What do you guys think about this? I know it's a long one, but can you relate this to your experience at your HBCU? What do you think about the division between foriegn-born and native African-Americans? Or is it just hype since we "all come from the same place" anyway? Holla at me...
Top Colleges Take More Blacks, but Which Ones?
June 24, 2004
By SARA RIMER and KAREN W. ARENSON
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - At the most recent reunion of Harvard
University's black alumni, there was lots of pleased talk
about the increase in the number of black students at
Harvard.
But the celebratory mood was broken in one forum, when some
speakers brought up the thorny issue of exactly who those
black students were.
While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's
undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law
professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of
Harvard's African and African-American studies department,
pointed out that the majority of them - perhaps as many as
two-thirds - were West Indian and African immigrants or
their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial
couples.
They said that only about a third of the students were from
families in which all four grandparents were born in this
country, descendants of slaves. Many argue that it was
students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim
Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and
inferior schools, who were intended as principal
beneficiaries of affirmative action in university
admissions.
What concerned the two professors, they said, was that in
the high-stakes world of admissions to the most selective
colleges - and with it, entry into the country's inner
circles of power, wealth and influence - African-American
students whose families have been in America for
generations were being left behind.
"I just want people to be honest enough to talk about it,"
Professor Gates, the Yale-educated son of a West Virginia
paper-mill worker, said recently, reiterating the questions
he has been raising since the black alumni weekend last
fall. "What are the implications of this?"
Both Professor Gates and Professor Guinier emphasize that
this is not about excluding immigrants, whom sociologists
describe as a highly motivated, self-selected group.
Blacks, who make up 13 percent of the United States
population, are still underrepresented at Harvard and other
selective colleges, they said.
The conversation that bubbled up that weekend has continued
across campus here and beyond as these professors and
others publicly raise painful and complicated questions
about race and class and how they play out in elite
university admissions, issues that some educators and black
admissions officers have privately talked about for some
time.
There is no consensus on the answers, and since most
institutions say they do not look into the origins of their
black students, the absence of hard data makes the
discussion even more difficult.
Some educators, including the president of Harvard,
Lawrence H. Summers, declined to comment on the issue;
others are divided.
The president of Amherst College, Anthony W. Marx, says
that colleges should care about the ethnicity of black
students because in overlooking those with predominantly
American roots, colleges are missing an "opportunity to
correct a past injustice" and depriving their campuses "of
voices that are particular to being African-American, with
all the historical disadvantages that that entails."
But others say there is no reason to take the ancestry of
black students into account.
"I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions
in higher education," said Lee C. Bollinger, the president
of Columbia University, who as president of the University
of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative
action. "The issue is not origin, but social practices. It
matters in American society whether you grow up black or
white. It's that differential effect that really is the
basis for affirmative action."
Professors Gates and Guinier cite various sources for their
figures about Harvard's black students, including
conversations with administrators and students, a recent
Harvard undergraduate honors thesis based on extensive
student interviews, and the "Black Guide to Life at
Harvard," which surveyed 70 percent of the black
undergraduates and was published last year by the Harvard
Black Students Association.
Researchers at Princeton University and the University of
Pennsylvania who have been studying the achievement of
minority students at 28 selective colleges and universities
(including theirs, as well as Yale, Columbia, Duke and the
University of California at Berkeley), found that 41
percent of the black students identified themselves as
immigrants, as children of immigrants or as mixed race.
Douglas S. Massey, a Princeton sociology professor who was
one of the researchers, said the black students from
immigrant families and the mixed-race students represented
a larger proportion of the black students than that in the
black population in the United States generally. Andrew A.
Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College, says that among
18- to 25-year-old blacks nationwide, about 9 percent
describe themselves as of African or West Indian ancestry.
Like the Gates and Guinier numbers, these tallies do not
include foreign students.
In the 40 or so years since affirmative action began in
higher education, the focus has been on increasing the
numbers of black students at selective colleges, not on
their family background. Professor Massey said that the
admissions officials he talked to at these colleges seemed
surprised by the findings about the black students. "They
really didn't have a good idea of what they're getting," he
said.
But few black students are surprised. Sheila Adams, a
Harvard senior, was born in the South Bronx to a school
security officer and a subway token seller, and her family
has been in this country for generations. Ms. Adams said
there were so few black students like her at Harvard that
they had taken to referring to themselves as "the
descendants."
The subject, however, remains taboo among some college
administrators. Anthony Carnevale, a former vice president
at the Educational Testing Service, which develops SAT
tests, said colleges were happy to the take high-performing
black students from immigrant families.
"They've found an easy way out," Mr. Carnevale said. "The
truth is, the higher-education community is no longer
connected to the civil rights movement. These immigrants
represent Horatio Alger, not Brown v. Board of Education
and America's race history."
Almost from its inception, following the civil rights
struggles of the 1960's, affirmative action has been
attacked and redefined. In its 1978 Bakke decision, the
Supreme Court shifted the rationale away from issues of
social justice to the educational value of diversity.
One black admissions official at a highly selective college
said the reluctance of college officials to discuss these
issues has helped obscure the scarcity of black students
whose families have been in this country for generations.
"If somebody does not start paying attention to those who
are not able to make it in, they're going to start drifting
farther and farther behind," said the official, who
declined to be identified because the subject is so
charged. "You've got to say that the long-term blacks were
either dealt a crooked hand, or something is innately wrong
with them. And I simply won't accept that there is
something wrong with them."
Mary C. Waters, the chairman of the sociology department at
Harvard, who has studied West Indian immigrants, says they
are initially more successful than many African-Americans
for a number of reasons. Since they come from
majority-black countries, they are less psychologically
handicapped by the stigma of race. In addition, many arrive
with higher levels of education and professional
experience. And at first, they encounter less
discrimination.
"You need a philosophical discussion about what are the
aims of affirmative action,'' Professor Waters said. "If
it's about getting black faces at Harvard, then you're
doing fine. If it's about making up for 200 to 500 years of
slavery in this country and its aftermath, then you're not
doing well. And if it's about having diversity that
includes African-Americans from the South or from
inner-city high schools, then you're not doing well,
either."
Even among black scholars there is disagreement on whether
a discussion about the origins of black students is
helpful. Orlando Patterson, a Harvard sociologist and West
Indian native, said he wished others would "let sleeping
dogs lie."
"The doors are wide open - as wide open as they ever will
be - for native-born black middle-class kids to enter elite
colleges," he wrote in an e-mail message.
There is also wide disagreement about what, if anything,
should be done about the underrepresentation of
African-American students whose families have been here for
generations. Even Professor Gates, who can trace his
ancestry back to slaves, and Professor Guinier, whose
mother is white and whose father immigrated from Jamaica,
emphasize different ideas.
"This is about the kids of recent arrivals beating out the
black indigenous middle-class kids," said Professor Gates,
who plans to assemble a study group on the subject. "We
need to learn what the immigrants' kids have so we can
bottle it and sell it, because many members of the
African-American community, particularly among the
chronically poor, have lost that sense of purpose and
values which produced our generation."
In Professor Guinier's view, there are plenty of other
blacks who could also succeed at elite colleges, but the
institutions are not doing enough to find them. She said
they were overly reliant on measures like SAT scores, which
correlate strongly with family wealth and parental
education.
"Colleges and universities are defaulting on their
obligation to train and educate a representative group of
future leaders," said Professor Guinier, a Harvard graduate
herself who has been studying college admissions practices
for more than a decade. "And they are excluding poor and
working-class whites, not just descendants of slaves."
Harvard admissions officials say that they, too, are
concerned about attracting more lower-income students of
all races. They plan to spend an additional $300,000 to
$375,000 a year to recruit more low-income students and
provide more financial aid to these students.
"This increases the chances that we will be able to reach
into the communities that have not been reached," said
William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial
aid.
While Harvard officials ignore the ethnic distinctions
among their black students, Harvard's black undergraduates
are developing a body of literature in the form of student
research papers.
Aisha Haynie, the undergraduate whose senior thesis
Professor Guinier cited, said her research was prompted by
the reaction from her black classmates when she told them
that she was not from the West Indies or Africa, but from
the Carolinas. "They would say, 'No, where are you really
from?' " said Ms. Haynie, 26, who earned a master's degree
in public policy at Princeton and is now in medical school.
Marques J. Redd, a 20-year-old from Macon, Ga., who
graduated in June and was one of the editors of Harvard's
black student guide, said that Harvard officials had
discouraged them from collecting the data on who the black
students were.
"But we thought it was one aspect of the black experience
at Harvard that should be documented," he said. "The
knowledge had power. It was something that needed to be out
in the open instead of something that people whispered
about."
P.S. I know I posted this in the other forum already, but the truth of the matter is I didn't mean to. So read it twice. :wink:
I think that immigrants of any race have a higher likelihood of success. As a general rule, those who migrate to the United States generally have a higher degree of education or career experience which can be applied towards their new life in the US, and also a family who is providing financial support.
In order to obtain a visa, most immigrants must have a job already lined up in the US, which is an immediate advantage as it filters out the unemployed, uneducated, unmotivated, and disabled. Also, those moving overseas are more likely to put aside savings for investment or entrepreneurship to provide for themselves once they get there.
The other issue is that they tend to take advantage of opportunities that many nativeborn Americans tend to take for granted. Holla!
I think that immigrants of any race have a higher likelihood of success. As a general rule, those who migrate to the United States generally have a higher degree of education or career experience which can be applied towards their new life in the US, and also a family who is providing financial support.
In order to obtain a visa, most immigrants must have a job already lined up in the US, which is an immediate advantage as it filters out the unemployed, uneducated, unmotivated, and disabled. Also, those moving overseas are more likely to put aside savings for investment or entrepreneurship to provide for themselves once they get there.
The other issue is that they tend to take advantage of opportunities that many nativeborn Americans tend to take for granted. Holla!
The first part of your statement is utter rubbish.There is nothing like securing a job or getting help from your folks.You have to work hard to get as many scholarships as possible.Not everyones folks sponsors them.You can't secure a job,i don't know who told you that but it ain't true.And yes,most foregners take advantages that the natives of the land passover,are we at fault for that?i think not.As for the above articel,that is utter rubbish.
I did not say that it was easy to immigrate to the US, but rather that those that do make it have to have a lot going for them.
The fact that it is very difficult to make it here is the reason those that do generally succeed, because they have the mind to do so, and because you have to be overwhelmingly prepared.
As you said, those who come to the US from other countries have to work twice as hard to do so, and are already aware of this. So who will be more successful - someone who has proven that they are willing to work twice as hard to build a life in the US, or someone born here who might not necessarily take advantage of it?
I know that if I had to work night and day in school and earning and saving money just to get a chance to get here, I wouldn't let any opportunity in the US pass me by.
There is a big difference between who has an EASIER time at success (which is NOT what I was talking about), as opposed to who is MORE LIKELY to succeed.
I agree with NeoSoulBrotha...a lot of times, immigrants who come to America know they're already at a disadvantage, being inexperienced with the culture and knowing that not everything is coming to them, so they tend to work harder at trying to succeed here. From past experience, I've seen that many African-Americans tend to take for granted the things coming to them -- a college education, etc. -- and expect it to just 'happen', that they are entitled to it, by forgetting that their ancestors worked hard for years trying to get them these opportunities.
As for the article...I think in some ways, the descent of the 'blacks' at Harvard (and any selective or diverse school) does matter, and in many ways it doesn't. African-Americans bring the unique experience of growing up black in America, telling of the discrimination, maybe their experiences or parents' experiences of overcoming that disc., and just the entire experience of growing up black here. The white students, or other students, may feel more 'connected' to them than they would Africans or West Indians because they come from the same country, and might thus open up a little more to having friends of a different race. In the same strain, Africans or West Indians bring *their* experiences of growing up labeled 'foreigners'. And, as much as we tend to obscure it, the West Indian or African experience is different from the African-American -- they look at things differently, live differently...so in that sense, it does matter.
But in a more generalized sense, it doesn't. Because when people see 'us' out there working great jobs, having graduated from Harvard and Princeton and such, our nationalities -- West Indian, African, or African-American -- isn't going to register immediately. If that certain one doesn't have a strong accent, they might not even recognize them as *not* African-American. They just see a black person in a high position -- which may leave an impression on them, and change the way they view things. So it may not be such a bad thing to leave it indistinctive.
