So... Native American... to mention or not to mention? (Long Story)

[LizzyM]

Would an Asian or black person adopted into a white family list themselves as white? My guess would be no.

I did see an applicant with a very "white bread" name write something in the personal statement about being ethnically Korean but adopted by a white family in middle America and the questions that came up when people made assumptions about the applicant's culture, parents, etc based on appearance. I didn't really make note of the ethnicity on the application; it might have been "prefer not to answer", I really don't recall.

OP doesn't have the same situation given that he doesn't appear to belong to a specific racial/ethnic group.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[naytive]

When Cherokees come to our pow wows, they get laughed at. Most Indians don't consider Cherokees to be Indian. The Cherokees are white people with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Indian in them. In fact, the Cherokees have been white people for SEVERAL generations. (These whites even kept black slaves and then threw them out of their all-white nation). On Indian reservations, there is a common joke:

"What do you call a nation full of white people?
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma"

The Cherokees are whiter than the whitest nation in Europe! So when the OP claims to be Indian because he just discovers his Cherokee ancestry, that is downright laughable because the Cherokees are not considered Indian by most of Indian country. They are fully white people. ALL of them. Not 90% of them. Not 95% of them. But close to 100% of them. The little color you see in the 0.01% of the Cherokees is the child of a white marrying a Korean.

The text below is from a popular e-mail Indian listserv -

QUOTE “The secret America does not know is that we (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the BIGGEST tribe in America, federally recognized) have been close to 100% white for several generations now. This is because BIA agents got their white relatives to fraudulently enroll in the Dawes Roll to get Indian land years ago. Today we are close to 100% Caucasian. http://i.imgur.com/Kxy1z4Q.jpg

By the way, we have been a white tribe for several *GENERATIONS*! All the Cherokee Nation Chiefs have also been white. Here, check them all out – my former Chiefs and the present Chief (they are all white):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_John_Baker

http://www.manataka.org/images/Smith, Chad, Cherokee Nation Chief.jpg

http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/image-files/crittenden-joe.jpg

http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/Docs/2012/1/5868_cou_120114_Seat1(1)_wc-L.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilma_Mankiller

http://www.pchs4allyears.com/old/onlinemuseum/vips/NATIVEAMERICAN/RossSwimmer2.jpg

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Oklaho...illiam-Wayne-Keeler-Press-Photo-/251069527624 (this was our Chief way back in 1969 – whites even then).


How about in the 1800′s? Well, we have been white even then. Check out my Chief in the 1800s: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=19551734

Here is another Chief of my nation from the 1800s, also white like everyone elsehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Charles_Rogers

And yet one more Chief of the Cherokee Nation from the 1800′s, also white like all:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Buffington

Want one more Chief from the 1800s? Here he is also white like the rest of the federally recognized Cherokees – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_B._Mayes

My tribe has always been a fraudulent tribes of whites who fraudulently got themselves enrolled in the Dawes Roll (to get Indian land and benefits). And today, for the most part, we are parasites on the hardworking American people. As whites who have (federally recognized but fake) Native American status, we get a ton of free things, including benefits like affirmative action.” UNQUOTE

Also check out this article by a former Yale professor in The American Indian Quarterly –http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v026/26.4shirt02.html

 

[Silverflash]

Dude, you need to relax. It seems like you feel your cultural identity is being threatened by low melanin levels in Cherokee Indians.

Am I even on SDN anymore?

 

[naytive]

Dude, you need to relax. It seems like you feel your cultural identity is being threatened by low melatonin levels in Cherokee Indians.
Am I even on SDN anymore?

Did you even read that article by the former Yale professor in The American Indian Quarterly?

It is not my cultural identity that is being threatened - whites don't threaten anyone's cultural identity. But the all-white Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (which is a collection of whites who have been fraudulently enrolled as Indians by government agents back in the day and the most powerful tribe in North & South America) does hurt other Indians in many, many, many, many, MANY ways. They bully other tribes constantly and lobby the government and others in ways that hurt other Indians. All of which is off-topic, so I won't get into such details here.

And what are you talking about - SDN is a great place to be!

 

[TastingJustice]

Did you even read that article by the former Yale professor in The American Indian Quarterly?

The article you linked only talks about American Indians in Connecticut, and it does not mention the Cherokee Nation.

 

[PlaqueBuster]

Native Americans = Indians? I feel like Indians are people originating from India. Really off topic but I wanted to clear this up or get some insight on this.

 

[wayves]

Natice Americans = Indians? I feel like Indians are people originating from India. Really off topic but I wanted to clear this up or get some insight on this.

Yep. Still, it's called the Bureau of Indian Affairs when it should be bureau of native american affairs

 

[naytive]

Yep. Still, it's called the Bureau of Indian Affairs when it should be bureau of native american affairs

Dude, you are so mistaken! Read articles by Steven Newcomb. Don't speak for Indians when you are not one.

 

[wayves]

Dude, you are so mistaken! Read any of the articles by Steven Newcomb. Don't speak for Indians when you are not one.

Oh I get it now. Your ancestors are from India. Makes sense now. I'm talking about Native Americans not indians.

 

[naytive]

Native Americans = Indians? I feel like Indians are people originating from India. Really off topic but I wanted to clear this up or get some insight on this.

While the word Native American is not offensive, I prefer to be referred to as Navajo (or Dine or Dineh, which means Navajo). But we usually prefer Indian to Native American. Calling us Native American is like Russia taking over Ukraine and calling current Ukrainians "Native Russians". It is like China forcing itself on Tibet and calling all Tibetans "Native Chinese". Yes, Indians are also people originating from India but there are so many words in English that depend on context and this is one of them. We always refer to ourselves as skins or Indians. It is white people who call us "Native American" which is fine with us. Either Indian or Native American is acceptable - neither bothers us, although the most traditional ones frown on the word "Native American" but you won't encounter the very traditional Indians unless you live on a reservation. Insisting that "Native American" should be used instead of "Indian" is a sign of total cluelessness about Indian culture because there are many traditionalists who hate the word "Native American" for the same reason that Tibetans would hate to be called "Native Chinese".

 

[raiderette]

While the word Native American is not offensive, I prefer to be referred to as Navajo (or Dine or Dineh, which means Navajo). But we usually prefer Indian to Native American. Calling us Native American is like Russia taking over Ukraine and calling current Ukrainians "Native Russians". It is like China forcing itself on Tibet and calling all Tibetans "Native Chinese". Yes, Indians are also people originating from India but there are so many words in English that depend on context and this is one of them. We always refer to ourselves as skins or Indians. It is white people who call us "Native American" which is fine with us. Either Indian or Native American is acceptable - neither bothers us, although the most traditional ones frown on the word "Native American" but you won't encounter the very traditional Indians unless you live on a reservation.

Welcome back Jinglemingle.
You do realize this thread is not all about you, right?

 

[naytive]

Oh I get it now. Your ancestors are from India. Makes sense now. I'm talking about Native Americans not indians.

See, this is why you should not put down Indian as your identity on medical applications. You are not even willing to learn from another Indian.

 

[naytive]

Welcome back Jinglemingle.
You do realize this thread is not all about you, right?

What?

 

[PlaqueBuster]

While the word Native American is not offensive, I prefer to be referred to as Navajo (or Dine or Dineh, which means Navajo). But we usually prefer Indian to Native American. Calling us Native American is like Russia taking over Ukraine and calling current Ukrainians "Native Russians". It is like China forcing itself on Tibet and calling all Tibetans "Native Chinese". Yes, Indians are also people originating from India but there are so many words in English that depend on context and this is one of them. We always refer to ourselves as skins or Indians. It is white people who call us "Native American" which is fine with us. Either Indian or Native American is acceptable - neither bothers us, although the most traditional ones frown on the word "Native American" but you won't encounter the very traditional Indians unless you live on a reservation. Insisting that "Native American" should be used instead of "Indian" is a sign of total cluelessness about Indian culture because there are many traditionalists who hate the word "Native American" for the same reason that Tibetans would hate to be called "Native Chinese".

You do realize that the term Indian has also been coined by Europeans right, when they were trying to find India? So I find it funny that this term is the preferred one over native American. Anyways lets stop this since this isnt what this thread is about

 

[wayves]

See, this is why you should not put down Indian as your identity on medical applications. You are not even willing to learn from another Indian.

What?

Just go away. You're way off-topic. If you want to discuss Indian Vs. Native American terminology, create a new thread somewhere else.

 

[naytive]

Just go away. You're way off-topic. If you want to discuss Indian Vs. Native American terminology, create a new thread somewhere else.

You are the one who brought up that Native American is preferred to Indian. I didn't. I merely pointed out you are wrong. I am sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people like you do bother Indians. This should give you an idea of the reception you will receive in medical school if you claim Indian status.

 

[wayves]

You are the one who brought up that Native American is preferred to Indian. I didn't. I merely pointed out you are wrong. I am sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people like you do bother Indians. This should give you an idea of the reception you will receive in medical school if you claim Indian status.

No people like me do not bother "Indians". I have spoken to many other "Indians" who have been very accepting of me, including leaders. You are n=1 and you are seriously derailing this thread. GTFO.

 

[naytive]

GTFO.

Alright, have a nice life.

 

[naytive]

you are seriously derailing this thread. GTFO.

Sorry, really didn't mean to do that.

 

[Planes2Doc]

I haven't had a chance to read all the posts so far in this thread. Things are a little crazy with exams, so I have been strapped for time, but wanted to offer some of my thoughts...

I will never quite understand the general SDN mentality toward URMs. I just don't get it. First of all, the medical school admissions process is hyper-competitive. It only takes half a brain to realize that. Secondly, the pro-allopathic forum's purpose is to help give an advantage to applicants. With that said, if you have a legitimate URM that is not necessarily engaged in their respective URM community (not really the case of the OP, but it's common), but decides to partake in URM-related ECs for the sake of medical school admissions, they are bombarded with nasty comments here on SDN. People are screaming at these applicants that they are UNETHICAL and only trying to use their URM status as a leg up in medical school admissions. I remember coming across a thread a few months back where a BLACK applicant didn't want to check off the African-American box so he wouldn't come off as trying to "get a leg up" in the admissions process. I don't remember if this was the exact reason, but it was something along those lines. I kid you not!

Ultimately, if you are a URM that is disadvantaged and genuinely wants to help your respective community, then you're alright according to a lot of people on SDN. However, if you are a URM that is well-off and not connected to your respective community, then may God help you if you decide to partake in your respective URM ECs, because you're nothing more than a selfish @$$hole trying to game the system.

But what about ORMs in the process? Everyone is expected to volunteer. Obviously, wanting to help the poor and underserved is the norm. If you don't do it, then you can kiss your medical school application goodbye. I was at lunch the other day with a couple fellow classmates. We spent some time talking about our pre-med lives, and they were saying how their volunteer work was "total bullsh*t." There's clearly something wrong when a majority of people are lying about their intentions regarding helping the underserved. Recently I met someone in class that actually wants to help the underserved. Without even thinking I exclaimed to her: "OMG really?!" So in this case, it's not only considered okay, but ORMs are EXPECTED to partake in activities they probably don't care about. The ZERO to Mother Teresa applicants that don't care are going the extra mile to pad their application, beyond the minimal expectations which prevent you from looking bad. They too are trying to get a "leg up" in the admissions process, playing the underserved card. They come off as these bleeding heart applicants during the medical school admissions process, but once they are in medical school, it changes in the blink of an eye, and they couldn't care less about the things they said previously. No one bats an eye when this happens. It happens all the time, and not only does no one care, but it's also expected to occur!

It's kind of a funny double-standard here... Let's attack URMs because they have a legitimate status, but don't do anything when ORMs are putting on a huge facade to do the same exact thing.

 

[mehc012]

At the end of the day, as an adoptee who felt out of place due to - albeit subtle - racial differences and then pursued their background and has become involved with a minority community with which you identify, you ARE underrepresented. I see no reason why you should not check the URM box, because while you may not have the 'typical' Indian story, you a) still identify and have expressed an interest to contribute to the community, and b) you do have an underrepresented background beyond even simply race.

If this situation does not qualify as URM, than the URM box has lost all meaning.

 

[Silverflash]

In my defense for accidentally confusing melanin and melatonin in my last post, it was 4 AM and I had just taken melatonin to help me fall asleep.

 

[Diesel47]

I never understood affirmative action, frankly i think its plain racism.

That being said, The notion of affirmative action is that people of certain races are disadvantaged. So they put the other races in a disadvantage to compensate. I know, its ridiculous.

In your case, you say you grew up "white", whatever that means. I'm assuming its good. So I would say that its dishonest and immoral to try to and say you are native american to get an advantage. Now if you want to put native american because you really identify that way... go ahead. All that matters is what the interviewer thinks. You could put native american for reason X, but if the interviewer thinks otherwise... tough luck.

If I was the interviewer and I got the impression you were trying to get your way into the school by faking something, I would deny without hesitation. Its all about how the interviewer sees it.

 

[mehc012]

I never understood affirmative action, frankly i think its plain racism to me.

That being said, The notion of affirmative action is that people of certain races are disadvantaged. So they put the other races in a disadvantage to compensate. I know, its ridiculous.

In your case, you say you grew up "white", whatever that means. I'm assuming its good. So I would say that its dishonest and immoral to try to and say you are native american to get an advantage. Now if you want to put native american because you really identify that way... go ahead. All that matters is what the interviewer thinks. You could put native american for reason X, but if the interviewer thinks otherwise... tough luck.

If I was the interviewer and I got the impression you were trying to get your way into the school by faking something, I would deny without hesitation. Its all about how the interviewer sees it.

URM isn't really about the disadvantaged aspect. That's what the 'disadvantaged' label is for.
URM is straight up 'are you part of a minority group of which there are very few physicians'?

 

[Diesel47]

URM isn't really about the disadvantaged aspect. That's what the 'disadvantaged' label is for.
URM is straight up 'are you part of a minority group of which there are very few physicians'?

Wouldn't a minority have few physicians because they are a minority? I mean.. there is less of them. Lol.

 

[mehc012]

Wouldn't a minority have few physicians because they are a minority? I mean.. there is less of them. Lol.

It's a proportion thing...URMs are typically defined as populations where there are fewer physicians than expected by population. As an example, if 60% of a hypothetical population are plain-bellied sneetches and 40% are star-bellied sneetches, but 90% of physicians were plain-bellied sneetches, then star-bellied sneetches are are underrepresented in Seussland healthcare, because they are not represented proportionally in the healthcare field. Yes, you would expect to see a few fewer star-bellied docs (only ~40%), but you actually end up seeing a LOT fewer (~10%) star-bellied docs.

 

[LizzyM]

Wouldn't a minority have few physicians because they are a minority? I mean.. there is less of them. Lol.

Oh, you are funny! Under-represented means that there are fewer physicians of a specific group than one would expect given their proportion in the US population. The US population is 13% African American and 17% Hispanic. Do schools that draw from the entire US reflect that? Do schools that draw from a specific state reflect the racial distribution of that state? If not, why not?

 

[Diesel47]

It's a proportion thing...URMs are typically defined as populations where there are fewer physicians than expected by population. As an example, if 60% of a hypothetical population are plain-bellied sneetches and 40% are star-bellied sneetches, but 90% of physicians were plain-bellied sneetches, then star-bellied sneetches are are underrepresented in Seussland healthcare, because they are not represented proportionally in the healthcare field. Yes, you would expect to see a few fewer star-bellied docs (only ~40%), but you actually end up seeing a LOT fewer (~10%) star-bellied docs.

My problem with it is: why does something superficial like there being a star on a sneetches stomach make a difference? If I made the rules, I would want to accept applicants based purely on performance and talent.... not whether they have a star or not.

 

[Diesel47]

Oh, you are funny! Under-represented means that there are fewer physicians of a specific group than one would expect given their proportion in the US population. The US population is 13% African American and 17% Hispanic. Do schools that draw from the entire US reflect that? Do schools that draw from a specific state reflect the racial distribution of that state? If not, why not?

Thanks .



I don't know why not..

Is it because they assume that racism is the cause here? Or is it a disadvantage? Economical positions? What do they think is the cause of this problem?

 

[mehc012]

My problem with it is: why does something superficial like there being a star on a sneetches stomach make a difference? If I made the rules, I would want to accept applicants based purely on performance and talent.... not whether they have a star or not.

How familiar are you with the specific challenges faced by black people, or native americans? Are you aware of the cultural differences which can complicate care for any and all specific groups? Do you feel more comfortable with a physician who looks like you and can relate to your experiences, or are things always kind of awkward once you try to connect with your doc and realize that they utterly don't relate? Do you speak another language (and not just bookwise, but fluently taking into consideration slang and lingo?) URM is typically strongest if there is evidence that you intend to work with the population at hand, but even barring that, even if none of your patients are ever from that minority group, don't you think that policies and priorities made by a diverse group of physicians will be more likely to consider those factors and be more broadly applicable?

 

[Diesel47]

How familiar are you with the specific challenges faced by black people, or native americans? Are you aware of the cultural differences which can complicate care for any and all specific groups? Do you feel more comfortable with a physician who looks like you and can relate to your experiences, or are things always kind of awkward once you try to connect with your doc and realize that they utterly don't relate? Do you speak another language (and not just bookwise, but fluently taking into consideration slang and lingo?) URM is typically strongest if there is evidence that you intend to work with the population at hand, but even barring that, even if none of your patients are ever from that minority group, don't you think that policies and priorities made by a diverse group of physicians will be more likely to consider those factors and be more broadly applicable?

I don't care if my doctor looks like me or celebrates the same holidays. I care if he is the best person for the job. If he is a good doctor, he can speak sign language for all I care. It is foolish to think otherwise.

These challenges. Are you saying that they are disadvantaged somehow? I still haven't gotten a straight answer.. Besides not being able to talk slang w/ your doc, what are these disadvantages? Economic? Racism?

 

[deleted480308]

Oh, you are funny! Under-represented means that there are fewer physicians of a specific group than one would expect given their proportion in the US population. The US population is 13% African American and 17% Hispanic. Do schools that draw from the entire US reflect that? Do schools that draw from a specific state reflect the racial distribution of that state? If not, why not?

because some racial groups have higher educational stats and likelihood of choosing medicine as a goal than others do...

OP, if you truly are native american and you truly identify as native american you are an idiot if you don't check that box...I don't think URM advantage should exist, but it does. Know the game, play the game

 

[mehc012]

I don't care if my doctor looks like me or celebrates the same holidays. I care if he is the best person for the job. If he is a good doctor, he can speak sign language for all I care. It is foolish to think otherwise.

These challenges. Are you saying that they are disadvantaged somehow? I still haven't gotten a straight answer.. Besides not being able to talk slang w/ your doc, what are these disadvantages? Economic? Racism?

Right, but he is NOT the best person for the job if he doesn't know where you're coming from, or that a cultural obstacle may make your first treatment thought not ideal for them, or if you don't feel comfortable talking to him/her and so don't reveal information, etc.
Just because you are comfortable with anyone and everyone doesn't mean that all people are...and that is especially true for those without the privilege of having the 'default' culture, perspective, struggles, etc.

 

[Diesel47]

Right, but he is NOT the best person for the job if he doesn't know where you're coming from, or that a cultural obstacle may make your first treatment thought not ideal for them, or if you don't feel comfortable talking to him/her and so don't reveal information, etc.
Just because you are comfortable with anyone and everyone doesn't mean that all people are...and that is especially true for those without the privilege of having the 'default' culture, perspective, struggles, etc.

What I got out of this is:
We use racism to artificially make a "diverse" workforce. Because arguably racist patients don't like being treated by people that don't look like them. This is absurd.


Edit: The right person for the job is the one who is most capable. If a person doesn't give critical information because they are racist, that is their problem. But I don't see why it has to be MY (or anybody else's) problem that I get worse medical treatment because some admissions committee didn't take the best for the job.

 

[mehc012]

What I got out of this is:
We use racism to artificially make a "diverse" workforce. Because arguably racist patients don't like being treated by people that don't look like them. This is absurd.

...or perhaps because a homogenous subsection of the population turns out not to be the ideal advocate for the entire diverse population after all. My examples were not about the patients being racist, they were about the fact that it is really hard to relate to someone you have no common ground with, and that physicians have to deal with, predict, and understand more than the biochemical aspects of their patients - they have to anticipate social factors as well. People are more likely to discuss a sensitive topic with someone who they feel will probably understand their concerns than with an unknown - if those concern are specific to a race or culture, then the race or culture of the physician may factor in...but that doesn't make them racist.

Besides, medical school admissions isn't about 'fair', it's about picking the population of people who will become the population of physicians. If they figure a diverse group of physicians is ideal for serving a diverse patient population, that becomes the goal.

 

[WillburCobb]

I don't care if my doctor looks like me or celebrates the same holidays.

You may not, but A LOT of patients do, which can have a significant impact on patient compliance.

 

[mehc012]

Edit: The right person for the job is the one who is most capable. If a person doesn't give critical information because they are racist, that is their problem. But I don't see why it has to be MY (or anybody else's) problem that I get worse medical treatment because some admissions committee didn't take the best for the job.

Likewise, it's not the adcom's (0r anybody else's) problem that you feel upset that you have to work hard to get into medical school.

It is foolish to assume that all doctor-patient interactions are identical or that there is one overarching 'ideal' physician who is the most capable in all possible situations. Medical school admissions is not about defining one ideal candidate and then matching everyone to that frame...it's about determining an ideal pool of candidates, any of which could be stronger in certain situations than others...and having that pool be as capable as possible. That inherently requires some aspect of diversity, because a homogenous pool will have a homogenous set of strengths and weaknesses.

 

[deleted480308]

...or perhaps because a homogenous subsection of the population turns out not to be the ideal advocate for the entire diverse population after all. My examples were not about the patients being racist, they were about the fact that it is really hard to relate to someone you have no common ground with, and that physicians have to deal with, predict, and understand more than the biochemical aspects of their patients - they have to anticipate social factors as well. People are more likely to discuss a sensitive topic with someone who they feel will probably understand their concerns than with an unknown - if those concern are specific to a race or culture, then the race or culture of the physician may factor in...but that doesn't make them racist.

Besides, medical school admissions isn't about 'fair', it's about picking the population of people who will become the population of physicians. If they figure a diverse group of physicians is ideal for serving a diverse patient population, that becomes the goal.

Just checking for consistency here, would you be fine with a medical school in vermont having a stated goal of 96% white students?

 

[touchpause13]

If you have a tribal ID then you should classify yourself as native.

 

[Promethean]

Just checking for consistency here, would you be fine with a medical school in vermont having a stated goal of 96% white students?

That doesn't seem like it would be hard to accomplish there. Why set a ridiculously low goal?

 

[deleted480308]

That doesn't seem like it would be hard to accomplish there. Why set a ridiculously low goal?

It's a simple question, would you support a medical school using "representative of population" logic to give vermont white students an advantage in admissions?

 

[mehc012]

Just checking for consistency here, would you be fine with a medical school in vermont having a stated goal of 96% white students?

It depends...are they planning to have their students practice only in Vermont after graduation? Accepting only IS Vermont applicants?

If your applicant pool is the entire US, and your students will practice throughout the US, then it seems silly to base your stats on the physical location of your buildings. If your applicant pool is almost entirely 'Vermont residents', and that pool is 96% white, then yes, I would expect you to end up with a similarly homogenous student body.

This, of course, can contribute to national imbalances depending on the locations and sizes of medical schools and which ones limit themselves mostly to IS students.

 

[deleted480308]

It depends...are they planning to have their students practice only in Vermont after graduation? Accepting only IS Vermont applicants?

If your applicant pool is the entire US, and your students will practice throughout the US, then it seems silly to base your stats on the physical location of your buildings. If your applicant pool is almost entirely 'Vermont residents', and that pool is 96% white, then yes, I would expect you to end up with a similarly homogenous student body.

You are consistent then...ridiculous in defending racial discrimination but consistent in wanting all schools to racially discriminate. I guess that's something

 

[Promethean]

And that is my legit answer. Vermont actually has only about a 94% "white" population, but I would wager that in the absence of any kind of affirmative action whatsoever, if the school showed preference to Vermont applicants, damn near 100% of the student body would be "white," and not necessarily because those were the most deserving applicants. Institutionalized racism exists. Affirmative action may not be the best possible response, but it is an attempt to address real systemic injustice.

Put another way, if that Vermont school said that it wanted to achieve a 6% minority group share in the student body, would you oppose that? Because it is the same thing as saying that the "white" kids get 94% of the seats. It gives the very same outcome. Why object to that phrasing? Getting 6% "nonwhite" is going to be much harder there than assuring 94% "white."

(I think "white" belongs in quotations because it is a ridiculous concept. It is the bundling of very different ethnicities based upon a very superficial characteristic. 40 years ago, Polish people and other Eastern Europeans weren't considered fully "white." A few generations earlier, Irish and Italians were considered nonwhite. Now those groups have all been folded into the coalition of paleness.)

 

[touchpause13]

I'm just going to post this in every URM thread I see from now on.

 

[mehc012]

You are consistent then...ridiculous in defending racial discrimination but consistent in wanting all schools to racially discriminate. I guess that's something

The goal isn't to be fair.

I'm actually not certain what my ultimate take is on the practice, btw...I just understand where they're coming from.

Also, just noticed your location, and suddenly your take just fits so well, which actually makes me happier that we don't agree.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm just going to post this in every URM thread I see from now on.

I've watched it before but feel free to post it all you want...racial discrimination is wrong

 

[deleted480308]

The goal isn't to be fair.

I'm actually not certain what my ultimate take is on the practice, btw...I just understand where they're coming from.

Also, just noticed your location, and suddenly your take just fits so well, which actually makes me happier that we don't agree.

heaven forbid you agree with the guy saying racial discrimination is wrong...that would be crazy, right?

 

[touchpause13]

I've watched it before but feel free to post it all you want...racial discrimination is wrong

You've watched this exact video before?
It's not even really about the policy, it's about African American patients and how race and the culture of a particular race should be taken into account during patient care. Just treating everyone "the same" is stupid. Pretending to be color blind is stupid. It's not helpful. It's not discrimination to take someone's race into account, to say that's a life experience that you have that a white person probably has not.

 

[mehc012]

heaven forbid you agree with the guy saying racial discrimination is wrong...that would be crazy, right?

No, more 'heaven forbid I agree with anything remotely in line with Ayn Rand's philosophy'

And you're using your own definition of racial discrimination and ignoring huge swaths of other instances, but sure...phrase it however you like. I'm not going to jump into the game of "rephrasing your own and your opponent's views with connotation-heavy titles" because it's BS. So yes, continue calling yourself 'an opponent of racial discrimination' and call the other side whatever you like.