Quote from: redemption on January 30, 2006, 09:01:56 AMQuote from: kevdog161 on January 22, 2006, 08:50:06 PMRace is not a matter of what you feel. It's what's in your blood, for the purposes of these applications. This is utter nonsense.Redemption, I find your argument quite interesting (not being sarcastic). I'm really unsure as to how I feel about this but I have to ask you, what would you think of who is a(n) URM who was adopted and raised by white parents? To take a really famous and extreme example (this has a point, I swear), what about Maddox and Zahara Jolie (or Jolie-Pitt, whatever)? Would it be wrong for them to self-identify as Cambodian and Ethiopian (respectively), as they will have been raised with every luxury and privilege? Do you think it would still be possible for them to bring a uniquely Cambodian or Ethiopian viewpoint to their surroundings? Do people in their circumstances have an ethical obligation to not check the boxes at all? I'm not trying to be confrontational as I have only an objective interest; I really am curious as to what your take on this would be.
Quote from: kevdog161 on January 22, 2006, 08:50:06 PMRace is not a matter of what you feel. It's what's in your blood, for the purposes of these applications. This is utter nonsense.
Race is not a matter of what you feel. It's what's in your blood, for the purposes of these applications.
ha ha, i kinda asked the same thing. come be my lead singer!
hmmm. not sure i agree with what i think youre saying. if the purpose for urm status is to address disadvantage rather than heritage, youre right on. however, if it to address heritage, then one could argue, for example, that wealthy african americans, a'la 'fresh prince of bel aire', having suffered no disadvantage due to their heritage in their lives, should not mark african american? i could agree with your premise that the idea of diversity means that people should bring to the table different cultural experiences -- although i doubt that adcomms see the urm issue that way. i'm not certain, as it applies to urm's, whether disadvantage plays a major role -- if they can get their numbers up.i may be wrong there, not enough experience to knowjust wondering.
I forgot to say that it is just that I am utterly stupefied by the fact than anyone believes that there is such a thing a biological "race".
Quote from: redemption on January 31, 2006, 09:17:00 AMI forgot to say that it is just that I am utterly stupefied by the fact than anyone believes that there is such a thing a biological "race". I think you grossly misinterpretted my standpoint to be exclusively the point you're bringing up here.Regardless of whether there is a biological component to race (forgive my potential ignorance here, but what do you consider the physical trait differences between people from Asia, or India, or Africa, or Europe, or the Middle East, or Latin America, or Native Americans, or Hawaiians? While "race" may indeed be a social construct, there are differences which do have physical manifestations), there are some schools that have on their application the following:Ethinicity (mark one)orEthnic Background (mark one)orRace/Ethnic Background (mark one)While I will agree with you that there are those which ask you to mark how you describe yourself, or ask you if you feel you are a member of a minority group, or those who ask if you feel you are a member of an underrepresented minority, there are certainly applications which simply ask what your ethnic makeup is.It's not so far fetched to assume this means (or should be answered) by marking based on your geneaological background, especially when the question/prompt is only one or two words long.