I unashamedly am part of a group that was victimized by gross genocide and forced assimilation to the point of ridiculously lowered populations of the AI groups. I can show state laws that adversely affected my family on multiple levels based on bigotry--AIs treated as subhuman just as Af-Ams were. Even individual state laws, forget even the federal abuses, are nothing short of disgusting. Those that remain should stand up for these groups and social justice and equity is social justice. These are grossly marginalized people.
Proving Native American Status for Application
- Thread starter Yhaatheth
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 5,710
- Reaction score
- 5,460
You can bet that for all the high and mighty talk, the school would count him as Navajo without a moments pause once he's through the door.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
I just want to reiterate what I said before that if you look phenotypically white, you get to blend in a way that 1/2 or 1/4 black individuals don't. That is a huge difference. Looking black carries all kinds of social consequences. Looking white, but being 1/16 IA, results in very small social consequences (if any.)
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
I dunno. The AdCom members on this thread have all been pretty unanimous in saying that OP's ancestry would not factor into their decision...
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 27,743
- Reaction score
- 51,543
Admission decisions are not based on reparation for ills suffered by one's ancestors. Why would it be in the interest of future patients to make admission decisions to medical school as a form of reparation?
If you want to be admitted, you need to be among the top in your peer group. There is no racial or ethnic group I know of being categorically denied any seats as was the case 50 years ago in some Southern medical schools that categorically did not admit blacks or the schools of an earlier era that did not admit women.
If you want to be admitted, you need to be among the top in your peer group. There is no racial or ethnic group I know of being categorically denied any seats as was the case 50 years ago in some Southern medical schools that categorically did not admit blacks or the schools of an earlier era that did not admit women.
BTW Zed, it's not about reiterating what has been re-stated on sites like SDN or by other admission related people. They are following what they follow for fear of EEOC ramifications and for federal funding impact. Most aren't doing the right thing to do the right thing. If they were they would be disturbed by the gross dissimulation of having an Af-Am raised white using their Af-Am status, but disregarding AI status w/o proof of extreme cultural affiliation--that is federally recognized tribes as well, in general--which is a whole other idiotic, stupid argument.
Yes, it also is about reparations, which can't really be done in terms of true social justice.
A good percentage of Af-Ams today are raised outside of the hood and w/o the same level of disparity and discrimination as their parents or grandparents. It's about being marginalized--as Af-Ams or AIs. These are those that have been most grossly marginalized--as well as perhaps, in a number of cases, openly gay persons.
Females, like many Af-Ams had the benefit of more impart through civil rights influences and changes. This is certainly not true for AIs by and large.
Yes, it also is about reparations, which can't really be done in terms of true social justice.
A good percentage of Af-Ams today are raised outside of the hood and w/o the same level of disparity and discrimination as their parents or grandparents. It's about being marginalized--as Af-Ams or AIs. These are those that have been most grossly marginalized--as well as perhaps, in a number of cases, openly gay persons.
Females, like many Af-Ams had the benefit of more impart through civil rights influences and changes. This is certainly not true for AIs by and large.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
Point is, simply being a tiny percentage AI, without looking and playing the part, and without being identified as such, doesn't carry any negative consequences. So, what reparations are there to be made for such individuals?
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 27,743
- Reaction score
- 51,543
It really doesn't help that every time I see IA, I think Artificial Intelligence. "Justice for cyborgs!"
Is it really so hard to use words rather than acronyms?
Is it really so hard to use words rather than acronyms?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
You don't have to address the argument if you don't want to, but I think it is a fair one. Reparations exist (in theory) to help individuals who are still affected today by historical wrongs. An individual who doesn't look, and isn't identified by others, as AI is not experiencing the negative consequences of past atrocities.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
I assume you don't have any teenage kids Lizzy? It's like they speak in some sort of spy language, "ttyl a2go w sum frndz l8r!"
D
deleted480308
Would you give rachel dolezal urm status?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 5,710
- Reaction score
- 5,460
Do school admins decide not to "count" people if they aren't back enough? This isn't the OPs hypocrisy.
LOL, this is why I first used NA.
I think it is b/c I posted too many posts that this got lost here. I am referring to the dissimulation and disparity in the application of URM.
But yes, one could most definitely make an argument for not only negative AI affects & effects for later generations, but for the group of people as a whole.
Remember what I said earlier? They are essentially a non-entity. But it is the glaring dissimulation I was addressing.
Reparations do exist to help the surviving groups as well. NAs are not ORM. W/o question they are the most URM. But my points have been lost in the capricious application of rules and guidelines re: "social injustices," so. . .
NAs/AIs are like trees falling in the forest, where everyone else chooses to leave the forest so they don't have to hear them falling; hence they are "not" falling. But they have been and nothing is new in this regard. In short, mostly, no one really cares, and there is no powerful, political expediency that makes them care--unlike what occurs w/ other groups.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,017
- Reaction score
- 461
What about a situation where an individual genetically belongs to an ethnic group (e.g. Native American), looks phenotypically white, but has demonstrated a commitment to that culture? Would tribal registration strictly be required? And please note I pose this a serious question; it is not a hypothetical but information I hope to pass on to someone.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,017
- Reaction score
- 461
What are AIs? American Indian? There are far better acronyms.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 27,743
- Reaction score
- 51,543
Those of you who are Native Americans, please check out the student opportunities offered through the Association of American Indian Physicians
https://www.aaip.org/programs/student-programs/
https://www.aaip.org/programs/student-programs/
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2001
- Messages
- 723
- Reaction score
- 294
Interesting..
The tribe I work for will NOT recognize you as a member thru a DNA test (even if that DNA test said 100% native american) REGARDLESS of appearance. You MUST prove it thru a genealogy of "enrolled" FEMALES. Having the race thru your father or any other male makes you ineligible for tribe benefits/recognition/political power. It is interesting as the tribe next to us requires a genealogy of registered MALES, and who a vast amount live near the local tribe.
The tribe I work for will NOT recognize you as a member thru a DNA test (even if that DNA test said 100% native american) REGARDLESS of appearance. You MUST prove it thru a genealogy of "enrolled" FEMALES. Having the race thru your father or any other male makes you ineligible for tribe benefits/recognition/political power. It is interesting as the tribe next to us requires a genealogy of registered MALES, and who a vast amount live near the local tribe.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 27,743
- Reaction score
- 51,543
This is why "genetics" is not what adcoms look for and it is why "phenotype" can be overlooked as well. If one "walks the walk" and has been engaged in their community and has knowledge of the culture and would be identified by members of the community of someone who is trustworthy, then there might be an argument made that this person by virtue of their ties to a racial or ethnic community would be an asset to that community as a practicing physician despite being, perhaps, below the top 42% of all applicants of any race. Because, let's face it. If someone checks a URM ethnicity box but has no ties to the community, doesn't have the appearance we associate with that ethnic community but has a 4.0/40, we don't much care what ethnic box has been checked. It is the person who couldn't get in having checked the "white" box who suddenly decides that they might check a different box the second time around to increase the chances of getting admitted that raises eyebrows.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 44
That's interesting. I see how that could weed out impostors who don't have any claims to the tribe; perhaps a member of a different tribe and/or country who's trying to seek acceptance or benefits. Now I'm wondering how often adcoms come across applicants who identify as "Native American" @Goro @LizzyM
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 72,617
- Reaction score
- 115,655
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 27,743
- Reaction score
- 51,543
I agree with @Goro. We see very few applicants who are Native Americans or Alaskan Natives but it could be due to our location and our reputation as a top tier, research focused school. There are very few applicants who claim this heritage; AAMC does not even report out Native American/Alaskan Native appliants separately and because there is overlap with the African-American/Black and Hispanic groups it isn't even possible to subtract off those groups from the requisite Table 25 spreadsheets and come up with a number.
This is now considered by a number of the formerly called Native Americans, as the the preferred reference--American Indian--b/c it is more inclusive of Pacific Islanders, Alaskans, etc.
NO, that is not what some of us are referring to. That's a tribal benefit from a particular tribe. Their funds are extremely limited, and as a private entity, they have chosen the parameters in that regard. Not the same thing. Sigh again.
You don't see so many b/c there aren't that many, by far, comparatively speaking. This is something that is apparently way more involved than most people realize. Those that have AI ancestry have to do A LOT of work to find out all the details of what it means to be AI--both generally speaking and specifically--w/ reference to any particular tribes.
And sooo many tribes were split and reformed and split. This is part of the problem. Much of the confused has to do w/ devastating the general population of AI people and then forced assimilation. You will be hard pressed to find other groups that were/are as under-represented as those of AI people. Part of the problem is the difficulty with which claims were or could be made. That was devastatingly limited going back 100's of years. Even though this is a relatively new nation, historically speaking, it took little to no time to whittle down the numbers of the previous inhabitants--AIs, existence on the land here goes back a very long time. But in general, most of AIs did not want the same lifestyle as the colonists. Ownership of land as such wasn't understood by them--turf, maybe, ownership, not until later--and even then it was by leaders that saw the writing on the wall. Many AIs still remained in relative peace in northern-western territories up until the Gold Rush, when the miners hit those areas like locusts. Treaties were made with those AIs that wanted to preserve people--but the government broke treaties. Treaties were made and repeatedly broken by the government. The government is still playing games w/ AI people. These were/are tribes of one kin of people to which you have to give serious study. Short of that, heads and wheels keep spinning.
The whole thing is really involved and hairy. Most people that were not raised on a reservation or something close to it will become easily exasperated doing the research. So, for the most part, no one is really gaming the system. Most of us are interested in our backgrounds and the affects of treatment on AI people. AIs as far as this country is concerned are more or less considered a "byword." So I don't know why people are so fearful that someone is gaming a system. I believe you can even opt out of denoting what your race and such is on applications. It's a question that the school is asking. If it is true; it's true. It's not like anyone is really going to get anything out of it, other than for their own interest and hopefully for support for AI people.
DNA is used as well as other sources of information. If a particular tribe chooses to only use their prescribed terms for their funds, that's up to them. It has nothing to do with whether or no you are considered a part of an under-represented people. If you are, you are. So what? You are stating a fact, if indeed it is one, just as much as if you were to say you were of any other background. Why does everyone make a grand assumption about the use of sharing of this information?
And sooo many tribes were split and reformed and split. This is part of the problem. Much of the confused has to do w/ devastating the general population of AI people and then forced assimilation. You will be hard pressed to find other groups that were/are as under-represented as those of AI people. Part of the problem is the difficulty with which claims were or could be made. That was devastatingly limited going back 100's of years. Even though this is a relatively new nation, historically speaking, it took little to no time to whittle down the numbers of the previous inhabitants--AIs, existence on the land here goes back a very long time. But in general, most of AIs did not want the same lifestyle as the colonists. Ownership of land as such wasn't understood by them--turf, maybe, ownership, not until later--and even then it was by leaders that saw the writing on the wall. Many AIs still remained in relative peace in northern-western territories up until the Gold Rush, when the miners hit those areas like locusts. Treaties were made with those AIs that wanted to preserve people--but the government broke treaties. Treaties were made and repeatedly broken by the government. The government is still playing games w/ AI people. These were/are tribes of one kin of people to which you have to give serious study. Short of that, heads and wheels keep spinning.
The whole thing is really involved and hairy. Most people that were not raised on a reservation or something close to it will become easily exasperated doing the research. So, for the most part, no one is really gaming the system. Most of us are interested in our backgrounds and the affects of treatment on AI people. AIs as far as this country is concerned are more or less considered a "byword." So I don't know why people are so fearful that someone is gaming a system. I believe you can even opt out of denoting what your race and such is on applications. It's a question that the school is asking. If it is true; it's true. It's not like anyone is really going to get anything out of it, other than for their own interest and hopefully for support for AI people.
DNA is used as well as other sources of information. If a particular tribe chooses to only use their prescribed terms for their funds, that's up to them. It has nothing to do with whether or no you are considered a part of an under-represented people. If you are, you are. So what? You are stating a fact, if indeed it is one, just as much as if you were to say you were of any other background. Why does everyone make a grand assumption about the use of sharing of this information?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,422
- Reaction score
- 12,687
@jl lin - You're tilting at windmills. I share your frustration at the unfairness of actions, both past and recent, and at the unsatisfactory 'resolution' we now have in place that still leaves out so many. But I don't see any easy solutions we're overlooking because we don't care.
If you were 'king of the world', what laws would you enact to make things better? I'm being 100% serious here --
If you were 'king of the world', what laws would you enact to make things better? I'm being 100% serious here --
Yes, the windmills are politco-governmental entities that function capriciously in terms of the use of social justice. Don Quixote's reality versus the actual, historical reality... Capricious application re: those that are URM is what it is--capricious. People avoiding things and looking the other way is how bullies get to carry on and victims continue to be trampled into the ground. It's wrong to make one minority jump through such hoops, whilst mandating that another doesn't, simply b/c of the political landscape. If URM then URM. This is how funny this whole thing is. Uncle Same has moved the grants to 1/4% AI. Now, that doesn't affect me; b/c I have never applied for grants. I have a license and work.
The point is, it's is unethical and unjust to have such extreme and varying sets of URM standards in terms of application. Once again, the big picture is missed, and it really is all about political landscape.
It's the dissimulation that is so egregious.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 54,188
We do see a significant number of otherwise "white" applicants with no apparent connection to any tribe who nonetheless, claim that they are Native. Our Native American students do not care for this form of gaming.
Right, b/c if they are truly AI, there is no need for gaming; b/c they are what they are.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 5,710
- Reaction score
- 5,460
So what? Does your institution include those "otherwise white" students in the statistics you report or do you have some tricorder you can use to determine ethnicity more accurately?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 54,188
Sadly, we see a far larger number of gamers.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 54,188
This gets back to my previous response.
A validated association and commitment to service is at least as important as anything else so no, we don't like being gamed so they are not "counted." Parenthetically, my students like this even less.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
Do you think it's possible that this skepticism may marginalize other "legitimate" applicants, who may not be as active in their commitment to the American-Indian community?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 54,188
It is possible.
UIM status is not for the individual, though.
Just curious. How do determine gamers though?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 54,188
The only evidence of their affiliation is a checked box.
And now, 23 and me.
OK, once more. Why must AIs demonstrate affiliation along w/ their DNA; while, say, Af-Ams do not? How can this be anything but unjust? It's rare that anyone would ask an Af-Am to demonstrate affiliation. Yet DNA isn't good enough? So, indeed, how do you know an Af-Am will lend support to the Af-Am community as well?
This by far is not 1:1 in fairness re: URM. This should be obvious. But someone with the DNA of AI is necessarily "gaming?" You see there is something wrong w/ that logic.
This by far is not 1:1 in fairness re: URM. This should be obvious. But someone with the DNA of AI is necessarily "gaming?" You see there is something wrong w/ that logic.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 54,188
In the absence of any other connection to a community, a person who goes on a fishing expedition for genes that will improve their admissions odds is, by definition, gaming (without regard to the identity they hope to dissemble).
I must repeat, UIM is not for the applicant.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
I think he's only asking if you apply the same litmus test to African American and URM Hispanic applicants.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 54,188
You bet.
And we see it all the time.
I have re-applicants who change their race or ethnicity with each application.
I've had students come in to apologize for a sibling who "changed" his race to try to improve his odds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well DNA testing for ethnicity is still imperfect; but some racial identifiers should show up. If a person knows that their grandparents or greatGPs etc are/were of a particular race, and they would also like to see that reflected in DNA testing, as well as it can be done, that doesn't necessarily mean they are on a fishing expedition. Not at all. Heck, I wouldn't give my DNA information, even if you asked for it. It's bad enough I have to be identified by a SSN (numbers originally were not to be used as identifiers). We see where that has gone.
If a person states they have some familiar association w/ a said race, they are NOT necessarily gaming anybody. So they are doomed if they check off more than one race, when indeed it is a fact--though not necessarily phenotypically so?
Many of us were taught and believe the importance of earning we can in life to the best of our abilities. We were not raised looking for handouts or to "game" anyone. It's insulting to think that if people list another race on their application, the immediate assumption is "Gamer." Holy crap. Why not wait to see if someone actually asks for something--like funding of some sort, before taking a firm hold on the whole "gamer" belief.
I totally get the said rationale behind affiliations and involvement in communities; but it is not held consistently to all groups.
Most of the AI people are whittled away to nothing. Let them be represented for God's sake. There aren't many of them left. Geez they've been robbed to no end, and yet there is still a refusal of giving them a nanometer of representation. Unreal. Again, political landscape.
But to be fair, the other issue is this.
Do we really want to start mandatory DNA testing of folks in the application process? I think not, but science would give, perhaps some edge, in terms of racial identifiers. Again, this is obviously problematic.
If a person states they have some familiar association w/ a said race, they are NOT necessarily gaming anybody. So they are doomed if they check off more than one race, when indeed it is a fact--though not necessarily phenotypically so?
Many of us were taught and believe the importance of earning we can in life to the best of our abilities. We were not raised looking for handouts or to "game" anyone. It's insulting to think that if people list another race on their application, the immediate assumption is "Gamer." Holy crap. Why not wait to see if someone actually asks for something--like funding of some sort, before taking a firm hold on the whole "gamer" belief.
I totally get the said rationale behind affiliations and involvement in communities; but it is not held consistently to all groups.
Most of the AI people are whittled away to nothing. Let them be represented for God's sake. There aren't many of them left. Geez they've been robbed to no end, and yet there is still a refusal of giving them a nanometer of representation. Unreal. Again, political landscape.
But to be fair, the other issue is this.
Do we really want to start mandatory DNA testing of folks in the application process? I think not, but science would give, perhaps some edge, in terms of racial identifiers. Again, this is obviously problematic.
But to answer your question @DokterMom , as Sting sang, "...There is no political solution..."
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,009
Gyngyn said that, at his school at least, the standard is held to all UIM groups.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 27,743
- Reaction score
- 51,543
That is correct at my school as well. There are those who try to game the system and claim to be African-American or Black or Hispanic although they don't really fit the US Census definitions of those groups.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 72,617
- Reaction score
- 115,655
Blacks wear it on their skin 100% of the time. If you don't believe that, ask the people of Ferguson, MO, or Dr Henry Louis Gates. Having a full professor Faculty position at Harvard didn't stop the local police for profiling and arresting the guy on his own front porch.
How many 1/4, 1/8, or 1/16 native Americans get stopped for "driving while red"??????
Why is it so hard to understand that for Native Americans, the water has been sullied by hordes of unethical Anglos trying to palm themselves off as Native Americans? Pay attention to what gyngyn is saying. You're angry at the wrong people.
Hence the need for the applicant to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. Do you want any fool to walk into the interview room and try to claim NA status, just because they say so?
How many 1/4, 1/8, or 1/16 native Americans get stopped for "driving while red"??????
Why is it so hard to understand that for Native Americans, the water has been sullied by hordes of unethical Anglos trying to palm themselves off as Native Americans? Pay attention to what gyngyn is saying. You're angry at the wrong people.
Hence the need for the applicant to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. Do you want any fool to walk into the interview room and try to claim NA status, just because they say so?
You are what you are, so if you're part Native American then you have every right to say that. My only problem is this...I sure hope that as soon as you learned of your partial Native American heritage, you claimed it. I have a problem with people who want to claim their minority status only when it's convenient or when it seems to provide an advantage. But then claim to be white when they don't feel like dealing with any prejudices.
Final thought: If you've always claimed your Native American heritage, you absolutely have a right to put that on the application. If you're suddenly claiming it to use it to your advantage, that's unethical and they'll probably see right though you.
Final thought: If you've always claimed your Native American heritage, you absolutely have a right to put that on the application. If you're suddenly claiming it to use it to your advantage, that's unethical and they'll probably see right though you.
