this is just ridiculous. although I know plenty of white people check "other" to make it SEEM like they are some kind of minority without actually having to choose one of the minority statuses.
They probably just don't want to be discriminated against. It's not so much that they want to be seen as a minority, they just don't want to be labeled as a "privileged" white person.
This is probably more of a problem for asians, however, who experience the most discrimination in admissions, and are therefore probably most likely to check the "other" box.
probably don't want to be discriminated against? ha...
Why is this funny? There's no question that whites and asians are discriminated against in admissions (though it's far worse for asians). The only question is whether such discrimination is justified by other factors. That's a debate for other threads.
There's also little question that most people don't like to be discriminated against, period. And the people who are filling in the "other" box are clearly seeking to avoid this, or they wouldn't be checking the "other" box. (I doubt they really think it will give them a positive boost, and the truth is, it probably gets them considered as white or even asian in reality.)
Yes, I agree people don't like being discriminated against. I think what was funny to me is the comment that White's don't want to seem privileged and that somehow this whole "discriminating" thing is really a huge problem for whites.
I'm not really sure why you put "discriminating" in quotes. Do you dispute that different groups are subject to different standards in admission? If not, then one has to acknowledge that discrimination is taking place. The only question, again, is whether that discrimination is justified.
Whether or not such discrimination is a "huge problem" for whites probably depends on the white person in question. White people, like every other group, come from all kinds of backgrounds. A rich, well-supported white person probably won't be hurt much by preferential admissions. They probably have enough advantages to overcome it. However, a poor/working-class white person who's had to struggle for everything they have will probably be a more borderline applicant, and may therefore be impacted more (and bothered more) by such policies.
Don't want to get all philosophical here, but Whites are always more privileged over nonwhites.
Oh, really? So a retarded, homeless white person is somehow more privileged than Will Smith, or Michael Jordan, or Oprah, or Colin Powell? Put more generally, is the child of a poor white preson, growing up in a poor area with crappy schools, really more privileged and advantaged than the child of any non-white millionaire or successful professional when it comes to educational admissions?
I realize you've been taught this, and you may even believe it. I'm simply pointing out that it makes absolutely no sense. Sure, many whites are advantaged relative to many non-whites, and this can be determined by examining factors like household income and K-12 school quality. However, the same factors clearly show that many non-whites are educationally advantaged relative to many other whites. Which is why preferential admissions based solely on ethnicity (as opposed to actual advantages) also makes little sense.
It is called "the Racial Contract" in which ALL whites are beneficiaries whether or not they choose to be.
I haven't seen a copy of this alleged contract. Can you post one for us?
One can certainly argue that, all other things being equal, it's easier to be white than non-white, in pretty much every country. So one could argue that where applicants are otherwise comparable in terms of background, the non-white should get the edge in admissions. The problem, of course, is that other things aren't always equal. There are white families in this country that are much more disadvantaged than most non-white applicants to law school, and there are non-white families that are far more advantaged (and therefore privileged) than most white families.
So I think it's important to get beyond a simplistic, self-serving, incorrect view of privilege, and understand that privilege and advantage are far more complex than some might believe.
And to try to mask that by checking off another box is pretty low.
Except the alleged advantage you claim they're "masking" may not exist in many cases. For those who are less advantaged than most non-white applicants, it's hard to say they're doing anything wrong by avoiding an unfair, prejudicial stereotyping. For those who are from similar backgrounds as most non-white applicants, the issue is at best arguable. This would really only seem truly problematic for those white applicants who are meaningfully advantaged relative to most non-white applicants, and even in those cases, it really comes down to the non-white applicant they're being compared to, as many of them may also be comparably advantaged.
If, on the other hand, preferential admissions was instead based on economics and educational opportunity, and someone was distorting their economic/educational background, your position would of course be far more justified.