Most AAPI actually DON’T think affirmative action hurts us in college admissions | #BlockBlum #IAmNotYourWedge

December 10, 2014

POFR - affirmative action - unc-thumb-640xauto-10601

This is perhaps the most exciting and satisfying report of negative data I have ever read.

Opponents have long argued that existing surveys showing broad support for race-conscious affirmative action among AAPI have obscured disapproval of these policies based on how the questions were worded; earlier studies asked questions regarding affirmative action broadly based on wording used by the non-partisan Pew Research Group. Yunlei Yang of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association criticized this methodology when he wrote for the LA Times in his op-ed (“Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action“), saying “I find the poll question misleading and Ramakrishnan’s reasoning deeply flawed.”

That criticism was echoed on BigWOWO, where blogger Byron Wong wrote, “If [the poll’s question wording] is not a loaded question, I don’t know what is.” Among his other concerns, Byron went on to advocate for an alternative question wording that limited scope to college admissions, saying:

Most people have heard the debate about college admissions since it affects everyone. People already know that college affirmative action makes it more difficult for Asian and white kids to get into selective colleges. People already have their views.

The basic premise is that had a survey polled Asian American (or specifically Chinese American attitudes) on affirmative action in college admissions, and asking whether or not these policies hurt Asian American acceptance rates, the answer would reveal a resounding majority opposition to race-conscious affirmative action.

Not satisfied, it seems, to simply disprove these nay-sayers, the primary investigators of this year’s surveys on Asian American political opinions have now “clapped back” with an abundance of evidence that almost completely dismantles these (apparently baseless) criticisms.

asian-american-decisions-aff-action
Findings by Asian American Decisions, which support the findings of the APIAVote/AAAJ-AAJC 2014 National Survey.

Responding to the concern that early versions of the National Asian American Survey had failed to focus on the college admissions process, APIAVote and Asian Americans for Advancing Justice-AAJC released initial findings this year showing that more than 60% of Asian Americans support race-conscious affirmative action even when the question scope was limited only to college admissions; this finding was corroborated by the independent group Asian American Decisions (results shown above) and was consistent with earlier, more generalized studies.

Going one step further, Associate Professor Jerry Park and PhD candidate Joshua Tom today released the hotly-anticipated detailed report of their 2014 national APIAVote/AAAJ-AAJC survey of Asian American political attitudes regarding affirmative action. Again, they found >60% support for affirmative action among surveyed Asian Americans in all three polled sectors: college admissions, jobs or business contracts.

apiavote-aajc-survey-detailed-sectors

Asian American women were more in favour of affirmative action in college admissions than Asian American men, perhaps reflecting the strong gains also made by female students in integrating traditionally male-dominated college campuses thanks to affirmative action policies.

Yang, Wong, and other detractors of affirmative action such as conservative lobbyist Edward Blum (architect of the recent anti-affirmative action lawsuits against Havard and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) argue, however, that these surveys don’t reflect widespread attitudes among Asian Americans regarding how affirmative action in college specifically disadvantages their admission prospects. Instead, they and others cite the problematic data of Richard Sander or misinterpret the findings of Thomas Espenshade to fallaciously conflate legitimate fears of potential negative anti-Asian action in some college admission processes with race-conscious affirmative action. Specifically, Blum et al. argues that Asian Americans widely oppose affirmative action because they know it hurts their own college admission prospects.

Turns out that Blum et al. are wrong — really, really wrong.

apiavote-aajc-survey-aff-action-help-hurt

Based on new analysis of a poll conducted in 2012 by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, over 80% of Asian Americans believe that consideration of their race or ethnicity either helps their college admissions prospects or, for the vast majority, that our race or ethnicity simply makes no difference in receiving a college acceptance letter. Only 18% of Asian Americans in this national poll believe that consideration of their race or ethnicity via affirmative action hurts us in college admissions.

Park and Tom went on to cover their bases and ensure that pooling national respondents wasn’t also obscuring some specific subset of anti-affirmative action Asian Americans. Geography, for example, might be a factor: the numbers might conceivably be skewed by Asian Americans living in California where race-conscious affirmative action has been abolished by Proposition 209 at UC schools to deleterious results for campus diversity. Yet, consistent with how West Coast Asian Americans responded, Asian Americans living outside of the Pacific West were also more likely to respond favourably (or neutrally) that racial or ethnic considerations were not harmful in college admissions, not less likely as as might be predicted if there were widespread belief in affirmative action causing harm to Asian American college applicants who apply to schools with the policy intact. There was also no gender disparity in response pattern.

Coverage of anti-affirmative action protests earlier this year in California also seemed to focus heavily on Chinese American and South Asian American perspectives, leading to the hypothesis that perhaps anti-affirmative action attitudes might be more prevalent in these communities. Chinese Americans are well-represented in the UC system and in many elite schools, and this fact was cited as (some kind of) evidence for why anti-affirmative action positions are supposedly widespread among Chinese Americans. (Incidentally, Park and Tom are quick to remind us that Asian Americans are actually not massively well-represented in higher education when taken as a whole.) Anti-affirmative action lobbyists additionally targeted the Chinese American community by forming comparisons between affirmative action and historically anti-Chinese legislation, further fomenting anti-affirmative action fears.

SCA5-CEA
A screen-capture from a letter penned by the 80-20 Initiative to its supporters.

APIAVote/AAAJ-AAJC report that, in actuality, among Chinese Americans, the belief that racial or ethnic considerations negatively impact college admissions is also markedly low — although marginally higher than for the Asian American population at-large. Only 23% of Chinese Americans think race-conscious affirmative action hurts our chances during college admissions; more than 75% of Chinese Americans either think their race helps them or makes no difference.

(A similar pattern of responses is seen for religiously non-affiliated Asian Americans, and your guess is as good as mine on that one.)

These data are compelling evidence that Edward Blum’s lawsuits, which I have heavily criticized for their attempts to misappropriate the Asian American politic to advance a conservative anti-diversity agenda, are not speaking for all Asian Americans. They’re not even speaking for most Asian Americans. Rather, Edward Blum and his fellow opponents of affirmative action are speaking for less than 20% of the Asian American community. Park and Tom conclude:

Efforts to end affirmative action based on perceived unfair practices of very elite schools is misleading and serves the interests of a few at the expense of the many.

Please join me in taking a stand against the thinly-disguised co-optation of Asian Americans to launch a new Rightwing attack on affirmative action and people of colour. Roughly 7 out of 10 Asian Americans support affirmative action, and further 8 out of 10 do not think that affirmative action hurts our college admission prospects. To say that Edward Blum’s lawsuits are “out of touch” with the Asian American community would not be an understatement, it would be a statement of pure fact.

Please sign this petition by 18MillionRising opposing Edward Blum and his divisive lawsuits, and share this post and your own support of affirmative action to #BlockBlum and #IAmNotYourWedge.

  • Heteronormative Cisgender Man

    I thought Byron and everyone else debunked this several times with numerous studies, statistics, books, and mainstream news articles for you already?

    “do you think affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of Black and minority students on college campuses are a good thing or a bad thing?”

    That’s called a loaded question that’s designed to get a certain response. After all, who would object to helping oppressed minorities?

    When an Asian reads that they think “Help Blacks and help minorities like me. Ya! I’m all for it” yet they don’t understand that affirmative action helps Blacks and other “right” minorities…at the expense of the “wrong” minorities like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.

    A more accurate question to ask would be..

    “Do you think affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of Black and minority (except Japanese, Korean, and Chinese) students on college campuses by taking positions from Japanese, Korean, and Chinese students and giving them to the aforementioned students who score at least 100+ points lower on the SAT are a good thing or a bad thing?”

  • Hah, no. Byron et al.’s argument is wanting at best and to date none of you have offered a compelling argument backed by any form of data or consideration for basic scientific approaches. The ongoing proposal about this ridiculous alternative question is good evidence of that (see below).

    1) The latter question wording you cited above is a great example of a push-polling style question, because it offers extraneous and prejudicial information that extends beyond the straightforward legal definition of an issue. It’s also just poorly crafted and betrays the wide chasm between what untrained people think pollsters do, and what pollsters actually do.

    2) Byron’s assertion is completely countered by the second graph in this post showing that a majority of Asian Americans do not think affirmative action hurts their college admissions prospects. Byron et al. argue that most Asian Americans “know” that affirmative action hurts college admissions for Whites and Asians, but are somehow deceived by Pew’s affirmative action question wording regarding support because they feel bad about oppressing minorities or some such nonsense. That hypothesis regarding the impact of the question wording turns out to be completely untrue.

  • Also, never mind that your proposed question doesn’t even reflect how affirmative action is actually practiced. It describes a fictional scenario that doesn’t happen in real life.

    So yeah, if you want to fund a poll about a fantasy-type scenario, feel free. While you’re at it, I suggest you also ask the follow-up question: “Do you agree that one can simply walk into Mordor?”

  • Heteronormative Cisgender Man

    1. The first graphic is the revised question? It still suffers from the same problem that Byron described.

    Byron did a post called “National Asian American Survey’s misleading and deceptive survey on affirmative action” to further
    explain why the survey was deceptive.

    2. The poll about perceptions clearly shows (I’ll use Chinese for example since that’s the biggest group) ~25% believe it hurts and

    15% believe it helps (this segment is deluded since it’s a fact that it hurts). 25% is already a big number. Furthermore, we can safely conclude that the 15% would realize it also hurts if they read the studies and books on how affirmative actions harms them. Those that say there’s no effect would similarly change their vote if they read the studies and books on this.

    I think that infographic is a bit silly to be honest. Even so, it’s still damning evidence.

    Firstly, compare the 1st generation vs 2nd generation on affirmative action. Stark contrast. This could be due to realizing that racism does exist in college admissions and/or the difference between being a braindrain vs a American-born student vs being a WEALTHY foreigner (that many schools are trying to attract)

    Second, compare the Chinese vs non-Chinese. Again, a stark contrast. The Chinese are the biggest group of Asians in America by far. Furthermore, East Asians (and Philipinos) are far more likely to pursue higher education.

    http://www.asian-nation.org/demographics.shtml#

    So it’s irresponsible to mix all the Asian sub groups together. Most South East Asians do not suffer the racism of affirmative action because they don’t compete for the most selective schools. East Asians do.

    The study asks people who hear words like “affirmative actions helps minorities” and they assume it’s good. Are these people informed of how affirmative action works? I highly doubt it.

    Would they know for example that white females are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action?
    Would they know rich Black foreigners – not poor Black Americans – are the main African beneficiaries of affirmative action?
    Would they know that Asians need to score around 250 more points than an African applicant to enter a competitive school?

    New York post did a piece called “First Jews, now Asians”

    3. I think much evidence was provided over at Byron’s blog debunking the fairness and utility of affirmative action.

  • 1. The first graphic is the revised question? It still suffers from the same problem that Byron described.

    The graphic from Asian American Decisions uses a question that is similar (but not identical) to the question listed (I think the question actually has been shortened a little for the slide). The second infographic in this post uses the Pew/NAAAS question wording.

    Here’s the thing, HCN: I’m not swayed by the argument that there is a fundamental problem in the question wording. First, it is a simple, clearly-constructed question that references the legal definition of an affirmative action program without offering any extraneous information. Second, the question wording references the kind of question that is broadly used by most non-partisan pollsters to query affirmative action across the board by group as large as Pew and as small as Asian American Decisions. This is the settled, peer-reviewed question wording on affirmative action that has been agreed upon by survey researchers, who are trained to conduct this sort of science (and, yes, it is a science). Third, saying “because Byron said so” is not evidence of anything other than dogma.

    2. The poll about perceptions clearly shows (I’ll use Chinese for example since that’s the biggest group) ~25% believe it hurts and

    15% believe it helps (this segment is deluded since it’s a fact that it hurts). 25% is already a big number.

    … so basically your response to the second finding is that everyone who disagrees with your position — all 80% of Asian Americans — are just ignorant?

    Okay, you can think that. I think you’re wrong, but whatever.

    Given that, however, will you therefore agree, then, that when Byron writes, “[Most] people already know that college affirmative action makes it more difficult for Asian and white kids to get into selective colleges” that obviously he is wrong. Most Asian Americans do not oppose affirmative action because they think it hurts their chances, because most Asian Americans do not think their race or ethnicity impacts their college admissions prospects.

    So it’s irresponsible to mix all the Asian sub groups together.

    Agreed. Which is why if you look at the picture, HCN, you can see that when Chinese Americans are disaggregated out, they also respond at a rate of less than 25% thinking their race or ethnicity hurts their college admissions. 75% – 80% of Chinese Americans think that their race or ethnicity doesn’t hurt them. Those who do are in the overwhelming minority.

    3. I think much evidence was provided over at Byron’s blog debunking the fairness and utility of affirmative action.

    I disagree. I think a lot of racially charged conversations over cultural background has been provided over at Byron’s blog, combined with fundamental misunderstandings of what affirmative action is and misinterpretations of what the existing science says. However, I also don’t think the people who are currently debating affirmative action at that blog are interested in establishing the kind of academic and reasoned debate that would allow them to incorporate a dissenting position backed by data, so of course within that rhetorical vacuum of free-flying character assassination and flame war, there will be the presumption that what is being bandied about is somehow, fantastically logical.

    Are these people informed of how affirmative action works?

    Based on your advocacy for that ridiculous alternative question, it is not clear that you are informed on how affirmative action works.

    Would they know that Asians need to score around 250 more points than an African applicant to enter a competitive school?

    1) That is an overestimate by more than 50 points. 2) You misinterpret average SAT scores for incoming students students as if the SAT score is both ranked and then determinative for admission (i.e. you assert that Asian students scoring lower would not be considered as highly), which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how holistic review works. SAT score is used to establish a base threshold of qualified applicants. Above that threshold, SAT is no longer a significant determinative factor and hundreds of factors are considered. That means that a candidate who scored a 2107 is considered equally against a candidate who scored a 2290 because both are considered equally qualified when measured against SATs alone.

    I know this breaks your brain, but the point of holistic review is to avoid placing undue emphasis on the SATs because it’s a number that can be ranked, and to instead develop a system that can identify candidates who are strong in unrankable factors because they aren’t measured by numbers (such as essays). That also means that if you go back and ascribe some sort of meaning to differences in SAT score after candidates have been put through a system designed to ignore those differences in SAT score, you are applying a framework that is no longer really valid.

    An Asian American student doesn’t need to score 200 points higher to get into a selective college. Some Asian American students are getting into a selective college and, on average, Asian Americans tend to score higher on the SATs. These admitted Asian Americans are not getting in because they have higher SAT scores. Correlation is not causation.

  • Most South East Asians do not suffer the racism of affirmative action because they don’t compete for the most selective schools.

    Citation?

    Also, I just recently demonstrated that Filipino Americans are applying to the most selective of campuses in the UC system and are being admitted at half the rate, thanks to the abolition of race-conscious affirmative action.

  • Heteronormative Cisgender Man

    1. So, it turns out that survey question at the beginning of this post is done by the same guy who lied the first time in the same manner as covered here
    http://www.bigwowo.com/2014/08/national-asian-american-surveys-misleading-survey-on-affirmative-action/

    2. I have no citation and neither do you for most things. I did include Filipinos when I made my statement.

    3. “affirmative action is practiced nationwide in accordance with SCOTUS decisions at most schools.”

    I’m not sure why this is brought up since I explained there’s less competition outside of the most competitive schools. For example, the cut off for the olympics (ivies) is higher so more people will be disqualified than at an amateur sports league (no name colleges).

    Far less applicants will be affected by affirmative action choices.

    As for SCOTUS, keep in mind Eric Garner, a Black man was choked to death by a cop…on video. He was given a not-guilty verdict.

    4. re:”I think you’re wrong, but whatever.”
    citation?

    I already gave two shocking facts that probably not one in 10 Asians knows. Again, they are:
    Would they know for example that white females are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action?
    Would they know rich Black foreigners – not poor Black Americans – are the main African beneficiaries of affirmative action?
    Would they know that Asians need to score around 250 more points than an African applicant to enter a competitive school?

    “most Asian Americans do not think their race or ethnicity impacts their college admissions prospects.”
    Citation? Please do not quote Karthick Ramakrishnan again. He is already proven to be a underhanded agenda pusher who uses leading questions to influence surveys.

    re:overwhelming majority is a bit silly.

    15% think affirmative action helps, which proves my point. They don’t understand how affirmative action hurts them. They don’t understand that Blacks with 250 lower SAT scores can beat them. They are clearly misinformed. So the appropriate number would be 25% + 15% (eg once this group learns that affirmative action doesn’t help the “wrong” minorities) – so that’s around 40% at a minimum. That’s not a small minority. Even the original 25% isn’t a small minority.

    re:”Based on your advocacy for that ridiculous alternative question, it is not clear that you are informed on how affirmative action works.”

    Citation?

    5. re: misunderstanding how affirmative action works.

    I’m not sure about that. TJ Espenshade has studied this and compared Blacks and Asians by isolating all factors and there’s solid evidence that more competitive Asians are shunned in favor of less competitive Blacks, on average.

    “I know this breaks your brain”

    According to your comment policy, “Be courteous: Respect everyone else in this space”.
    I have been courteous with you, Jenn. Please reciprocate.

    6. Correlation is not causation is true and that’s why studies that isolate income, race, gender, essays, sat scores, extracurriculars, etc have been done to avoid such fallacies. Their result is conclusive: Asians are shunned in favor of the “right” minority groups.

  • 1. So, it turns out that survey question at the beginning of this post is done by the same guy who lied the first time in the same manner as covered here

    No. Asian American Decisions is unaffiliated with AAPI Data and Karthick’s group. The data presented in this post were analysed by Jerry Park and Joshua Tom, who is also not Karthick.

    2. I have no citation and neither do you for most things. I did include Filipinos when I made my statement.

    Yes, but you were inaccurate in your statement about Filipinos. You said that Filipino Americans were applying to selective colleges; I linked a post showing that in the UC system, they are applying to Berkeley but admitted at reduced rates in the absence of affirmative action.

    Further, I’d like you to elaborate on your statement that most Southeast Asian Americans aren’t applying to selective colleges. Why is that you think, pray tell?

    I’m not sure why this is brought up since I explained there’s less competition outside of the most competitive schools. For example, the cut off for the olympics (ivies) is higher so more people will be disqualified than at an amateur sports league (no name colleges).

    Far less applicants will be affected by affirmative action choices.

    Do you, or do you not, agree that affirmative action is also part of the admissions process in most public universities?

    As for SCOTUS, keep in mind Eric Garner, a Black man was choked to death by a cop…on video. He was given a not-guilty verdict.

    You do realize there is a difference between a grand jury and a Supreme Court, right? And that there is a high possibility that the federal government will bring federal civil rights charges, right?

    I’m not sure what killshot this was supposed to be, but it failed.

    4. re:”I think you’re wrong, but whatever.”citation?

    What, you want me to cite a reason why I don’t believe 80% of Asian Americans are ignorant? Aside from the fact that believing such a thing is pretty offensive to Asian Americans as a whole, I don’t need to prove a negative. You need to prove the positive.

    So, citation?

    I already gave two shocking facts that probably not one in 10 Asians knows.

    Please support your assertion that Asian Americans don’t know this.

    “most Asian Americans do not think their race or ethnicity impacts their college admissions prospects.”Citation?

    This post is the citation for the work of Jerry Park and Joshua Tom. You are literally commenting on the citation.

    Please do not quote Karthick Ramakrishnan again. He is already proven to be a underhanded agenda pusher who uses leading questions to influence surveys.

    Read this post for the evidence refuting your issues with the question wording. The most compelling evidence is that Karthick actually tested variations on question wording and found no impact on results. The other evidence is that this is a question used by Pew — a nonpartisan organization — for the last decade, and which has undergone rigorous review by people who have advanced degrees in this science.

    15% think affirmative action helps, which proves my point. They don’t understand how affirmative action hurts them. They don’t understand that Blacks with 250 lower SAT scores can beat them. They are clearly misinformed. So the appropriate number would be 25% + 15% (eg once this group learns that affirmative action doesn’t help the “wrong” minorities) – so that’s around 40% at a minimum. That’s not a small minority.

    … so now you’re going to claim that the people who adamantly disagree with you actually agree with you? Ok.

    Even the original 25% isn’t a small minority.

    Would you agree that it’s not “most Asian Americans”, as Byron asserts? Would you agree that your position does not currently represent most Asian Americans?

    TJ Espenshade has studied this and compared Blacks and Asians by isolating all factors and there’s solid evidence that more competitive Asians are shunned in favor of less competitive Blacks, on average.

    That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Espenshade reports in his data and also does not reflect his own interpretation of his data. Have you read his full work? I have. He believes he is reporting probability of admission (there are some flaws in his methods that I disagree with, but that’s not relevant at the moment). Regardless, it is a (partisan and biased) over-extension of his data to argue that Asians are being outcompeted by Black students, one that Espenshade does not argue.

    According to your comment policy, “Be courteous: Respect everyone else in this space”.I have been courteous with you, Jenn. Please reciprocate.

    That’s fair and I’ll keep my exasperation to a minimum. My apologies.

    Correlation is not causation is true and that’s why studies that isolate income, race, gender, essays, sat scores, extracurriculars, etc have been done to avoid such fallacies. Their result is conclusive: Asians are shunned in favor of the “right” minority groups.

    Errr… no. You’re gonna need to unpack that first, with some citations, because the literature just doesn’t support that outcome at all. Just stating “we did the studies” is not enough.

  • Junweiwei

    So you continue to misuse the Pew Research study and refuse to learn anything about survey methodology. The study is wrong because they failed in application of correct address-based sampling. For the survey of ethnic minorities you must use street of houses cluster for sampling, because ethnic concentration in cities are on a neigborhood scale. The Pew study use city-based sampling. So the statistical results are worthless.

    For a correct pilot run with hard-to-reach population such as immigrant populations with language barriers you must have different cultural-sensitive translation prepared- there was no in the Pew study. For correcting for interviewer bias you must have ask questions about the interviewer occupation, age, gender, neighborhood to correct for social distance between interviewer and interviewee – there was only rudimentary attempt to do it right.

    The loaded question criticism is actually right, because of the ambiguity of the minority terms. If you assign an identity utility to an individual who belongs to different categories it is of course a great difference how I use wording to formulate question. Normally you have to use control questions to isolate the effect, but the private opinion research center did not do it.

    You have a fetish for utilizing strategic occidentalism/whiteness to ridicule opponents as stupid, but you are only a nerdy biologist and have no idea about social science.

    It does not matter how liberal opinion research center try to manipulate the minority public sphere. The political aims of Asian America is already reached with the election of Obama. The US troops and navy transform Nothern East Asia from a multilateral power structure into a stable bilateral power structure. Now we want to end the bloodshed in the orient and stop the break-up of Syria, Iran, Pakistan and the utilization of ethnic conflicts to remain below the nuclear threshold. Asian American should get nightmare’s how many people we help to kill with the election of Obama who paralyze the peace movement because he is black and they do not want to attack him. There are enough bases now and the kin states of Asian American diasporas are secure from Russia/China.

    Now we have to get rid of the black president and build a coalition with Hispanic America and elect a white woman into the White House and gather a power base to fight against black-white nativist coalition in favor of Hispanic legal and undocumented immigrants. Hispanic voters are strong supporter of Hillary Clinton in the past and Asian America did not opt for Hillary because of their Pacific Asian security interests and symbolic policy considerations.

    The black-white nativist coalition are out next big enemy and we have to build a big coalition of white-Asian-Hispanic voters in domestic politics and a multitude of NGO’s, peasant organizations, global unions, faith organizations, Indios and Native Americans to fight back corporate neoliberalism who try to undermine the environment, food security, education, welfare system.

    The legalization of undocumented Hispanic imigrants will hurt black employment, but their remittances will stabilize Latin America rating notes and tax revenues. Latin America is very sucessful with experiments in separating itself from US hegemony.

    We want to rebuild the progressive coalition of transnational feminism, environment, Third World Left, faith organization, peace movement and fight back liberal imperialism under the Obama administration who have strong supporters among urban blacks and black churches.

  • The Pew study use city-based sampling. So the statistical results are worthless.

    To my knowledge, this is not the process used for sampling in either the Asian American Decisions or NAAAS studies.

    For a correct pilot run with hard-to-reach population such as immigrant populations with language barriers you must have different cultural-sensitive translation prepared- there was no in the Pew study.

    These are valid concerns with Pew, but Asian American Decisions and NAAAS both conducted their survey multilingually. To the degree that this is a concern with Pew, I would agree with you that there is some concern about methodology with the hurt/help data, but do NOT agree that these artifacts would skew the data so much as to artificially produce the magnitude of effect (only 1 in 5 Asian Americans thinking their race hurts their college admissions process) seen. That’s a very big effect. While I think repetition of this study is warranted with better attention to sampling, I think this might vary the specific distributions without affecting the larger outcome simply based on the size of the reported effect.

    The loaded question criticism is actually right, because of the ambiguity of the minority terms. If you assign an identity utility to an individual who belongs to different categories it is of course a great difference how I use wording to formulate question. Normally you have to use control questions to isolate the effect, but the private opinion research center did not do it.

    I absolutely disagree with this assessment for a few reasons. First, the question is more specific than simply using the term ‘minority’; it also specifies ‘blacks’ and ‘women’, which mitigates the issues of ambiguity somewhat by offering clarifying examples. Second, there is no significant among women vs. men who respond, when there is a clear distinction in identity identification to the respondent relative to gender mentioned. Third, control questions were used to vary the question wording to no change in effect. Fourth, I actually think that the ambiguity as to whether or not Asian Americans identify with the minority term is part of what the question is actually measuring.

    You have a fetish for utilizing strategic occidentalism/whiteness to ridicule opponents as stupid, but you are only a nerdy biologist and have no idea about social science.

    That is a clear ad hominem attack. You have been previously warned, Junweiwei, and you were behaving well until now. I’m sorry, but this is a second strike and warrants a ban. I will however leave your posts up, since I do think your dissenting opinion on methodology has value.

    I find your anti-Black politics bizarre.

  • Heteronormative Cisgender Man

    Hello,

    re: “The data presented in this post were *analysed* by Jerry Park and Joshua Tom, who is also not Karthick.”

    “Analysed data” is different from creating surveys. Who created the survey then?

    re: “Southeast Asian Americans aren’t applying to selective colleges. Why is that you think, pray tell?”
    For the same reason they have less focus on education back home.

    re: “Do you, or do you not, agree that affirmative action is also part of the admissions process in most public universities?”

    You’re avoiding the point that I was making.

    re: “You do realize there is a difference between a grand jury and a Supreme Court”
    You’re missing the forest for the trees.

    America has held a centuries-long parade of war criminal presidents, bankers who tank the world economy and get bailed out, on going police brutality against minorities, chemical and radioactive weapons used in illegal wars, gang rapes on foreign military bases.

    Where are the punishments?

    re:”you want me to cite a reason why I don’t believe 80% of Asian Americans are ignorant?”
    Yes. This is exactly what I want you to believe.

    *******Again, how many people know the following facts about affirmative action?

    white females are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action.
    rich Black foreigners – not poor Black Americans – are the main African beneficiaries of affirmative action.
    Asians need to score around 250 more points than an African applicant to enter a competitive school.

    These facts are so shocking that it’s like discovering the main beneficiaries of soup kitchens are wealthy business executives.

    Do you EVER see white females being paraded by adocates of affirmative action? No, because it would immediately turn off supporters*******

    re: “This post is the citation for the work of Jerry Park and Joshua Tom. You are literally commenting on the citation.”
    Yes, I can’t find it. Can you give me a link to the study that walks through the methodology?

    *******Since you dislike my reasoning. Can you or they tell me in what way does affirmative action help for example, Chinese students, who need to score 250+ points higher on the sat exam?

    Can you also explain how Asians indicating they are another minority group proves affirmative action helps them?*******

    Re: “tested variations”

    This can mean anything. Do you support Africans and Do you support Blacks = variations too. This tells us nothing without more details. Please do not appeal to authority by citing Pew.

    re: “… so now you’re going to claim that the people who adamantly disagree with you actually agree with you? Ok.”

    *******No, I think their answers betray their ignorance. Like I asked earlier, can you or they tell me in what way does affirmative action help for example, Chinese students, who need to score 250+ points higher on a sat and check off a different race on their applications?*******

    re: “Would you agree that it’s not “most Asian Americans”, as Byron asserts”

    I won’t comment on this because I can’t remember which data he was basing that off of. Regardless, 25% (at a bare minimum) is a sizable minority.

    re: Espenshade

    Let’s ignore him for now. There are simpler questions to address. Please see the area marked with *******

    re: sources
    I’ll have to dig for this at a later time, but there is this book. I searched for Asian in the reviews and you can see numerous references on how Asians are held to a higher standard.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-content-search/results/ref=cm_cr_dp_srch?query=asian&search-alias=community-reviews&idx.asin=0465029965

  • “Analysed data” is different from creating surveys. Who created the survey then?

    Which one?

    Also, personally or politically disliking an investigator is not a valid reason to dismiss the data generated by that investigator. Absent of some compelling evidence of scientific malpractice on Karthick’s part — of which there is none presented by you — closing your eyes and plugging your ears to any data generated by Karthick is based requires an anti-intellectual, biased and partisan approach which does not belong in an academic debate.

    There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of data that surprise you or aren’t what you would like the outcome to be. But you actually have to do the legwork to examine those methods, not just dismiss them outright because you don’t like the findings based on the person who conducted the science. Good science is robust; it withstands people’s biases. In the case of NAAAS, I think there is reason to find minor issues with the methodology, but I do not see major concerns with the methods that would warrant dismissing the whole dataset as junk. This sort of conclusion is also unscientific; in academia we are trained not just to see flaws in methods, but also to be able to weigh the magnitude of those flaws on likely impact on outcomes, which speaks to the fundamental issues with Junweiwei’s concerns. First-year students tend to be hypercritical of methods and see all methodological quibbles as fatal to the subsequent results without consideration of magnitudes, only when scientists have a chance to mature does the ability to make nuanced criticism evolve, and see where (and what) valid conclusions can still be made from less-than-perfect approaches.

    The point also is that any issues with NAAAS’s primary investigator are seriously mitigated by the fact that they have now been independently verified by an unrelated group studying a completely different respondent set.

    For the same reason they have less focus on education back home.

    Elaborate, please. Restating your position is not providing arguments or evidence for your position.

    You’re avoiding the point that I was making.

    No, I am directly addressing the point you are making. I believe you are erroneously missing issues of absolute applicant rate in placing disproportionate weight on selective universities. If and when you are willing to acknowledge that affirmative action is also an aspect of admissions policies at public universities, I will proceed to lay this out for you.

    You’re missing the forest for the trees.

    America has held a centuries-long parade of war criminal presidents, bankers who tank the world economy and get bailed out, on going police brutality against minorities, chemical and radioactive weapons used in illegal wars, gang rapes on foreign military bases.

    Where are the punishments?

    I agree, but this has nothing to do either with Bakke, Grutter and Fisher, or anything do to with Grand Jury indictments, unless you believe — as you have argued previously — that the entire judicial and legal system in this country is invalid. If so, than your subsequent position on affirmative action does not follow: if you argue that Bakke is immaterial because SCOTUS decisions hold no weight, than you must further agree that any reversal of Bakke is immaterial because SCOTUS decisions hold no weight. Affirmative action is fundamentally an issue involving constitutional guidelines by the judicial system onto practices by private and public universities. This would be entirely a non-issue to you if you believe that the federal government has no capacity to affect admissions policies in these schools one way or another. If that is the case, than you are advocating complete upheaval against the judicial system, and consequently anarchy for the United States.

    Yes. This is exactly what I want you to believe.

    Then you need to provide evidence. It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong when you make the wild accusation that 80% of Asian Americans are ignorant, it is your responsibility to back your assertion up. I don’t need to prove a negative; you need to prove your positive.

    Yes, I can’t find it. Can you give me a link to the study that walks through the methodology?

    Are you telling me you are unwilling to scroll up?

    Do you EVER see white females being paraded by adocates of affirmative action? No, because it would immediately turn off supporters

    Uhhh… yes (except that we don’t “parade” people around anyways). Title IX. All of the advocacy work surrounding Title IX.

    Since you dislike my reasoning. Can you or they tell me in what way does affirmative action help for example, Chinese students, who need to score 250+ points higher on the sat exam?

    I have already addressed how you are misinterpreting Espenshade, misunderstanding how holistic review work, and misrepresenting the differences in mean SAT scores between students of different races at selective colleges. Chinese students do not need to score 250+ points higher on the SAT exam to gain entry into selective universities, so you need to adjust your premise to win that accurately reflects our current reality before asking me to explain the flaws in your reasoning.

    Can you also explain how Asians indicating they are another minority group proves affirmative action helps them?

    No, because I have no idea what you are talking about here.

    This can mean anything. Do you support Africans and Do you support Blacks = variations too. This tells us nothing without more details. Please do not appeal to authority by citing Pew.

    The controls were a little more sophisticated than that. Why don’t you go back to the methods and point out what is a concern for you? They are freely available in the many links I’ve already provided to you through the writing on this site.

    No, I think their answers betray their ignorance

    Then you need to demonstrate your reasons for your assertion that 80% of Asian Americans are ignorant. Merely disagreeing with you is insufficient evidence of ignorance on the issue. It is equally as possible that the 80% who disagree with you are more informed, and it is you who are less informed or uninformed on the issue of affirmative action and holistic review. I would certainly hazard that you are not entirely clear on the process of how affirmative action is practiced, given how you have represented it here and in the past.

    I won’t comment on this because I can’t remember which data he was basing that off of. Regardless, 25% (at a bare minimum) is a sizable minority.

    His data set was his gut feeling. It is provided in the quote above with link; he offers no further proof than simply his belief that his view that affirmative action is damaging to Whites and Asians represents the views of the mainstream Asian American.

    So, I take it you will agree (and therefore disagree with Byron) that 25% is, in fact, less than 50%, and therefore is a minority opinion? Great!

    Like I said, I don’t care whether you think it’s a small or large minority — that’s a value judgement. I just want to settle that these data demonstrate that Byron’s position is, in fact, a minority opinion among AAPI. It’s a start.

    I’ll have to dig for this at a later time, but there is this book. I searched for Asian in the reviews and you can see numerous references on how Asians are held to a higher standard.

    Have you seen the linked podcast on why Mismatch Theory is not only wrong, but has been debunked by the overwhelming majority of sociologists and scientists studying the field of higher education? Richard Sander is for this field the equivalent to the one climate scientist who denies climate change, whose work is paraded around by politicos while it is dismantled and debunked by peer reviewers.

    I really highly suggest you take an hour and watch this podcast.

  • YourHusband

    Except it doesn’t matter where you go to college. Keep in mind that elite private colleges are overrated and typically a huge waste of money. Also, URMs who enroll in such schools tend to get poor grades and major in something uselessz so that they end up graduating with a worthless degree. They may have been better off at a state school instead

Comment Policy

Before posting, please review the following guidelines:

  • No ad hominem attacks: A person's identity, personal history, or background is not up for debate. Talk about ideas, not people.
  • Be courteous: Respect everyone else in this space.
  • Present evidence: This space endeavours to encourage academic and rational debate around identity politics. Do your best to build an argument backed not just with your own ideas, but also with science.
  • Don't be pedantic: Listen to those debating you not just for places to attack, but also where you might learn and even change your own opinion. Repeatedly arguing the same point irrespective of presented counterfacts will now be considered a violation of this site's comment policy.
  • Respect the humanity of all groups: To elevate the quality of debate, this site will no longer tolerate (racial, cultural, gender, etc.) supremacist or inferiority lines of argumentation. There are other places on the internet where nationalist arguments can be expressed; this blog is not those places.
  • Don't be an asshole: If you think your behaviour would get you punched in the face outside of the internets, don't say it on the internets.
  • Don't abuse Disqus features: Don't upvote your own comments. Don't flag other people's comments without reasonable cause. Basically, don't try to game the system. You are not being slick.

Is your comment not approved, unpublished, or deleted? Here are some common reasons why:

  • Did you sign in? You are required to register an account with Disqus or one of your social media accounts in order to comment.
  • Did your comment get caught in the spam filter? Disqus is set to automatically detect and filter out spam comments. Sometimes, its algorithm gets over-zealous, particularly if you post multiple comments in rapid succession, if your comment contains keywords often associated with spam, and/or if your comment contains multiple links. If your comment has been erroneously caught in the spam filter, contact me and I will retrieve it.
  • Did a comment get flagged? Comments will be default be published but flagged comments will be temporarily removed from view until they are reviewed by me.
  • Did you not play nice? You may have gotten banned and a bunch of your comments may have been therefore deleted. Sorry.

I monitor all comment threads, and try to address comments requiring moderation within 24-48 hours. Comments that violate this comment policy may receive a warning and removal of offensive content; overt or repeat violations are subject to deletion and/or banning of comment authors without warning.

I reserve final decision over how this comment policy will be enforced.

Summary:

Play nice and don't be a jerk, and you'll do just fine.