While I definitely agree with the idea behind affirmative action (you do need to artificially help the under-represented population to have that better education), I am skeptical about how much impact this would have, outside of a clear higher acceptance rate for applicants of certain backgrounds but whether they will decide to come is a different story. My understanding is that even with the UC not looking at the racial background of the applicants, almost all of the under-represented applicants probably include that info, in a not so subtle way, in their essays. On the other hand, you also run the issue of some of these under-represented students doubting themselves into thinking that they only got in because of affirmative action (not to mention the even more troublesome issues of their professors and fellow students believing in this). Anyhow, I'm just curious if someone has a link to some compelling arguments as to how this change would actually be effective (rather than just a gesture for the UC Regents to pat themselves in their backs).
BUT, let's not start getting Orwellian like much of the country at the present. Are they going to tear down the Campanile because the Sather fortune was built off the backs of the 49ers? Will they burn down Wheeler Hall because of his German sympathies in WWI? Or will Pappy Waldorf go the way of John Boalt because there weren't a sufficient number of PoC's on the team? Affirmative Action is fair. But I pray we don't start destroying our history the way the Taliban did with the statues at Bumiyan.
Building names change all the time. So do statues. Why one honors in one generation may be a scourge in the next. And you change them. And you can still teach about that history, without honoring them.
I think I understand where you are coming from, but I am not sure it is the best thing for all the offensive (to certain people) statues to all come down at once. There are some (the confederate ones and some seriously bad colonizers) that should come down now, but others that we should wait to not lump all the historical figures into a bad category.
I guess I am in the minority as I go and look at statues and read plaques in every possible situation (to the chagrin of friends/family who is walking/traveling with me sometimes). My ideal solution is to add more nuance to the explanation of the statues since knowing that these people were idolized at one point is a big part of understanding the past.
Also, because life is not a zero-sum situation, past success (particularly political ones, but also applies to others who had the privilege to make scientific or artistic pursues) almost always came at the expense of some other group of people. There is basically no real person who has a clean record if you don't factor in the context of their lifetime.
There's nothing saying that you can't teach history about unsavory characters. But no historical figure has a divine right to a statue. And no one says that it has to be a zero sum game. The Prophet Mohammad hasn't been forgotten, despite no statues, and Jefferson won't either. That said, along with coming up with the framing ideas for this revolutionary idea for a country, he was also a child rapist and owner of human beings. If we fall back on the 'man of his times' argument, then fine. But in these times, he doesn't need to be venerated. And that goes for the lot. There are thousands of Americans who've been made invisible, and never up for a statue, despite having contributed to this country in countless ways. Replace them with those hidden figures.
Also, I found it rather amusing when I stopping by some Civil War battlefields in VA and NC when I saw two different sets of plaques (one is from the Confederate side) telling different (sometimes a bit conflicting) stories of the same battle.
And on a battlefield, that's fine. But Confederate statues are only a small part of the story. For example, Clemson University is located on the John Calhoun plantation, and the main building is named after Ben Pitchfork Tillman, one of the most racist human beings this country has brought forth. The state of South Carolina protects his name, and the philosophy of white supremacy, by making it almost impossible to take his name off the buildings. And that's one of thousands.
So I'm a physicist (at least for a few more months and then I might finally leave academia and may or may not still get to do science). I know that for me and some other friends, having Albert Einstein as a mythical genius figure, particularly the social awkwardness, was kind of motivational when I was young. Relatively recently, I heard a talk from someone who is working to promote more gender equity in physics that it's actually bad that people think about Einstein when they think about a physicist, particularly since the autistic math genius stereotype actually is more likely to happen to male than female. Side note, when a buddy pushed me to talk to a girl at a bar and she feigned being impressed that I am physicist, I gave her this spill and about how she too could be a successful physicist (she was not interested afterward in either changing career to physics nor talking to me more). Anyhow, I still think people romanticizing about Einstein got more people (perhaps disproportionately male) to want to be a groundbreaking physicist.
So maybe there is some positive effect to have an idol glorified by statues (over some generic hidden figures)? TJ probably would not have written the Declaration of Independence nor invented the Dumbwaiter if he did not have the slaves, but there are perhaps still some positives from him being an American Renaissance man.
I also think my main annoyance with some of the discussion of the statue is how it is dividing people who should otherwise be on the same side continuing the long fight toward the more obvious wrongs. I am afraid that brief moments of unity will be lost before any significant changes can actually happen.
Oh believe me. If my first class citizenship requires people to basically be in the same mood for unity, then we're doomed. And if statues is the line in the sand, then my first class citizenship isn't really on your agenda.
I remember speaking at THE Ohio State, and afterward, a South Asian engineer came up to be me pissed. She told me that for four years, she'd been in the engineering department, and not one of her white professors had ever considered what her life would be as an engineer as a woman and as a South Asian woman. The default normal was a white man, and she'd just have to figure it out.
Representation matters. And while I have no problem with TJ being the architect of the American Revolution, you can't laud him as being a leading light of the Enlightenment, where myth and religion took a back seat to science and reason, and then not recognize the inhumanity in a man who in his words and deeds, considered Black people to not be human beings.
Now that I wrote that, I hope no one would confuse that I am equivalating anger from historical racial oppression to the idea of not seeing someone that's like you as the stereotypical paragon of your field. The point that I may not have elegantly articulated was that statues could have both good and bad effects on people.
If you can honestly tell me your life will improve (happier, wealthier, sleep better, lower blood pressure, better job etc.) once all the Columbus, Jefferson, Fr. Serra, Geo. Washington and Robert E. Lee statues are eradicated, then I happily buy you a pickaxe for Christmas and you can have at it. But, seriously, what will all that accomplish?
Actually, yeah. To the point that I wrote a book about that very thing. Let's put it this way, if someone in your family was raped and child trafficked, where would you like them to put the statue of the rapist?
Not sure if I'm allowed to drop a title here, but I just ordered Blackb***** on Amazon ($17.99) : ) I will read with interest. Thank you for the recommendation.
This country's history has plenty of stains. (Which country doesn't?) But, don't you find it interesting, just about the entire world would swim through shark-infested waters just to get here, to this awful, racist, patriarchy where police brutality reigns? If someone feels 'oppressed' in this country, where do you think things would be better for you? If you can give me some names, I'll move there myself!
Never think in terms of history. When you do, you automatically relegate the impacts to the past. Think instead of the evolution. White supremacy is one of the founding philosophies of this country. Systemic racism and individual racism stems from that. As we move forward, our charge is to deconstruct it.
The fact American society is attractive to non-Americans, and what they'll do to get here, has nothing to do with the white supremacist philosophy brutalizes and creates second class citizenship for minorities. I'm always fascinated by folks who use the old "America, Love it or Leave it" argument, as you do with the "Where do you think things would be better?" question. Because it's a tacit acknowledgement that you have no interest in deconstructing the thing that benefits you the most. The correct question is this: If this country says that it is the shining home on the hill, when why do we let injustice live in this country for another minute? Why aren't we better than those other countries we say we are?
My family has been here since 1745, which means that like most Black people, we've been in this country over one hundred years longer than the average white American (most white Americans descend from the late 19th century immigration). It's my right to have an America that deconstructs the society that doesn't live up to the revolutionary idea of democracy. And I don't have to leave in order to find it. It is owed.
It must be hard living in the most diverse, most inclusive, richest, freest, healthiest, most just, most tolerant, most educated liberal democracy with the most opportunity that civilization has ever evolved. And if that's not true, I'm still waiting for the name. Name the county who's done it better than us? And of course immigrants want to come to America (I'm one of them) because the conditions are better here. The whole world knows it! It's just a shame that so many Americans don't realize this. This place ain't perfect. But you'll never find that utopia.
What, exactly, is the difference between an American with dark skin and an American with white skin? I keep reading about this "white privilege", however, the vast amount of privilege in this country is "green" as far as I've seen. Let me pose a challenge to you. Could you name the major country in the world that affords it's minorities more legal, economic, and social protections than the USA? No, we're not yet perfect, but, is humanity?
My own view is that this is a correct thing to do, and for proper reasons. It is not for my benefit or my family as we are white, but as a white person, I know it is always an argument to say let them pull themselves up by their boot straps "like we did". Well, we didn't face what they face. All people face hardship, and in the case of Asian Americans, who have faced (and face) discrimination for sure, and yet despite persistent racism against Asians it is of a different character than that against African Americans or Latinos. Others more knowledgeable could expand on those differences. But to address the persistent circumstance of poverty, discrimination and generational lack of education among other groups, I believe it is the role of the State and the UC system to strive toward a fair society, a society that seeks to right wrongs, and a system that seeks to correct historic imbalances in representation among the business, academic and power class in the State. Access to UC is a finite resource. A treasure for sure. If the UC system is passive in only accepting who is best qualified, it perpetuates the bias that is built into the fabric of other State agencies, cities, communities and histories. It's a damn shame for any not accepted who are well qualified, but our motto is Fiat Lux, and if there is any light here, it is to be at the vanguard of building a more just and civil society that seeks to improve the lives of all people and peoples.
In other words, "Yeah, we're racists, but we're 'good' racists, and this time we're going to do racism the right way."
Please apply your arguments to Cal Athletics and tell me if you are still comfortable with them, especially your comment about the dangers of accepting only the candidates that are best qualified. If Cal Ahletics is a meritocracy, and I believe they are, then why not apply the same philosophy to the academic side of the University?
I am genuinely curious as to whether you believe institutional and cultural barriers in our society continue to serve as an obstacle to true meritocracy in UC Admissions for historically marginalized communities? If you do then how do you propose addressing the issue? I ask sincerely.
Can you be specific about which 'institutions' and 'cultural barriers' serve as 'obstacles'? If you can, I will stand with you and fight against it. Otherwise, if it's just 'out there in the ether,' then I can't buy it. We're ghost-hunting at that point.
I can't speak for Peetyjay but for myself I would offer things like historical and current institutional racism in housing, which influences which schools are attended, and loaning, which is related, and hiring, which is a known phenomenon, access to medical care nearby, fatality rates of African American women in childbirth compared to other groups for purely institutional reasons. Cultural barriers I would mention are how young black men are jailed for things and at rates that keep them from participating with their families, making a living, supporting their children, and thus influencing where there kids go to
school and how much support they have. Culturally, the fear black men and women live with is known to influence confidence, trust, self-esteem, hope and the rest. It's a laundry list of other things I'm only partially equipped to mention. There is to me no doubt about the inequality of society and institutions still, and thus inequity in education, housing, and health care. And all this tips the tables against certain groups more than others in a way the Nation/State is responsible for through causing, abetting or neglecting. Something that bothers me is that we've stolen the land and murdered the people native to this land for 500 plus years, and somehow expect them to just get over it and be one of us. The massacre in Tulsa much in the news these days speaks to this too, where one black man was accused of misconduct with a white woman, and their entire community was burned down and many killed. How many white men back then had raped black women? How many times did black people storm the city and burn down the houses of white folks? We expect all the best from those we persecute, and take little responsibility for our own actions. That's Orwellian right there.
If there are institutional or cultural barriers they need to be addressed long before a student is applying for college. This needs to happen at the K-12 levels, and in California primary and secondary public education is controlled by left-leaning people and has been for decades. How is it possible that institutional barriers remain after three or four full generations have gone through the system run by well meaning left-of-center people? The answer is that the approach has been wrong, and the people promoting that approach are looking around for someone other than themselves to blame after 55 years of failure.
Jerry Brown recognized this as a problem and tried to make a difference as Mayor of Oakland. He instituted special arts and military-style schools for disadvantaged youth. After a few years even he was told to pound sand by entrenched special interests. So nothing will change unless something changes.
If I were king I would totally revamp higher education in California. I would restrict the UC "research" universities to 3rd and 4th year undergraduates and graduate students. All underclassmen would be required to spend their first two years at community college, state college, or comparable private institution. This would allow many more students from disadvantaged backgrounds to gain entry to higher education and prove themselves at the level. After two years the could end their career with an AA degree, stay at or move over to the state college system for a four-year degree, or apply to the more competitive UC schools. Admission to UC should be based almost entirely on academic performance and test scores, with at most a few percent set aside for special cases.
I do realize that such a system would probably end intercollegiate athletics at the UC campuses. But we need to have priorities, right?
Everyone always loves to deflect to the "K-12" system as the solution, not affirmative action. Except you should, if you don't, know that you'll never get change on the K-12 system when it comes to desegregating it via the resources spent on inner city versus white areas. It was baked in from the start, and will be, for as long as I'm alive, and my child's children are alive. In fact, Ward Connerly said the same thing, and guess what? It didn't happen. Sorry, but the so-called 'merit' argument is dead. It never was about merit.
Forgot to say, I am a product of Cabrillo College and UC Berkeley. At that time, UCSC had intertransfer agreements whereby Cabrillo students were guaranteed admission if maintaining a specific GPA or better. Not sure if Berkeley does the same or did at that time as I got into Berkeley without this. I do think it would be great to make this program more robust because it would allow the UC system to graduate more people overall and more CA residents. I wouldn't make it mandatory though.
Great point Peet. The intertransfer program is excellent. And Cabrillo is a great JC. But, be ready for the name-change at your alma mater! Portuguese explorer who 'founded' California. The mob is NOT going to stand for that. If Santa Cruz got rid of McKinley, surely they won't tolerate Juan Cabrillo. Go Seahawks.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply and agree that the solution should begin, not just at K, but pre-K. I don't know that one state can solve that problem in a vaccum and I disagree with your conclusion as to the source of these failures in CA if you've not given consideration to correlations of the decrease in per-pupil spending and increase in student-to-teacher ratio in CA post prop-13. Additionally, the issues of opportunity go far beyond access and opportunities at the K-12 schools, though I firmly believe that is the a great place to start. I don't pretend to have the solutions, but I am curious as to whether you've found another state that has figured out the golden ticket to equality in education that has an equally large and diverse population as CA?
That's an interesting point, despite what you seem to accuse me of, and in the tradition of Cal discussion I will stick with this. I think your proposal suggests we have one size fits all. If meritocracy is what you think should exist in all cases, do you believe in welfare? Do you believe in Medicare? Do you believe in Meals on Wheels? Are you fully Libertarian? Do you believe in foreign aid to poverty stricken and starving peoples around the world? If religious, do you believe all people automatically go to heaven? I mean, we make allowances all over the place for people who are in need and for reasons perhaps of their own choosing. It's not one size fits all. No one argues that sports is a meritocracy at the collegiate level. And while sports have been a pathway for some to gain wealth and access to power, it is too narrow a pathway to address persistent unequal treatment of some groups. If society is not willing to take steps to redress the past and current downward pressure we have put on certain races in this country, and we just throw up our hands in the name of meritocracy, we are remaining complicit in the same paradigm of oppression that created the problem.
Put another way, I'm from poor people. Public education was intended to be available to all Californians. It was subsidized by the State to make it affordable to all Californians. Tuition for me was $700 a semester in 1987. I graduated without debt. If they charged the full cost, which they are closer to doing now, do you think it is alright that only wealthy people can afford to go to UC? We subsidize the poor, barely, to give them an opportunity to improve their lives and their family lives through the power of education. They might not get preferential admission, but we open the door to them economically. if we open the door this way, why wouldn't we open the door to address problems this very State and nation have created and perpetuated?
Look, I get that it's painful to consider a 4.0 doesn't get in and a 3.4 does, based on race. But it's all too easy for the ruling class to just crush people down for 400 years and then say "Hey, it's a level playing field now, and good luck!". When we know that family education, family income, quality of schools, and all the rest weigh heavily on likelihood of academic success. The poor stay mostly poor, the well off perpetuate advantage as much from good luck as anything, and the system remains inequitable based on race.
I'm a little puzzled by your first paragraph in the context of this discussion. Welfare and Medicare do not have race preferences.
I'm a big fan of public universities, but the California higher education system in huge and vast, and includes community colleges, state colleges, and the Universities. Not everyone needs to go to, or will be most successful at UC Berkeley. See my comment above to Peetyjay for more thoughts on this.
What many, here, fail to acknowledge is that obstacles to success can be a catalyst rather than a deterrent. Yes, some folks, for many reasons, find it more difficult to succeed academically. I submit that those people, if they persevere, wind up more successful than those for whom academics came easy, for whatever reason.
Why are you going here? I thought this was a Cal sports site?
Since you did go here, it's shocking and sad that anyone in 2020 would support this blatantly racist effort to exclude Asian-Americans from the UC system in favor of more politically connected citizens.
Clearly, you've not been following CBG and WFC for that long. We've had lengthy civic discussions on this very topic as well as other non-Sports related subjects that affect our University. Between the hive mind of WFC and handlers, we've done a tremendous job in making this one of the few places where we can discuss divisive topics with civility. That is such a rare occurrence, I am hard pressed to find any other online forum where this is the case.
I'm familiar with what happens at Bear Insider when discussions go political. It almost always ends with bitter comments and people saying things they wouldn't say to a fellow Bear in a person-to-person conversation at a game or afterward while having a few adult beverages.
Since WFC is relatively new, I was kind of hoping they would stick more closely with Cal Athletics. Note that this topic was brought up by a staff writer and not a poster, as happens on the BI forum. I do understand that without active sports, the writers are scratching around for topics to write about.
I can't speak to BI as I've never partaken, in part, because the community of posters on here is so stellar I have no reason to go elsewhere. These things are discussed in hearty doses even when sports are active. My sense is that WCF (and the old CGB) is a community of thinkers and as such, have the ability to disagree without ad hominem attacks and similar antics. Not saying there haven't been moments of tension, but the moderators usually put it in check and the hive mind usually runs the trolls out pretty quickly.
It's appropriate. Anything involving college admissions will have an impact on student athletes, either in terms of eligibility requirements, potential for walk-ons, flexibility for those student-athletes who may have partial scholarships and need access to other funds, etc.
The recent college admissions scandal exposed the intersection of sports and college admissions as the "side door" involved allowing under-qualified applicants through the use of sports that, let's be honest, are primarily white - rowing, sailing, water polo, etc.
Meanwhile, Asian Americans will definitely get hit negatively affirmative action at Cal, but we can talk about that another time after some chance at reflection and reviewing what the new affirmative action, if implemented, will look like. Hopefully, they'll look at the different groups with in the Asian-American community and recognize it's not some monolithic group where everyone is exactly the same. Also, we need to address the legacies at private schools which are just another way to admit under-qualified applicants.
Finally, affirmative action should only be a band-aid. We need to focus on rebuilding the support structure around K-12 education for those in primarily poor, minority neighborhoods. We need to change how those schools are funded, moving away from the reliance on local property taxes which may have worked fine 100-200 years ago, but just doesn't work now. Most importantly, we need to assist those neighborhoods in basic support more affluent families have - stable home environment, parents able to oversee the education at the home, clothes, food, school supplies, etc., all the way down to a functioning laundry washing machine - just basic things you and I may not think of but matter so much for a child's educational development and potential.
Im 100% for anyone from low economic backgrounds getting a fairer chance at getting into UC's - aka where the private school you come from doesn't have such a large impact on your chances of getting in if you're of roughly equal intelligence. How to do that, or start the process, is going to be too much effort for most politicians who are just going for public support sadly. There's also no way they'll take any time to distinguish between different Asian groups, let alone African, European, etc.
What they're trying to do now, is frankly pretty stupid and just comes across as pandering to the current social climate (just like Nanci Pelosi suddenly realizing there's confederate portraits in the capital...lol). Here's why I have issues with this:
1) special preferences for race, ethnicity and sex - I find it interesting they put both "race" and "ethnicity" as factors, so what weight are they putting on skin color vs what culture you identify as a part of? What treatment would a white South African get? Or a black Englishman? They also added sex, thats surprising...because (see next)
2) If you're saying you want "equality" to minority groups based upon sex...females are the majority in population of CA (50.2%) but in the UC system they make up 53% of the student population. So are they saying for fairness they'll actually refuse females applications in favor of men to better represent the population?
3) Fairness based on race/ethnic group: So this is going to hurt Asian-Americans the most, by far, and help Latino's and Caucasian's the most (by FAR). If we are just going off of a "fair" representation of the population of the state...they'll cut 18% of the Asian student body, increase Caucasian's enrollment by 16%, Latinos by 17%, and African-American's by 2%? Anything else wouldnt be fair, after all.
So really it seems like a mess is about to happen, because they're implying its to help minority populations (specifically African American)...but in reality its apparently going to help male Latino's and Caucasians the most. And if they dont abide by their own new law, they'll start getting sued until they do or it goes away (again).
>There's also no way they'll take any time to distinguish between different Asian groups, let alone African, European, etc.
FWIW, UCSF's definition of underrepresented minorities does include Filipinx, Vietnamese, and Hmong. That gives me hope that new affirmative action measures will disaggregate the "Asian American" category to allow for a more nuanced approach.
This site has been covering big non-athletics developments since at least the SBN days, including university rankings, academic developments, and Nobel wins.
This is news that would have significant impact on the university if passed and is thus cover-worthy.
Plus, the brass wants a greater dedication to "issues and stories pertaining particularly to the black Cal community, whose contributions to our athletic success are immeasurable"
And this is where "the brass" and I differ. Isn't it about time we joined the 21st century and stopped looking at people through the nonsensical, and irrelevant, characteristic of their skin color? Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that this, number one public college in America has an admissions policy that rewards both intelligence and character? And not this silly, and divisive, nonsense about skin color?
I respectfully think it is absolutely appropriate for this site, like all other Cal sports sites, to discuss matters of major campus policies that impact the lives of student athletes. Student athletes on our football and basketball teams are predominately African-American and so this is a worthy topic of discussion, no matter one's view.
General Question: What is the missing 20%? Is it International students, mixed students or people who 'Decline to State'? By my count: 33 + 21 + 22 + 4 = 80.
Also, if you assume that 20% unknown figure remains, and reduce the census percentage accordingly, this doesn't really seem to help African Americans all that much as they would represent 4% of the student population when their state percentage is 4.8%. If anything this would increase the number of whites and latin students. But that is assuming the UC system tries to apportion everything according to census percentages, and I don't know what they envision.
had slightly different numbers for 2019 but it looks like the rest was mainly international students (16%). Also weirdly I got all the other totals (33, 21 and 4) on undergrads only but the H/L number of of 22 is for all students. The percentage of white students actually goes up massively for grad school (32%) as does international (29), while Asian (19) and Hispanic/Latino (10) go down a lot, while the African American percentage stays the same (4).
While I definitely agree with the idea behind affirmative action (you do need to artificially help the under-represented population to have that better education), I am skeptical about how much impact this would have, outside of a clear higher acceptance rate for applicants of certain backgrounds but whether they will decide to come is a different story. My understanding is that even with the UC not looking at the racial background of the applicants, almost all of the under-represented applicants probably include that info, in a not so subtle way, in their essays. On the other hand, you also run the issue of some of these under-represented students doubting themselves into thinking that they only got in because of affirmative action (not to mention the even more troublesome issues of their professors and fellow students believing in this). Anyhow, I'm just curious if someone has a link to some compelling arguments as to how this change would actually be effective (rather than just a gesture for the UC Regents to pat themselves in their backs).
Fair enough .... I can live with that decision.
BUT, let's not start getting Orwellian like much of the country at the present. Are they going to tear down the Campanile because the Sather fortune was built off the backs of the 49ers? Will they burn down Wheeler Hall because of his German sympathies in WWI? Or will Pappy Waldorf go the way of John Boalt because there weren't a sufficient number of PoC's on the team? Affirmative Action is fair. But I pray we don't start destroying our history the way the Taliban did with the statues at Bumiyan.
Building names change all the time. So do statues. Why one honors in one generation may be a scourge in the next. And you change them. And you can still teach about that history, without honoring them.
I think I understand where you are coming from, but I am not sure it is the best thing for all the offensive (to certain people) statues to all come down at once. There are some (the confederate ones and some seriously bad colonizers) that should come down now, but others that we should wait to not lump all the historical figures into a bad category.
I guess I am in the minority as I go and look at statues and read plaques in every possible situation (to the chagrin of friends/family who is walking/traveling with me sometimes). My ideal solution is to add more nuance to the explanation of the statues since knowing that these people were idolized at one point is a big part of understanding the past.
Also, because life is not a zero-sum situation, past success (particularly political ones, but also applies to others who had the privilege to make scientific or artistic pursues) almost always came at the expense of some other group of people. There is basically no real person who has a clean record if you don't factor in the context of their lifetime.
There's nothing saying that you can't teach history about unsavory characters. But no historical figure has a divine right to a statue. And no one says that it has to be a zero sum game. The Prophet Mohammad hasn't been forgotten, despite no statues, and Jefferson won't either. That said, along with coming up with the framing ideas for this revolutionary idea for a country, he was also a child rapist and owner of human beings. If we fall back on the 'man of his times' argument, then fine. But in these times, he doesn't need to be venerated. And that goes for the lot. There are thousands of Americans who've been made invisible, and never up for a statue, despite having contributed to this country in countless ways. Replace them with those hidden figures.
Also, I found it rather amusing when I stopping by some Civil War battlefields in VA and NC when I saw two different sets of plaques (one is from the Confederate side) telling different (sometimes a bit conflicting) stories of the same battle.
And on a battlefield, that's fine. But Confederate statues are only a small part of the story. For example, Clemson University is located on the John Calhoun plantation, and the main building is named after Ben Pitchfork Tillman, one of the most racist human beings this country has brought forth. The state of South Carolina protects his name, and the philosophy of white supremacy, by making it almost impossible to take his name off the buildings. And that's one of thousands.
So I'm a physicist (at least for a few more months and then I might finally leave academia and may or may not still get to do science). I know that for me and some other friends, having Albert Einstein as a mythical genius figure, particularly the social awkwardness, was kind of motivational when I was young. Relatively recently, I heard a talk from someone who is working to promote more gender equity in physics that it's actually bad that people think about Einstein when they think about a physicist, particularly since the autistic math genius stereotype actually is more likely to happen to male than female. Side note, when a buddy pushed me to talk to a girl at a bar and she feigned being impressed that I am physicist, I gave her this spill and about how she too could be a successful physicist (she was not interested afterward in either changing career to physics nor talking to me more). Anyhow, I still think people romanticizing about Einstein got more people (perhaps disproportionately male) to want to be a groundbreaking physicist.
So maybe there is some positive effect to have an idol glorified by statues (over some generic hidden figures)? TJ probably would not have written the Declaration of Independence nor invented the Dumbwaiter if he did not have the slaves, but there are perhaps still some positives from him being an American Renaissance man.
I also think my main annoyance with some of the discussion of the statue is how it is dividing people who should otherwise be on the same side continuing the long fight toward the more obvious wrongs. I am afraid that brief moments of unity will be lost before any significant changes can actually happen.
Oh believe me. If my first class citizenship requires people to basically be in the same mood for unity, then we're doomed. And if statues is the line in the sand, then my first class citizenship isn't really on your agenda.
I remember speaking at THE Ohio State, and afterward, a South Asian engineer came up to be me pissed. She told me that for four years, she'd been in the engineering department, and not one of her white professors had ever considered what her life would be as an engineer as a woman and as a South Asian woman. The default normal was a white man, and she'd just have to figure it out.
Representation matters. And while I have no problem with TJ being the architect of the American Revolution, you can't laud him as being a leading light of the Enlightenment, where myth and religion took a back seat to science and reason, and then not recognize the inhumanity in a man who in his words and deeds, considered Black people to not be human beings.
Now that I wrote that, I hope no one would confuse that I am equivalating anger from historical racial oppression to the idea of not seeing someone that's like you as the stereotypical paragon of your field. The point that I may not have elegantly articulated was that statues could have both good and bad effects on people.
If you can honestly tell me your life will improve (happier, wealthier, sleep better, lower blood pressure, better job etc.) once all the Columbus, Jefferson, Fr. Serra, Geo. Washington and Robert E. Lee statues are eradicated, then I happily buy you a pickaxe for Christmas and you can have at it. But, seriously, what will all that accomplish?
Actually, yeah. To the point that I wrote a book about that very thing. Let's put it this way, if someone in your family was raped and child trafficked, where would you like them to put the statue of the rapist?
Not sure if I'm allowed to drop a title here, but I just ordered Blackb***** on Amazon ($17.99) : ) I will read with interest. Thank you for the recommendation.
This country's history has plenty of stains. (Which country doesn't?) But, don't you find it interesting, just about the entire world would swim through shark-infested waters just to get here, to this awful, racist, patriarchy where police brutality reigns? If someone feels 'oppressed' in this country, where do you think things would be better for you? If you can give me some names, I'll move there myself!
Never think in terms of history. When you do, you automatically relegate the impacts to the past. Think instead of the evolution. White supremacy is one of the founding philosophies of this country. Systemic racism and individual racism stems from that. As we move forward, our charge is to deconstruct it.
The fact American society is attractive to non-Americans, and what they'll do to get here, has nothing to do with the white supremacist philosophy brutalizes and creates second class citizenship for minorities. I'm always fascinated by folks who use the old "America, Love it or Leave it" argument, as you do with the "Where do you think things would be better?" question. Because it's a tacit acknowledgement that you have no interest in deconstructing the thing that benefits you the most. The correct question is this: If this country says that it is the shining home on the hill, when why do we let injustice live in this country for another minute? Why aren't we better than those other countries we say we are?
My family has been here since 1745, which means that like most Black people, we've been in this country over one hundred years longer than the average white American (most white Americans descend from the late 19th century immigration). It's my right to have an America that deconstructs the society that doesn't live up to the revolutionary idea of democracy. And I don't have to leave in order to find it. It is owed.
It must be hard living in the most diverse, most inclusive, richest, freest, healthiest, most just, most tolerant, most educated liberal democracy with the most opportunity that civilization has ever evolved. And if that's not true, I'm still waiting for the name. Name the county who's done it better than us? And of course immigrants want to come to America (I'm one of them) because the conditions are better here. The whole world knows it! It's just a shame that so many Americans don't realize this. This place ain't perfect. But you'll never find that utopia.
What, exactly, is the difference between an American with dark skin and an American with white skin? I keep reading about this "white privilege", however, the vast amount of privilege in this country is "green" as far as I've seen. Let me pose a challenge to you. Could you name the major country in the world that affords it's minorities more legal, economic, and social protections than the USA? No, we're not yet perfect, but, is humanity?
My own view is that this is a correct thing to do, and for proper reasons. It is not for my benefit or my family as we are white, but as a white person, I know it is always an argument to say let them pull themselves up by their boot straps "like we did". Well, we didn't face what they face. All people face hardship, and in the case of Asian Americans, who have faced (and face) discrimination for sure, and yet despite persistent racism against Asians it is of a different character than that against African Americans or Latinos. Others more knowledgeable could expand on those differences. But to address the persistent circumstance of poverty, discrimination and generational lack of education among other groups, I believe it is the role of the State and the UC system to strive toward a fair society, a society that seeks to right wrongs, and a system that seeks to correct historic imbalances in representation among the business, academic and power class in the State. Access to UC is a finite resource. A treasure for sure. If the UC system is passive in only accepting who is best qualified, it perpetuates the bias that is built into the fabric of other State agencies, cities, communities and histories. It's a damn shame for any not accepted who are well qualified, but our motto is Fiat Lux, and if there is any light here, it is to be at the vanguard of building a more just and civil society that seeks to improve the lives of all people and peoples.
In other words, "Yeah, we're racists, but we're 'good' racists, and this time we're going to do racism the right way."
Please apply your arguments to Cal Athletics and tell me if you are still comfortable with them, especially your comment about the dangers of accepting only the candidates that are best qualified. If Cal Ahletics is a meritocracy, and I believe they are, then why not apply the same philosophy to the academic side of the University?
I am genuinely curious as to whether you believe institutional and cultural barriers in our society continue to serve as an obstacle to true meritocracy in UC Admissions for historically marginalized communities? If you do then how do you propose addressing the issue? I ask sincerely.
Can you be specific about which 'institutions' and 'cultural barriers' serve as 'obstacles'? If you can, I will stand with you and fight against it. Otherwise, if it's just 'out there in the ether,' then I can't buy it. We're ghost-hunting at that point.
I can't speak for Peetyjay but for myself I would offer things like historical and current institutional racism in housing, which influences which schools are attended, and loaning, which is related, and hiring, which is a known phenomenon, access to medical care nearby, fatality rates of African American women in childbirth compared to other groups for purely institutional reasons. Cultural barriers I would mention are how young black men are jailed for things and at rates that keep them from participating with their families, making a living, supporting their children, and thus influencing where there kids go to
school and how much support they have. Culturally, the fear black men and women live with is known to influence confidence, trust, self-esteem, hope and the rest. It's a laundry list of other things I'm only partially equipped to mention. There is to me no doubt about the inequality of society and institutions still, and thus inequity in education, housing, and health care. And all this tips the tables against certain groups more than others in a way the Nation/State is responsible for through causing, abetting or neglecting. Something that bothers me is that we've stolen the land and murdered the people native to this land for 500 plus years, and somehow expect them to just get over it and be one of us. The massacre in Tulsa much in the news these days speaks to this too, where one black man was accused of misconduct with a white woman, and their entire community was burned down and many killed. How many white men back then had raped black women? How many times did black people storm the city and burn down the houses of white folks? We expect all the best from those we persecute, and take little responsibility for our own actions. That's Orwellian right there.
If there are institutional or cultural barriers they need to be addressed long before a student is applying for college. This needs to happen at the K-12 levels, and in California primary and secondary public education is controlled by left-leaning people and has been for decades. How is it possible that institutional barriers remain after three or four full generations have gone through the system run by well meaning left-of-center people? The answer is that the approach has been wrong, and the people promoting that approach are looking around for someone other than themselves to blame after 55 years of failure.
Jerry Brown recognized this as a problem and tried to make a difference as Mayor of Oakland. He instituted special arts and military-style schools for disadvantaged youth. After a few years even he was told to pound sand by entrenched special interests. So nothing will change unless something changes.
If I were king I would totally revamp higher education in California. I would restrict the UC "research" universities to 3rd and 4th year undergraduates and graduate students. All underclassmen would be required to spend their first two years at community college, state college, or comparable private institution. This would allow many more students from disadvantaged backgrounds to gain entry to higher education and prove themselves at the level. After two years the could end their career with an AA degree, stay at or move over to the state college system for a four-year degree, or apply to the more competitive UC schools. Admission to UC should be based almost entirely on academic performance and test scores, with at most a few percent set aside for special cases.
I do realize that such a system would probably end intercollegiate athletics at the UC campuses. But we need to have priorities, right?
Everyone always loves to deflect to the "K-12" system as the solution, not affirmative action. Except you should, if you don't, know that you'll never get change on the K-12 system when it comes to desegregating it via the resources spent on inner city versus white areas. It was baked in from the start, and will be, for as long as I'm alive, and my child's children are alive. In fact, Ward Connerly said the same thing, and guess what? It didn't happen. Sorry, but the so-called 'merit' argument is dead. It never was about merit.
Forgot to say, I am a product of Cabrillo College and UC Berkeley. At that time, UCSC had intertransfer agreements whereby Cabrillo students were guaranteed admission if maintaining a specific GPA or better. Not sure if Berkeley does the same or did at that time as I got into Berkeley without this. I do think it would be great to make this program more robust because it would allow the UC system to graduate more people overall and more CA residents. I wouldn't make it mandatory though.
Great point Peet. The intertransfer program is excellent. And Cabrillo is a great JC. But, be ready for the name-change at your alma mater! Portuguese explorer who 'founded' California. The mob is NOT going to stand for that. If Santa Cruz got rid of McKinley, surely they won't tolerate Juan Cabrillo. Go Seahawks.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply and agree that the solution should begin, not just at K, but pre-K. I don't know that one state can solve that problem in a vaccum and I disagree with your conclusion as to the source of these failures in CA if you've not given consideration to correlations of the decrease in per-pupil spending and increase in student-to-teacher ratio in CA post prop-13. Additionally, the issues of opportunity go far beyond access and opportunities at the K-12 schools, though I firmly believe that is the a great place to start. I don't pretend to have the solutions, but I am curious as to whether you've found another state that has figured out the golden ticket to equality in education that has an equally large and diverse population as CA?
That's an interesting point, despite what you seem to accuse me of, and in the tradition of Cal discussion I will stick with this. I think your proposal suggests we have one size fits all. If meritocracy is what you think should exist in all cases, do you believe in welfare? Do you believe in Medicare? Do you believe in Meals on Wheels? Are you fully Libertarian? Do you believe in foreign aid to poverty stricken and starving peoples around the world? If religious, do you believe all people automatically go to heaven? I mean, we make allowances all over the place for people who are in need and for reasons perhaps of their own choosing. It's not one size fits all. No one argues that sports is a meritocracy at the collegiate level. And while sports have been a pathway for some to gain wealth and access to power, it is too narrow a pathway to address persistent unequal treatment of some groups. If society is not willing to take steps to redress the past and current downward pressure we have put on certain races in this country, and we just throw up our hands in the name of meritocracy, we are remaining complicit in the same paradigm of oppression that created the problem.
Put another way, I'm from poor people. Public education was intended to be available to all Californians. It was subsidized by the State to make it affordable to all Californians. Tuition for me was $700 a semester in 1987. I graduated without debt. If they charged the full cost, which they are closer to doing now, do you think it is alright that only wealthy people can afford to go to UC? We subsidize the poor, barely, to give them an opportunity to improve their lives and their family lives through the power of education. They might not get preferential admission, but we open the door to them economically. if we open the door this way, why wouldn't we open the door to address problems this very State and nation have created and perpetuated?
Look, I get that it's painful to consider a 4.0 doesn't get in and a 3.4 does, based on race. But it's all too easy for the ruling class to just crush people down for 400 years and then say "Hey, it's a level playing field now, and good luck!". When we know that family education, family income, quality of schools, and all the rest weigh heavily on likelihood of academic success. The poor stay mostly poor, the well off perpetuate advantage as much from good luck as anything, and the system remains inequitable based on race.
I'm a little puzzled by your first paragraph in the context of this discussion. Welfare and Medicare do not have race preferences.
I'm a big fan of public universities, but the California higher education system in huge and vast, and includes community colleges, state colleges, and the Universities. Not everyone needs to go to, or will be most successful at UC Berkeley. See my comment above to Peetyjay for more thoughts on this.
What many, here, fail to acknowledge is that obstacles to success can be a catalyst rather than a deterrent. Yes, some folks, for many reasons, find it more difficult to succeed academically. I submit that those people, if they persevere, wind up more successful than those for whom academics came easy, for whatever reason.
Why are you going here? I thought this was a Cal sports site?
Since you did go here, it's shocking and sad that anyone in 2020 would support this blatantly racist effort to exclude Asian-Americans from the UC system in favor of more politically connected citizens.
Clearly, you've not been following CBG and WFC for that long. We've had lengthy civic discussions on this very topic as well as other non-Sports related subjects that affect our University. Between the hive mind of WFC and handlers, we've done a tremendous job in making this one of the few places where we can discuss divisive topics with civility. That is such a rare occurrence, I am hard pressed to find any other online forum where this is the case.
I'm familiar with what happens at Bear Insider when discussions go political. It almost always ends with bitter comments and people saying things they wouldn't say to a fellow Bear in a person-to-person conversation at a game or afterward while having a few adult beverages.
Since WFC is relatively new, I was kind of hoping they would stick more closely with Cal Athletics. Note that this topic was brought up by a staff writer and not a poster, as happens on the BI forum. I do understand that without active sports, the writers are scratching around for topics to write about.
WFC isn't truly new though, it's essentially the same staff that used to be running California Golden Blogs, they just moved over here.
I think it's incumbent upon people to engage thoughtfully and respectfully, and for the most part Cal people are good at that.
I can't speak to BI as I've never partaken, in part, because the community of posters on here is so stellar I have no reason to go elsewhere. These things are discussed in hearty doses even when sports are active. My sense is that WCF (and the old CGB) is a community of thinkers and as such, have the ability to disagree without ad hominem attacks and similar antics. Not saying there haven't been moments of tension, but the moderators usually put it in check and the hive mind usually runs the trolls out pretty quickly.
It's appropriate. Anything involving college admissions will have an impact on student athletes, either in terms of eligibility requirements, potential for walk-ons, flexibility for those student-athletes who may have partial scholarships and need access to other funds, etc.
The recent college admissions scandal exposed the intersection of sports and college admissions as the "side door" involved allowing under-qualified applicants through the use of sports that, let's be honest, are primarily white - rowing, sailing, water polo, etc.
Meanwhile, Asian Americans will definitely get hit negatively affirmative action at Cal, but we can talk about that another time after some chance at reflection and reviewing what the new affirmative action, if implemented, will look like. Hopefully, they'll look at the different groups with in the Asian-American community and recognize it's not some monolithic group where everyone is exactly the same. Also, we need to address the legacies at private schools which are just another way to admit under-qualified applicants.
Finally, affirmative action should only be a band-aid. We need to focus on rebuilding the support structure around K-12 education for those in primarily poor, minority neighborhoods. We need to change how those schools are funded, moving away from the reliance on local property taxes which may have worked fine 100-200 years ago, but just doesn't work now. Most importantly, we need to assist those neighborhoods in basic support more affluent families have - stable home environment, parents able to oversee the education at the home, clothes, food, school supplies, etc., all the way down to a functioning laundry washing machine - just basic things you and I may not think of but matter so much for a child's educational development and potential.
Im 100% for anyone from low economic backgrounds getting a fairer chance at getting into UC's - aka where the private school you come from doesn't have such a large impact on your chances of getting in if you're of roughly equal intelligence. How to do that, or start the process, is going to be too much effort for most politicians who are just going for public support sadly. There's also no way they'll take any time to distinguish between different Asian groups, let alone African, European, etc.
What they're trying to do now, is frankly pretty stupid and just comes across as pandering to the current social climate (just like Nanci Pelosi suddenly realizing there's confederate portraits in the capital...lol). Here's why I have issues with this:
1) special preferences for race, ethnicity and sex - I find it interesting they put both "race" and "ethnicity" as factors, so what weight are they putting on skin color vs what culture you identify as a part of? What treatment would a white South African get? Or a black Englishman? They also added sex, thats surprising...because (see next)
2) If you're saying you want "equality" to minority groups based upon sex...females are the majority in population of CA (50.2%) but in the UC system they make up 53% of the student population. So are they saying for fairness they'll actually refuse females applications in favor of men to better represent the population?
3) Fairness based on race/ethnic group: So this is going to hurt Asian-Americans the most, by far, and help Latino's and Caucasian's the most (by FAR). If we are just going off of a "fair" representation of the population of the state...they'll cut 18% of the Asian student body, increase Caucasian's enrollment by 16%, Latinos by 17%, and African-American's by 2%? Anything else wouldnt be fair, after all.
So really it seems like a mess is about to happen, because they're implying its to help minority populations (specifically African American)...but in reality its apparently going to help male Latino's and Caucasians the most. And if they dont abide by their own new law, they'll start getting sued until they do or it goes away (again).
>There's also no way they'll take any time to distinguish between different Asian groups, let alone African, European, etc.
FWIW, UCSF's definition of underrepresented minorities does include Filipinx, Vietnamese, and Hmong. That gives me hope that new affirmative action measures will disaggregate the "Asian American" category to allow for a more nuanced approach.
This site has been covering big non-athletics developments since at least the SBN days, including university rankings, academic developments, and Nobel wins.
This is news that would have significant impact on the university if passed and is thus cover-worthy.
Plus, the brass wants a greater dedication to "issues and stories pertaining particularly to the black Cal community, whose contributions to our athletic success are immeasurable"
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/a-joint-statement-from-cal-rivals
And this is where "the brass" and I differ. Isn't it about time we joined the 21st century and stopped looking at people through the nonsensical, and irrelevant, characteristic of their skin color? Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that this, number one public college in America has an admissions policy that rewards both intelligence and character? And not this silly, and divisive, nonsense about skin color?
I respectfully think it is absolutely appropriate for this site, like all other Cal sports sites, to discuss matters of major campus policies that impact the lives of student athletes. Student athletes on our football and basketball teams are predominately African-American and so this is a worthy topic of discussion, no matter one's view.
General Question: What is the missing 20%? Is it International students, mixed students or people who 'Decline to State'? By my count: 33 + 21 + 22 + 4 = 80.
Also, if you assume that 20% unknown figure remains, and reduce the census percentage accordingly, this doesn't really seem to help African Americans all that much as they would represent 4% of the student population when their state percentage is 4.8%. If anything this would increase the number of whites and latin students. But that is assuming the UC system tries to apportion everything according to census percentages, and I don't know what they envision.
This site https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-glance
had slightly different numbers for 2019 but it looks like the rest was mainly international students (16%). Also weirdly I got all the other totals (33, 21 and 4) on undergrads only but the H/L number of of 22 is for all students. The percentage of white students actually goes up massively for grad school (32%) as does international (29), while Asian (19) and Hispanic/Latino (10) go down a lot, while the African American percentage stays the same (4).
Finally.