a poor child who grew up in a nurturing environment have had better resources than a child from wealthy parents, but who was neglected and abused?

That's a reasonable question, but I think the answer lies in the public school system. Most public schools in the US have de facto segregation, and a quick visit to different schools will make it clear that they are not 'separate but equal.' School funding comes largely from the tax base of each individual school district, so kids from rich districts go to beautiful schools with great resources, while kids in the ghetto have to share their outdated textbooks, use filthy bathrooms and crowd 40 kids into a classroom. (A great book to check out is Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol.)

Can we really expect test scores to be equal when primary and secondary educations are very much unequal?

If public/taxpayer-funded schools have racial preferences, then it is a bad thing. In private clubs, people should be allowed to dig whatever graves they want to put themselves in...

So you'd be totally OK with the best and most prestigious schools in the country going whites-only?

"why is racial equality the goal. i should think getting the best scoring people into school regardless of race should be the goal."

Because you can't have a civil society AND racial/ethnic inequality. Eventually, you won't have a society at all. And who says we can't have both? If test scores are the sole measurement: then those who are against AA should want everybody to start the race from (more or less) the same place. My experience has been that the anti AA types are more than willing to write off entire groups of people. Can you really have equal competition without (rough) equality of education?

And maybe it's just me: but I've worked with people from elite colleges who bragged about their test scores and were completely useless.

So you'd be totally OK with the best and most prestigious schools in the country going whites-only?

Absolutley! I'd be very interested to see what happens after that.

But I'll be more interested to see why at all would tbe best colleges want to become all white, and reject non-whites with good grades or good potential. I bet you, that if that happens, the lower ranked colleges will pick up the best of non-whites and their rankings would go up sooner or later. I personally think that would be a GOOD thing (more competition) :)

Trust me, you're only afraid of something you haven't seen yet. The outcome of less intervention is ALWAYS good in the long run.

Trust me, you're only afraid of something you haven't seen yet. The outcome of less intervention is ALWAYS good in the long run.

The concept of whites-only education isn't exactly new in the US, and it didn't really go all that well. Or maybe, instead of a civil rights movement, we should have just waited until the white Southern ruling class decided they cared more about equality than having a vast source of cheap, oppressed labor? I have a feeling we'd still be waiting.

I think the problem with the whole libertarian/smith-ian concept of 'less intervention' is that the only entity it acknowledges as 'intervening' is the government. We won civil rights in this country because people stood up and fought for them, and forced a hostile government to put these protections into place. That's also how we won things like child labor laws-- would you also roll those back in the name of limiting intervention? And what about corporate intervention? I'd really like to have a health care system where penny-pinching insurance reps weren't 'intervening' and telling me I don't really need lifesaving medicines, for example-- or for that matter, that 45 million people in this country don't need health care at all.

I'm not a libertarian, but I just don't think that rampant, unchecked greed is compatible with democracy. I do, however, think racism is something worth fighting against, whether it's coming from institutions, governments or individuals.

Trust me, you're only afraid of something you haven't seen yet.

Trust me, the experiment you're talking about has already been run, and its consequences are all around us. In fact, to some extent, it is still running right now. AA is only a small ripple against the overall tide. As long as one group in society is substantially more numerous and richer than others, it will have more power to dominate and define the terms - including which other groups are 'ok', which are 'bad', which colleges are 'good', who 'deserves' better grades, how test scores should be 'normed' and how 'composite indicators' should be created that 'go beyond grades and scores'. The whole concept of 'merit' is inevitably, shall I say it, 'colored' by our biases. This does not mean we don't try harder to be objective, only, that even the best systems we could possibly come up with will still have biases. AA is a way of correcting for those biases, and the effects they have had in society over time.

Or maybe, instead of a civil rights movement, we should have just waited until the white Southern ruling class decided they cared more about equality than having a vast source of cheap, oppressed labor? I have a feeling we'd still be waiting.

Here again, the government didn't do anything special. It had to come from people's will, and that's how it happened. Do you think that if EVERY white person in the US was against the civil rights movement, would the movement have happened mysteriously? The government doesn't have a bunch of angels in it to have come up with equal rights. The people (you) did it, and I don't beleive in praising the government for what the people did.

We won civil rights in this country because people stood up and fought for them, and forced a hostile government to put these protections into place

Exactly the point! The government is always a lethargic, entitled institution holding up the works. Any real movement has come from the poeple.

That's also how we won things like child labor laws-- would you also roll those back in the name of limiting intervention?

Why are you connecting these 2 things? Child labor laws protect the rights of children (i.e. from being forced into labor), on the other hand Affirmative Action takes your taxes and tells you where you can go or not based on your race. One liberates, the other restricts.

Now health care... that's a completely different situation. Thankfully, socialists haven't had the chance to run the healthcare system here to the ground, yet. Just remember that every country with universal health care, is reverting to some form or private relief. But that's deviating from the topic here.

I'm not a libertarian, but I just don't think that rampant, unchecked greed is compatible with democracy.

It is quite obvious you haven't experienced the brunt of socialism. If you had felt it, you'd know what bliss liberty is. What you call 'unchecked greed', do you know the alternative to that? It is 'disguised greed'. Greed is inherent in humans, it won't go anywhere. Better blatant than hidden.

Trust me, the experiment you're talking about has already been run, and its consequences are all around us. In fact, to some extent, it is still running right now.

Where has the experiment been run? Please elaborate. I haven't seen any

As long as one group in society is substantially more numerous and richer than others, it will have more power to dominate and define the terms - including which other groups are 'ok', which are 'bad', which colleges are 'good', who 'deserves' better grades, how test scores should be 'normed' and how 'composite indicators' should be created that 'go beyond grades and scores'.

And that is if and only if the one group thinks as a group. My point is that, the people within the group do not necessarily think like one huge lump. Every individual has his/her own interests, and it is in each individual's best interest to recognize talent beyond race.

The whole concept of 'merit' is inevitably, shall I say it, 'colored' by our biases.

Well aren't standardized test scores objective enough? I mean if there is a test for a school that's focused on the sciences, what could be more objective than a test score in math and science? Is that biased too? How would you have me un-bias the test?

If you had merited enough, and had been turned away from something you're paying with your own tax money, you'd know.

I don't think you can fight bias with more bias, take away the discretionary power and the system will correct itself.

Ever heard of FWB-- Flying While Brown? I have Indian friends who've been strip-searched, detained and humiliated with racial slurs in airports with some regularity. I have a friend who got pulled over weekly during his commute in North Jersey-- during one stop, while they searched his trunk, they told him that he should shave his beard because it looked too Muslim. That friend is a Sikh who shaved and stopped wearing his turban after 9/11 because he was receiving death threats on the street. He also had a cousin who was beaten, dropped off by the side of the road (he is blind) and called a raghead by white racists. Two other friends were accosted in a movie theater parking lot (after a screening of 'Borat'), spat at and called n--gers.

Oh, and then there were the racist anti-immigrant rallies in Hazleton, PA and Riverside, NJ. And that whole 'macaca' business...

How come I've never seen it then. And when did this things happen if they really happen. Please so me something on youtube to prove your point. Maybe I might've been too mad.

How come I've never seen it then. And when did this things happen if they really happen. Please so me something on youtube to prove your point. Maybe I might've been too mad.

There are none so blind as those who will not see... seriously, are you paying attention? I'm sorry, I didn't hang around with a webcam to tape these things happening to the people I love. I can only assure you that I'm not making it up.

But I guess it's only real if you see it on YouTube, right? You can google the Hazleton and Riverside cases, and the George Allen 'macaca' incident, if you really, honestly don't think that brown folks in this country face racism.

Where has the experiment been run? Please elaborate. I haven't seen any

Well, if you're looking for an example of laissez-faire economics in action, here's one from an era in which free-market economics were relied upon to an unprecedented decree: Viceroy Lytton during the Madras Famine of 1877. Here's an excerpt from Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts:

Smith's injunction against state attempts to regulate the price of grain during famile had been taught for years in the East India Company's famous college at Haileybury. Thus the viceroy was only repeating orthodox curriculum when he lectured Buckingham that high prices, by stimulating imports and limiting consumption, were the "natural saviours of the situation." He issued strict, "semi-theological" orders that "there is to be no interference of any kind of the part of the Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and "in his letters home to the India Office and to politicians of both parties, he denounced 'humanitarian hysterics'."...By official dictate, India like Ireland before it had become a Utilitarian laboratory where millions of lives were wagered against dogmatic faith in omnipotent markets overcoming the "inconvenience of dearth." Grain merchants, in fact, preferred to export a record 6.4 million cwt. of wheat to Europe rather than relieve starvation in India.

Several million people died. Is that the liberty you're talking about?

Well aren't standardized test scores objective enough? I mean if there is a test for a school that's focused on the sciences, what could be more objective than a test score in math and science? Is that biased too? How would you have me un-bias the test?

You still haven't accounted for the inequality of public schools.

I apologize in advance because I haven't finished reading the court's decision, nor did I read the last 15 comments; my own reactions were getting too disorganized/long.

Rahul, while I think chancellors have a degree of autonomy (cannot speak for NYC specifically), I'm pretty sure they're still constrained by the courts, both legal and of public opinion.

Most are are pro-affirmative action despite the fact that it does not benefit the desi community.

Finally, it does strike me as an interesting irony that at the college level, East and South Asians are not considered “underrepresented minorities,” while in this case, Nikita Rau is clearly being defined as a “minority” student.

Also, I really think it's important to distinguish between AA and integration - they are related, but not the same. Amardeep, it was not so long ago that South and East Asians were considered "underrepresented" in higher education as well -- this trend has only changed in the last 10 years (in admissions), despite the popular rhetoric around the "model minority." As I mentioned, it wasn't until around 2002 that Asian Americans began to reach parity in higher education (that is, the number of APIAs enrolled -- across 4 year institutions -- reached a number close to their % in the national population). Additionally, I think it's important to qualify the argument about "overrepresentation" of APIAs in elite higher ed institutions. When you break down the demographics of the huge "Asian" category, we find that many subcommunities are left out and ARE truly underrepresented in the sense of race, and even more are underrepresented when taking into account socioeconomics. I personally think that for AA to truly be useful in education it is going to have to start looking at the intersection of race and socioeconomics. So far it is not doing enough vis-a-vis its stated goal of ensuring equality of access to higher ed. Many of the POC who benefit from AA still come from relatively (economically) privileged families. While that's well and good, I think many people had hoped AA would help communities who are kept out of these institutions have children who were able to receive a high quality education and ideally bring that education back, thus fueling the local economy and increasing diversity in local and nationwide policymaking, leadership, etc.

And while AA was sold as a means of correcting past discrimination - really, given that prejudice and discrimination are continuing facts of life, it should be here to stay, with continual refinement of the socio-economic criteria for obtaining preferences or qualifying for quotas.

Listen! African-Americans have been the most disadvantaged. Have you heard of a poor Indian in America? Indians are NOT a disadvantaged minority.

My class of 420 had about 8 black people, and 20 hispanic people, most of which weren't quite the underpriviledged types. The rest were your standard intelligent asian or white suburban kid (everyone at the school was intelligent).

Also, Manju, I have to disagree (of course). The court decision does not uphold a race-neutral vision; "racial neutrality" in the law in the context of the U.S. is inherently economically and racially biased.

I know I get up in arms about diversity, especially around education, but I am really shocked by the outpouring of racism on this thread. The way folks are defining merit, quality, and entitlement around racial expectations just furthers the point that race in this country is still a pivotal issue and that we still haven't reached a place where America's communities, rural and urban, black brown and white, have access to the basic freedoms and opportunities we expect of our democracy.