c:\doc\web\97\04\gccruz.txt


Unfortunately, alumni preferences and preferences
for "celebrities" and donors are all perfectly
legal, and it really doesn't bother me that much
as long as Asians get their share, even if asian might
have fewer legacies or celebrities.


This was the conclusion of the harvard study.


> Date:          Wed, 11 Jun 1997 03:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Subject:       affirmative action


> i have always considered your collection of spreadsheets as very
> impressive.....
> indeed.however, in your columns in asianweek and your commentaries in your
> website ; you have avoided intentionall or not or not has taken notice of the
> truly
> evil admission practices of ivy league schools like harvard,yale, princeton
> including
> your alma mater stanford. these schools admit students who got lower grades
> who are the children of alumni in place of students who got higher sat scores
> into their freshman class. let me cite the example of the kennedy children
> admit-
> ted to harvard and brown, the children of george bush admitted to yale, the
> son
> of ronald reagan ,,,jr that is admitted to yale the son of activist tom
> hayden....zachary admitted to brown...it is simply disgusting. liiberals and
> conservatives do not
> denounce this outrageous practices....you'll here more from me later.....why
> should the white children of white ivy league alumni from ny upper east side
> be given
> preference for admission to the ivy league schools.A few months ago the ny
> times said that 165 apllicants to the freshman class at harvard in 1996 were
> denied admissions to harvard even though they have perfect 1600 sat
> scores.....this was done even though the ny times did not say it so that the
> children of alumni willl be admitted, so that the children of white
> university professors and administrators will be admitted, so that the
> children of well known people will be admitted, so that the children of rich
> people who are not alumni that give money to harvard will be admitted.....if
> you follow the logic art....it means that if your have an sat score of
> 1580 there are 100-200 applicants who got higher scores than you did who were
> denied admission to harvard....if you are somebody with an sat score of 1500
> and was enrolled at harvard .....there are  1000-1500 applicants who got
> higher
> sat scores than you did who were denied admission to harvard....and if you
> are a 
> guy with an sat score of 1200 and enrolled at harvard there are probably
> 7000-8000
> applicants to harvard who got higher scores than  you did who were denied
> admission to harvard.....and all for what? to give seats or places in the
> freshman classs  to the children of alumni to the children of professors and
> administrators, to the children of people who are not alumni but give money
> to harvard to the children 
> of well-known people . this is vile ,evil disgusting and depraved. chris
> buckleyl yale'75
> was admitted to yale because his father is william buckley the editor of
> national
> review who is a yale alumnus . chris buckley yale''75 admittance to yale
> obviously
> has nothing to do with what is inside his brain . do you think brooke shields
> and
> jodi foster were admitted to princeton because of anything that has to do
> with the
> contents of their brains? obviously not ! these vile , evill admission
> practices come right out of central casting from the middle ages....it is the
> prescription for a feudal society......and i thought america was a democracy.
> i  hope you talk more about
> this things in your website ....racial preferences are vile but these alumni
> preference is worse they had been doing it for hundred of years....close down
> the ivy league
> schools including your alma mater stanford for these vile practices... youll
> here from
> me soon....... 
> 
> 


actually I went to MIT,which does not have a legacy
admissions preference


The main reason people have been attacking this 
policy has been to justify affirmative action, but
it actually only proves that minorities admitted
under affirmative action are just as under-qualified,
and if it's wrong to lower standards for alumni, it's
certainly wrong for minorities.


> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:07:17 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Subject:       affirmative action


> there are many things i would like to discuss with you but let us begin with
> the the
> rationale for the admissions practices of the the ivy league schools....the
> basic
> reason why they give preference to the children of  alumni is money ....they
> are perfectly willing to admit the children of alumni and well known people
> in lieu of
> other applicants even though they got lower grades and sat scores than these
> other applicants who they think are less capable of giving them money. one
> way of puttiing it is that rich applicants who are not so smart are admitted
> to ivy league schools in lieu of smarter students at the same time admitting
> some poor smart students.the
> effect of this being that  it will raise the the average sat score of the ivy
> league schools making it attractive to attend for the rich not so smart
> children of  white folks who live at greenwich connecticut and the ny upper
> east side. in other words,
> harvard will admit students who are not able to pay the full tuition of 20000
> dollars
> a year tuition at harvard and whose sat scores are at 1400 or 1500 and above
> and offer them a discount tuition payment to encourage them to attend harvard
> whereby they will pay tuition of 1000-10000 dollars a year depending upon
> indivi-
> dual circumstances or even nothing at all.This in turn will raise the average
> sat score of harvard to 1430 which will make it attractive for the children
> of the rich alum ni to attend.you know that if the mean sat score of harvard
> is 1430 for the freshman class is 1430 it does not mean that everybody scored
> above 1430....the midrange sat score of harvard is 1330-1530 that is the
> range of the 25th-75th percentile. And obviously for the 25th percentile and
> below their sat scores range from 800-1330 if i dare say it, and in fact 5
> percent of the 1996 freshman class of harvard have sat scores below 1000 and
> obviously  they are not black or hispanice or asian or native american .And i
> suspect you know that the reason why the rich white alumni are willing to
> give millions of dollars to harvard and other ivy league schools so that
> their mediocre children could have their ivy league school name written on
> their sheepskin....and that reason is greed ,selfishness and pure
> self-interest.They want society to perceive their children to be smart and
> well-educated....smart they are not ,perhaps well-educated.....but the whole
> premise is disgusting....like everything else in society they want to get
> want .....the end justifies the means foul and evil though it may
> be.....arthur let us start with some simple basic facts about the percentage
>  of alumni children in the ivy league schools at harvard it is 18 or 19 % at
> stanford it is 20 % percent at darthmouth it is 23 % at notre dame it is 25%
> ...at princeton it is 25 % ....amherst claims that only 15 % of the freshman
> class of are the children of alumni ...but this is due to the fact that
> amherst is not a research university....and does not require as much money as
> harvard....and can you believe this at the uni
> -versity of pennsylvania  they even set up an office to appeal the cases of
> alumni
> children to the admissions committee...who were already rejected by the
> admissions committee....if there is anything more disgusting than this then i
> don't know what is...i once made a remark to a ccri(california civil rights
> initiative) about the meaning of the word notre dame....you know as well as i
> do notre dame in in french means "our lady"....well i told the ccri
> representative alright that the priests and nuns turned her into a "bitch
> alright with the obscenity of admitting the children of mediocre but rich
> irish-american alumni over the children of poor irish americans who had
> higher sat scores in the notre dame freshman class of 1996....alumni money is
> not the justification for the existence of a university....and also art
> obviously these situations are known to a considerable number of
> people.....but professors don'.t denounce them or it because their children
> are admitted to these schools even if their children have low sat scores just
> because they are professor s of that particular ivy league schools....a
> recent la times article stated that a ucla political science professor stated
> (no wonder or as usual ) stated that he was transferring to northwestern
> because public universities like ucla will not give preference for admission
> to his children while a private school like northwestern will give preference
> for admission
> to northwestern even if his children got low sat scores.....this is
> disgusting arthur
> ain't it?.....you dont' hear people like dinesh d'souza ,abigail thernstrom
> or bill kristol
> or william buckley denounce this alumni admissions practices....and neither
> does the aclu or norman lear or christopher edley  or lani guinier  or
> randall jackson denounce these outrageous preferential practices...it is sick
> the right is as bad as the left the liberal s are as bad as the
> conservatives........you know that harvard admissions director william
> fitzpatrick admitted to the chronicle of higher education......that is the
> bible of anybody looking for a job in academia.....that " alumni and parents
> yell at him telling him that if he does not admit their children to harvard
> they will not get  any money from them...."what can i do..i have to do what
> the alumni wants otherwise harvard
> will not get any money".....so Fitzpatrick is nothing but a lapdog of the
> alumni ..."a running lapdog at that" to quote a favorite expression of the
> maoists. this happened while the us office of civil right was investigating
> harvard and uc berkeley is pursuant to your complaint. I will e-mail you
> again later art i am a computer ignoramus this is my first time to do an
> e-mail bear with me .....thank you
> 
> 


It's fairly well known that alumni preferences are
comparable to minority, but it's ironic that 
defenders of affirmative action chose to attack it
if they believe it is justified for race. The
law says it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of
race, not other forms of favoritism.


What is your position on racial preferences?


> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:29:47 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Subject:       affirmative action


> i hope my reference to notre dame did not bore you after all it is in
> reference to 
> the virgin mary.....i was just irritated at that time at a ccri
> representative who was
> an irish-american who was denouncing racial preferences but not alumni
> preferences The record shows that the various ivy league schools have at at
> one time or the other and still continiously try to do so to lie about their
> admissions policies ,,,to refrain from releasing sat data of alumni and rich
> people's children in their reports to entities like the us news and world
> report....i don't have much faith in us news and world report ...but
> certainly they had been the object of all sort data witholding deceits by
> private universities
> 
> 
\
From:             GCruz29176@aol.com
Date sent:        Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:          affirmative action


arthur thank you for your reply ,and same to you alan favish and everyone
else who read the letter.Again let me say that this is the first time i had
done e-mail and a complete computer and e-mail ignoramus...i am typing things
in a hurry and not even proofreading it and i guess i have to improve my
prose,
this should have been an open letter to everybody rather than a letter to
you,
i guess there is a word in cyberspace for that i have rectified that omission
though
after seeing the responses.Everyone has my permission to copy,read or
whatever this letter and my previous ones, and also this letter will be a
running commentary so i might have to stop and get back to it but regard it
as a long open letter to everybody. First of all arthur, i am sorry about my
ignorance of your resume
i thought that  you got your bs or sb at stanford and ms at mit , so i had
the wrong impression. Second , i will apologize to anybody of the roman
catholic persuasion for using the word "bitch" in reference to the virgin
mary .After all notre dame means our lady in English and "our lady " denotes
the Virgin Mary in in Roman Catholic theology. I made this comment to an
irish american at a Jacl sponsored forum on affirmative action in monterey
park,ca (JACL-the Japanese American Citizens League). I was getting irritated
at him because being a  panelist at the forum (he was a CCri
representative-you know the california civil rights initiative) he was
denouncing racial preferences while not denouncing alumni preferences.So i
told him in a fit
of irritation that " that the priests of  the university of notre dame turned
her (the
Virgin Mary) into a bitch alright with the obscenity of admitting rich Irish
American
with low Sat scores over poor Irish-Americans with higher Sat scores.Also
regards to your comment about mit not having legacy admissions , i am aware
of the fact that mit hired judge leon higginbotham to defend itself against
federal charges for joining ivy league and private schools for joining the
engaging in price-fixing and financial
aid award collusion. You see art the judge ordered the ivy league and about
40 other private schools to stop having their admissions officers meet every
for the past 15-20 years from haggling with each other about how much
financial aid should be awarded to admitted students..e.g. harvard or yale
would haggle with each other about how
much financial aid would be given to a student admitted to both schools to
entice
the student to attend harvard over yale or vice versa...i think you get the
picture of
what this really means ...it is like the Arab oil cartel of the 1970's and
these schools are worse. S0 i suspect mit has some form of legacy admissions
but not on the 
scale of harvard ,yale or princeton etc.....Caltech on the other hand because
it has
a much smaller freshman class than mit and also because it receives more
federal
funds as a percentage of its budget.probably does not engage in legacy
admissions.....but you never know....again thank you all....i will continue
later
and kindly e-mail this to everyone else for now i will try to do most of it
in the future...I have to go to work right now






More from a guy upset about legacy admissions.


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
Date:          Mon, 16 Jun 1997 05:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
To:            sadp@ucsd.edu
Cc:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:       Re: affirmative action


  I had been in a hurry most of the time and has been unable to proofread the
most of the e-mail that i had sent...more about that later at the end of this
e-mail
.Indeed it is true that public universities like the UC system does not give
alumni preferences. I have never claimed it to be otherwise in my e-mail to
anybody. However, the children of alumni of the University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill
and the University of Virginia at Charlottesville both selective public
universities
(U of Virginia is the most selective public university in the East...unless
you consider Cooper Union a tuition free institiution to be a public
university,in that case then it
would be the most competetive institiution public or private in the East
Coast..i don't regard private schools that give alumni ,children of
celebrities,children of wealthy people as competitive insttitiutions because
they admit the people mentioned above over those who have higher grades and
sat scores than them) are considered residents in the application process
even they no longer live in virginia or North Carolina. This also might be
true in a few more states. I think you understand what this means.If i am a
resident of new york and i applied to the Uc system then i should have higher
high school grades and sat scores than California residents to be accepted to
the UC system. In fact some impacted programs in the cal state system like
nursing and physical theraphy do not accept out-of-state applicants ...i
suspect there are programs
in the UC system that are like that also.Since the children of U of Va and
UNC-Chapel Hill alumni living outside virginia and north carolina are
considered residents when applying to UNC-Chapel Hill and the University of
Virginia. In that case they get a certain advantage over non-resident
applicants.Personally, I don't consider that as alumni preference, at least
not compared to that of the ivy league where the alumni preferences and other
preferences that has nothing to do with a disadvantage exists
in a scale so monstrous that a culture of lying,deceit and falsehood exists
to support it.And also i read that story in SF chronicle,herald-examiner
about the 52 VIP admittees, that is very wrong indeed,but it is nothing
compared to the 300 or more people accepted to the fall'96 freshman class of
stanford because they are the children of  alumni.Also in regards to my
comments about alumni preferences being geared towards white.The historical
fact is that most of the graduates of the Ivy league schools and private
schools have been whites (recent or otherwise) and therefore most of the
alumni legacy admittance recipients have been whites.I am sure there are a
few Pilipino reciepients,some black ones,some Hispanic ones but the great
majority has been for whites.Arthur i regard Cooper Union as the most
competetive institiution in the East Coast and not mit(I have already
excluded all the ivy league schools) because I suspect MIT engages in a
little alumni preference but not on the same scale as the Ivy League and also
becasue it hired Leon Higginbotham to defend it against the feds in the
financial aid collusion and fixing case,unless you can provide  me with
statistical data to prove otherwise then
I will have that lingering suspicion.If possible can you also e-mail the 3
most or 4
most recent e-mail of mine to you to other websites or your friends. I am
asking
you that as a favor, as I had said earlier i am a computer ignoramus....and
still
trying to learn the kinks out of this system....at your leisure and
inclination of course
....in 2 days i will be able to do the " cc:" on my own or even
tomorrow....and from that time on i will be able to do the "cc:'s " myself.
Thank you ,till next time,and as i had said earlier all my e-mail about this
subject matter is an open letter to everybody.Anybody can read it ,copy it
send it to anyone else.






From:             GCruz29176@aol.com
Date sent:        Sat, 14 Jun 1997 14:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:          affirmative action


Now i would like to return to certain points that i had touched on earlier.i
had mentioned that ivy league schools and many private schools lie,deceive
and cheat about the true nature of their admissions policies,I can understand
why they do that
they are of course doing it for money.It creates a vicious cycle,in order to
maintain a falsehood they create,invent and continiously lie to maintain that
falsehood.they purposely withold the average sat scores of their alumni
enrolees and also the average sat scores of groups given preferences like
traditionally underrepresented groups,(blacks land hispanics),for
athleletes,for children of celebrities ,for children of people who give money
to the school who are not alumni from nosy organizations like the us news and
world report.This practice had been confirmed by ex-admissions officers of
the the ivy league schools and well documented.It is interesting to note that
many opponents and supporters of racial preferential policies fail to
denounce alumni preferences.You don't hear racial preference supporters like
jesse jackson,the naacp,troy duster,jerome karabel,mari matsuda,lani
guinier,christopher edley denounce alumni legacies(matsuda,guinier,edley come
from georgetown,u of penn,harvard respectively....all of them private schools
...no wonder).you don.t

hear henry der the ex-head of Caa(chinese for affirmative action) denounce
alumni
legacies but quick to denounce quotas against asians in ucb and calling you
as not being helpful to the asian community to put it mildly(I read his
unflattering remark about you).you don't hear Dinesh D'Souza a Portuguese
Indian or Sri Lankan who comes from an upper middle class background in his
native country with a Jesuit schooling to boot(as if that confers an
advantage...I'm starting to get sarcastic you see) denounce alumni legacies
at his alma mater dartmouth.There is actually and organization at Dartmouth
called the Ernest Manley Hopkins Society(no relation to the poet i hope) that
actually demands the school to give preference to the children of alumni over

anyone else(how disgusting....tell that to the Dartmouth Review). on the
right i.e. the conservatives you don't hear ward connerly and the ccri
denouncing alumni legacies,you don't hear linda chavez of the manhattan
institiute , abigail thernstrom of harvard,clint bolick of the cir(center for
individual rights.....he was roundly chastised by 2 rightist book authors
after saying on national public radio that he supported class preferences in
university admissions) denounce alumni children preferences. This behavior is
simply disgusting, i tell you art the right is as bad as the left,consider
this story for example.Fred Hagadorn the admissions officer of
of princeton (he used to be the admissions officer at Stanford) after years
of lying and deceit about the admissions policies of the Ivy league schools
finally admitted in the princeton alumni magazine that alumni preferences are
a necessary evil( if it is evil is it necessary ? ex-Ucb chancellor chang
lien tien in an interview for a book by a white female ucb professor when
discussing alumni pressures in effect legacy admissions seemed nervous and
guarded( the book was titled :shameful admissions) perhaps
because he understood the true deceitful,vile nature of the ivy league
admissions
process,after all he is a princeton trustee.The vile nature of the ivy league
admissions process causes  a chain reaction of immoral behavior on the part
of the applicants...consider the example of the headmistress of chapin or
brearley school in the ny upper east side who urged some of her pupil's
parents to use every connection they have to get their children admitted
inside the ivy league schools.....and to stop applying if they could not do
so because the admissions process in the ivy league schools are indeed an
obscenity. there are letters of alumni from ivy league schools to magazines
like the new york magazine who document these practices....one letter said
they had to pry open their grandmother's trust fund to bribe an ivy league
school to get their daughter admitted. After all an alumni donation is
nothing but a bribe in the context of ivy league admissions.I will stop at
this point and continue later.






From:             GCruz29176@aol.com
Date sent:        Sat, 14 Jun 1997 05:11:57 -0400 (EDT)
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:          affirmative action


 i have to make a correction ,judge higginbotham was the legal counsel of Mit
he
was not the judge who made the disposition of the case.He was eventually
chastised
by either Susan Au allen or Pauline Lo Alker during a public tv -access
channel forum that has to do with affirmative action for not criticizing
alumni preferences at
Yale his alma mater , he denied that Yale used alumni preferences but
promised to look into it. UP TO NOW i had not heard nary a pipsqueak from him
about alumni
preferences at Yale. He claims that  he came from dirt poor origins but is
now counsel for for the establishment.Predictably he is not going to
criticize the hand that feeds him i.e. mit or any other ivy league
institiution.and now in regards to your 
question as to whether i favor racial preferences. I do not favor racial
preferences
as i had stated in my original e-mail.i abhor ,oppose any kind of preference
that
has nothing to do with a disadvantage.Obviously race is not a
disadvantage,race is
immutable your are born with that particular face or pigmentation and you
cannot
change it .The use of racial preferences is as evil.vile depraved as the use
of alumni,
preferences for children of well-known people ,geographical preferences
,preferences for people who give money to the schools etc. I strongly favor
preferences that has
to do with a disadvantage.An example might go like this...a student with an
sat score

of 1000 who cares for 3 younger siblings who cannot afford to take Kaplan sat
review
classes and who has taken all the classes offered by her high school over
someone
who has an sat score of 1300 ,who could afford Kaplan review classes,who does
volunteer work because her family could hire a maid who could do the
household chores(sounds like premed students doing volunteer work to make
their medical school applications shine). My approval of preferences belongs
mostly in the economic realm.I will discuss what kind of preferences are
morally right and what are not in the future. The sat score of 1000 might not
go well with the faculty at Uc berkeley....for example we might have to ask
the psychology faculty if an sat score of 1000 or 1200 is good enough to pass
the coursework in the psychology dept. It would probably a different case
with the engineering and computer science dept's, since i undersand that an
sat score of 1400 is the normal starting point of considerantion for
admittance to cs and electrical enigineering dept at ucb( since math and
physics are harder to study than the humanities and the social studies....I
can see flames coming...there will be a ucb student who will say to me...OH
yeah? I have a 1600 sat how come i majored in asian american studies and not
in cs or ee) so a sat score of 1300 would be good enough for the student to
pass the course work in the cs and ee depts of ucb ,so consultation with the
faculty might be needed perhaps in regard to this matter.I also cited the use
of my disapproval of the use of geographical preferences.Geographical
outreach programs to high schools are praiseworthy but geographical
preferences are  suspect.this is in regards to a spate of recent proposals in
california to admit the top 2 or 4% of the graduating classes of all 844
public high schools in california be admitted to the uc system.This is
foolish because it will give certain advantages to rural high schools which
are heavilywhite..is it fair for example to preference to the mondavi family
in napa or sonoma county(we are talking about wine here arthur....gray davis
has even proposed that the top 2 students of all 844 high schools be given
automatic admittance to the uc system....suppose the scions of the mondavi
and sebastiani wine families scored 1200 in the sat and are in the top 2 % of
their graduating class and there are students in arcadia high school in La
county who have sat scores of 1300 but are not members of the top 2 % of the
graduating classes...would you then give preference for admittance to the uc
system  to the scions of the mondavi and sebastiani families....this is a
true situation because in southern california arcadia high school along with
sunny hills high school and granada hills high school sends the largest
number of graduates to the uc system much better than beverly hiills high
school and the ultra-expensive private harvard-westlake school .this happens
because all 3 high schools granada hills,arcadia and sunny hills along with
diamond bar ,walnut high schools have a heavy asian population.) you
see,hare-brained schemes like this have been proposed by lt gov gray davis
and a lawyer (no wonder) named gregory gibbs taylor in an op-ed column in the
la times.apparently a rational  for these proposals was that rural high
schools were not sending enough students to the uc system unlike city or
suburban high schools because they are not offering enough a-f 
requirement classes and advanced placement classes that will enhance the
chance of students in these  rural high schools to be admitted to the uc
system.Apparently,these people also claimed that principals in the rural high
schools did not have a high esteem for their students to offer these a-f and
ap classes. This problem could be cured by money that is though equal
spending-per-pupil method and not by arbitrary use of geographical
preferences. a similar situation existed in texas where the legislature
passed a law by which they require that the top 10 percent  of the graduating
classes be given automatic admissions to the university of texas system....if
a student in the top 5 % of the midland high school graduating class has an
sat score of 1200 and another student from odessa high school has an sat
score of 1300 but does not belong to the top 5% of his graduating  but rather
belongs to the upper 10 % or in the 92nd percentile.....who then has priority
for admission among the two?) God save the people of texas from the
ministrations of these legislators who are fit to be groundskeepers in the
valley of ignorance and fitting inmates or peons in the lunacy plantation.
odessa and midland are cities in texas . The geographical preferences
proposals in california i suspect were made to benefit the children of rural
white agricultiural ranching families certaingly not poor.


sorry don't have time to go over everything in
detail, my main problem is that affirmative
action at UC was mainly numeric quotas as the ONLY
driving force as to how many of each group got
admitted, and it paid no attention to parity between
actual blacks and whites, only parity of blacks with
their hs population. That's the bottomline of
affirmative action, there is NO other defintition 
of fairness that advocates will accept, other than
numbers higher than parity.


> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Sat, 14 Jun 1997 05:11:57 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com




From:             GCruz29176@aol.com
Date sent:        Sat, 14 Jun 1997 17:26:06 -0400 (EDT)
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Copies to:        sadp@ucsd.edu, "lscr"<AJFavish:@uclink2.berkeley.edu>,
        carlgj:fauth@humanitas.ucsb.edu
Subject:          affirmative action


other interesting observations ,i have made is that officers and alumni of
these private
schools are affected by this culture of deceit for example jean fetter the
ex-admissions officer of stanford in her recent book , claimed that a white
parent once
protested to him saying to him that his son who was not accepted to stanford
had his spot taken over by an unqualified minority,fetter's response was that
stanford
admitted blacks and hispanics with less competetive academic records to
ensure
diversity at stanford what she did not tell the parent was that combined
number of alumni children admitted in the fall'96 freshman class at stanford
was greater than the combined number of blacks,hispanics and native americans
admitted to the fall '96 freshman class of stanford.iIf the freshman class of
stanford is 8% black and 9 % hispanic and !% native american when the
freshman class of stanford is 20 % children of white alumni...then you can
 see that jean fetter should have told this parent that his son's spot was
more likely taken by a fellow white than a black enrollee. but this is just
for starters,wait till you see the piece the resistance ,10 % of the freshman
class are athletes it is probably even 12 % another 2 % admitted because
 they are the children of administrators and professors, another 2 % admitted
because they are the children of people who are not alumni but give money 
to the school plus another 10 % admitted because of geographical preferences 
plus another 20 % admitted because they need players for the stanford
marching band, or the english dept wanted students to fill their classes so
they wont lose their jobs and a 100 other selfish reasons,if you add all
these percentages plus the percentage of of alumni and minorities admitted
for reasons other than their grades.....you can see that 80% of the entire
fall' 96 freshman were admitted
for reasons other than their grades and sat scores. In other words 80 % of
the entire
fall '96 freshman class of stanford will disappear into thin air like magic
if grades and
sat scores were the sole basis of admissions to stanford.This is the shocking
reality
that jean fetter should have told to the white parent so that parent won't be
running around blaming minorities for the inablility of his kid of being
admitted to stanford.sad


Arthur...



I believe that the problem is that the parent asked
why minorities, not legacies were admitted to lower
standards. This is also an appropriate question because
there is NO LAW against favoring legacies, only laws
governing racial discrimination, which, except for
supreme court interpretation, racial preferences are.


There would be no point to asking about legacies
because there would be no legal recourse.


And again, if you are defending minority preferences,
if alumni preference are wrong, then so are minority
preferences. The opposite is NOT true legally, again,
because there is no 1964 civil rights act for
children of alumni.




Arthur...


At least you're not trying prove that minority 
preferences are OK because VIP and legacy admissions
are not. Again, I don't have a problem with preferences
as long as they are legal and disclosed, and so far
that is largely the case with VIP and legacy, the
minority issue is becoming increasingly illegal with
new supreme court rulings that return the 1964 Civil
right act back to what it was meant to be.


Even minority preferences are OK as long as they are
limited to parity with whites, which often isn't the
case as with UC, when parity was measured without
regard to how under-reprsented the whites were. Bottom
line, it doesn't matter how big or small the results
are as long as selection was nondiscrminatory, whereas
most affirmative action views any disproportinality
as unfair, and any amount of discrimination as fair in
the name of achieving quotas.




> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:45:14 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Cc:            sadp@ucsd.edu
> Subject:       affirmative action


> Let me touch on salient points regarding your reply Arthur,you said that as
> long as Asians get their share of slots in the universities then that it woud
> be alright to you.If Asians make up 25 % of the San Francisco Bay area,should
> UCB be 25 % or 50 % or 75 % Asian? I have read your history  of the Asians
> admissions process during the Heyman area up to the Tien era.And your
> detailed account of quotas against Asian are very well-founded.Your concepts
> of what parity should be or at least as to how i understand it is the basis
> of my reply. To me it does not matter whether Asians
> are 10 %, 50 % or 75 % ior 85 % of UCB, even it is well above their racial
> percentage
> of the graduating high school class of California as long as the basis for
> admittance to UCB is fair meaning at least in my view  based on grades ,SAT
> scores ,economic factors or any other factor that is a "disadvantage " (in
> other words alumni,celebrity etc and that sort of thing are out).The attempts
> to put quotas or put blacks above their parity in regards to the their racial
> share of the california high school graduating class is wrong, and whether
> that was done by Heyman of Roderick Park is odious.What happened in the UC
> SYSTem is nothing new , it has happened throughout human historyand is
> continiously being repeated everyday in every institiution that practices a
> preference  that has nothing to do with a disadvantage.There is no difference
> between a racial or alumni preference since both has nothing to do with a
> disadvantage. I can illustrate several examples in several countries . This
> sort of thing happens at all levels be it at the college level or the high
> school level.Envy and jealousy being part of human nature ,witness the
> example
> in this country alone,Lowell High School,Stuyvesant High School,Bronx High
> school of Science,Ilinois Academy of Science and Mathematics,Boston Latin
> School,La magnet schools have received complaints from whites about the high
> percentage of Asians in their entering classes . Blacks,Hispanics ,whites may
> deny that ,but that is natural and something to be expected in the light of
> what other countries have experienced.In India for example ,you have
> representatives of the "untouchables" who sound like Lani Guinier,Troy
> Duster,Christopher Edley demanding ethnic preferences for their ethnic groups
> in regards to university admittance .This is something to be expected because
> human beings everywhere in the world behave exactly alike as far as
> fundamental behavior is concerned.In India there are also people that sound
> like William Buckley and Dinesh d'Souza of the Ernest Manley Hopkins Society
> at Dartmouth who support preferences for the alumni and the rich.The
> "untouchables" in India belong to all strata of economic society from the
> rich to the poor a fact that even the representatives of the "untouchable "
> caste have even admitted.The civil war in Sri Lanka was caused among other
> things by singhalese resentment of the disproportionate amount of university
> freshman places won by the Tamils because of higher entrance exam scores of
> the Tamils.The Biafran civil war also happened because the Hausas resented
> the Ibos'disproportionately high numbers in the universitties among other

> things.In Malaysia there were racial preferences for the Malays the "sons of
> the soil" or "bumiputras" over the chinese .Similar resentments have existed
> in Peru,Brazil,Chile,Ghana over university admissions.It is the same problem
> the world over. Yet in all these instances representatives of these groups be
> they malays,"untouchables",Hausas ultimately admitted that not all
> Hausas,"untouchables" singhalese or malays are poor and in need of a
> preferences. In fact prime minister Mahathir Mohamed said recently "had
> Malaysia been more 
> mature it would have  dealt with the problem of ethnic preferences in a
> different manner." The verdict in the countries where this happened is the
> same any preference that has nothing to do with a disadvantage must be
> condemned,and wherever it exists it is denounced.Again,following the precept
> that human beings are generally alike,,just like the VIP admissions in
> California ,in every country of the
> world people have secretly tried to get into the university through the
> backdoor thru connections.I had read accounts in a Nigerian English language
> newspaper talking about the intervention of a government minister to have his
> protege admitted to the
> University of Lagos after being denied entrance.In seoul university for
> example there
> was a professor who was arrested after selling a piano to a student whom she
> arranged to be admitted to the music depts even after the student was
> rejected admission to the university.I forgot whether the university was
> seoul,korea or ehwa women's university but this story appeared in the la
> times.During the martial law regime in the Phillipines ,Marcos and his
> cronies interevened to have their children admitted to the University of the
> Phillippines even if they had low grades,so that by
> the year 1984 24 % of the freshman class was admitted thru their
> connections-it is 
> the most competetive university in the Phillipines and nobody dared
> contradict the
> regime in regards to this situation because the Phillippines was under
> martial law at that time.I know this story to be true because  i .was a
> University of the Phillipines student. So you see the Vip admissions disease
> is not an original American disease If it is cold comfort to your friends
> art, the chronicle of higher education in its recent issue said at Texas A &
> M 105 students were admitted  thru vip admissions. an admissions made by the
> president a guy named Bowden.
> 
> 


Sorry, it is widely known that 20% of many of these
places are legacies, and in the Harvard and every 
other case, agencies if not the courts have ruled
legacy and VIP admission to be legal. It's no secret,
I had no problem gettig these numbers from admissions
people, which is NOT the case for race.


You can keep it as your issue, but it just doesn't
go very far except to prove that affirmative action
admits ARE under-qualified.


> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Cc:            sadp@ucsd.edu, Ekent@brooklyn.cuny.edu, matloff@heather.cs.ucdavis.edu
> Subject:       affirmative action


>     first of all i would like to make corrections to somethings  that i had
> stated earlier.I should not have lumped randall jackson i really meant
> Randall Kennedy along with Lani Guinier or chris edley because he is more of
> a right of center person.Second in my reference to complaints against high
> schools that had a high proportion of Asians like Lowell or the Illinois
> Academy of Science and Mathematics about the high percentage of Asians came
> not only from whites but also from blacks or Hispanics these were done on a
> formal and informal basis be  it from groups like Acorn  in nyc veiled under
> the charge that there are middle school black and HIspanic students that
> don't receive preparation for the entrance exams to these "exam schools"
> (lingo used to describe this type of schools like lowell,stuyvesant etc.)to
> your garden variety comments from your man on the street.But as i had said
> earlier something like that is predictable it happens throughout the world
> for obvious reasons.And also as an added info about Vip admissions the Texas
> A & M (the Texas Aggies football team was one of the secondary characters in
> the movie -musical "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas") like the UC system is
> not an isolated case.There had been reports from states like Georgia and
> Florida and Indiana of similar interference by legislators etc.(Ex-veep Dan
> Quayle per news reports was said to had been admitted to the Indiana
> University Law School per the intervention of his press publisher father).Law
> schools,medical schools,mba programs apparently are not immune to this kind
> of pressure at least if we believe the commentaries in chat groups of
> premed,prelaw and premba students in the the Internet.But again as i had said
> earlier in the Uc System or at Texas A&M  Vip admissions is not on the same
> enormous scale as the alumni preference system in the Ivy League and private
> universities.You said that legacy admissions are not legal and openly
> disclosed.That is simply untrue there is nothing in the law books that says
> that legacy admissions is illegal.,In fact the US Civil righs office which
> was investigating Harvard and Berkeley merely said that at Harvard less than
> 2% of  the fall '96 freshman class would be the children of alumni if grades
> and Sat scores alone would be the sole basis for admissions to Harvard
> instead of the usual 20%.And the word "disclose" is a misnomer Art obviously
> harvard and the Ivy league is not going to say to the public that 20% of the
> freshman class of Harvard are the children of alumni,neither will it say that
> 25% of the freshman class of Princeton are the children of alumni,they guard
> that data compared  to public universities like crown jewels.If you don't
> believe me ask people who who have mentioned it in their published books ,
> people like Dana Takagi of UC Santa Cruz and Jay Jia Hsia of the
> Ets(educational testing service -the publisher of the Sat).And if there are
> no laws in the books right now banning alumni preferences in the privates
> there should be one made right now(pronto and immediately).ONly threats of
> lawsuits forced the Ivies to release this kind of data.Now ,for example
> enrolees at Stanford students can see their own admissions files,whereas
> before that they were  not able to do so.There is an incident at Stanford
> that happened after the Us office of civil rights of the Dept of justice
> investigated harvard and uc berkeley.Due to the fact that stanford students
> were now able to see their own admissions files,some of them did so,and lo
> and behold at what happened. Some of the students started to cry when they
> saw their admissions files.The files stated per the notes of the admissions
> officers that they were being admitted not because of anything that that was
> connected to the contents of their brains but because they were alumni
> legacies. In fact one student who was crying stated that the admissions
> officer wrote in his file that  the admission officer did not make any
> mention of anything that has to do with his brain(his academic credential
> that is) but instead talked about his father who was a Stanford alumnus who
> was a banker,his uncle who was a professor of medicine at stanford med school
> ,his uncle who was a vice-president at boeing in the
> state where you live Arthur .Another student who saw her file said " it did
> not matter whether she  was admitted to stanford because she was a legacy or
> because of her grades as long as she was admitted to stanford...(why that
> little.....). This story was published in the San Francisco
> chronicle/examiner.As you can see Art,there is an enormous web of deceit and
> lies into it.Parents are cheating themselves and their children  by donating
> to stanford just to have their mediocre children admitted to that
> school so that society will perceive them as intelligent.The alumni legacies
> are cheating and deluding themselves believing that they got in because of
> their ability and talent even though that is not the case.And most of all
> shame on Stanford who will
> resort to this kind of garbage just because of the need for money.I will come
> back later ,I hope every civil rights organization reads this letter so they
> can see for
> themselves how odious alumni legacies really are be it at stanford,Harvard or
> 

> Morehouse.Pass it along to everyone guys.
> 
> 


Sorry, there are no laws saying legacy admits are
legal because there are no laws that say that this
is illegal. The only discrimination that is prohibited
is against protected groups - race, gender, and sometimes
even religion and gays, but not legacies. The harvard
study specifically looked up the books and found no
laws prohibiting this. They didn't find anti-Asian 
bias because they did not look at the years when the
admission gap was the greatest, just like the Berkeley
and UCLA studies that skipped over the years that I
complained about. You can't nail the universities
because the government refuses to look at the years
when discrimination occured, but in current years after
admissions offices have been tipped off.


In my opinion, any university that receives federal
funds and is covered by civil rights laws should be
required to make public admissions statistics and
test scores in order to show compliance.




> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Thu, 26 Jun 1997 03:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Cc:            sadp@ucsd.edu, Ekent@cuny.edu
> Subject:       affirmative action


> I am really surprised that it was that easy for you to get that sort of
> information from Harvard be it the percentage of the freshman class that they
> accept every year and
> their reluctance to part with information about the # of affirmative action
> admits  that they make every year.As i had said earlier  takagi and Hsia
> cited their difficulty in getting any information at all from ivy league
> schools compared to their easier time in getting data from public
> universities under the Freedom of Information Act. I understand also that a
> Harvard student who wanted to write about the admissions process at Harvard
> in regards to Asian qoutas  had to resort to threat of a lawsuit to have
> admissions stats released to him. Not only had individuals have had
> difficulty in getting this sort of data but student groups also a fact cited
> in Change magazine in the Chronicle of Higher Education  but also in the book
> by Hsia.You must have special powers of persuasion to persuade Harvard to
> release that kind of data so readily,and also stop telling me that  alumni
> legacies are legal ,again as i have said there is no law that  states alumni
> legacies are legal.If you think that the dept of justice  in its
> investigation  of Harvard gave the Ivies  a clean bill of health, I'd like to
> remind you again that the report said that "obviously some Asians could not
> be admitted to Harvard because harvard had to give consideration to the
> children of alumni and athletes" that was the language of the report it never
> said the word "legal".Should that surprise you ? Deval patrick is a Harvard
> graduate ,I am sure a whole bunch of people at the dept of justice are Ivy
> league graduates too,in fact his replacement(deval patricks's that is) Bill
> lann Hing ,an ol'blue (yalie by way of Bronx Science) and Columbia law
> grad.....do you really expect him to damn  Harvard with
> regards to alumni legacies (he got children too you know)....get the drift
> ArT?And i do know that affirmative action admits got lower mean  sats than
> regular admits. Anybody who regularly denounced racial preferences like i do
> know that...and i am 
> certainly not Lani Guinier,so don't start with that sort of buiseness.Let's
> face it Art ivy league schools main concern  is money ,and putting an end to
> alumni legacies might mean loss of money.If i told the ivies and the little
> ivies(the likes of Amherst and Williams) to shut down because of alumni
> legacies,they probably  will say that they have a lot of alumni  in the
> justice dept and supreme court, media ,professoriate who will  fight any
> attempt of that sort because it will mean a loss of exchange value or worth
> of their diplomas .Does it surprise  you that the affirmative action crowd
>  and Ivy league representatives  had a recent close-to-the-public pow-wow
> at Harvard ostensibly to discuss the recent affirmative action reversals(e.g.
> hopwood and 209).Honestly,what i think that interest has more to do with
> drawing away attention from the vile alumni legacy preferences than
> bleeding-heart concern for declines in nonwhite representation in their
> schools.Let me reiterate again this points alumni preferences are vile and
> evil.It is not fair to admit karianne the daughter of Al gore  to Harvard
> just because her ancestors went to Harvard the latest being her father, just
> as it is wrong to admit to Harvard mEDICAL school the daughter of Quincy
> jones the composer just because she is black(she obviously came from a
> very priveleged background). neither is it fair to admit  chelsea to stanford
> just because her dad is the prez of this country( of course Stanford will
> deny it and the other Ivy league schools will chorus their amens to that
> party line,,,,although her
> father left open idea that alumni legacies could be a matter of public debate
> in
> his Ucsd commencement exercises speech...you can see that this alumni
> preference buiseness is sick).Even fred hagadorn the admissions chief of
> Princeton
> finally admitted in the princeton alumni magazine that it is a necessary
> evil,after years of lying about it. Well,if it is evil is it necessary?so
> what if all the Ivy league schools close down, this country will not suffer
> for it(unless if you are irritated that 
> Mit will close down its francis bitter magnetic lab which lost . its bid to
> construct a
> new magnet lab for the nsf to either florida state or U of Florida).Take a
> stand on the
> truth art .If people are just so interested in a Harvard or stanford degree
> why not just open an office in Bellingham saying " for the price of $ 150000
> here is your diploma ,give that amount as a donation to Harvard and you will
> get your diploma embossed with the name of Harvard".That is a quicker
> alternative than the current method of warehousing the mediocre children of
> alumni at harvard. A few books that came out recently like that of michael
> lind have the same idea.Finally let me tell  you an example ,an example or
> story frequently used in many african,asian and south american countries that
> is used to condemn the use of any preference that has nothing to do with a
> "disadvantage"(and that means racial,alumni,celebrity,rich people).If there
> are 100 applicants to the ms program in electrical engineering in the
> Bangalore institute of technology(IIT),and there are only 25 openings.Suppose
> you give the 25th slot for an unfair reason(caste or otherwise) to the 26th
> highest ranking applicant not to the 25th highest ranking applicant.What do
> you think will happen? everyone from the highest ranking applicant down to
> the 25th highest ranking applicant will get angry saying that the admissions
> committee obviously accepted an unqualified appliecant-the 26th highest
> ranking applicant.But the resentment will not
> stop there from the 27th highest ranking applicant down to the lowest ranking
> applicant will say that if the 26th highest ranking applicant was given a
> chance then 
> they they all 74 of them should be given a chance. So what was created is a
> situation  where everyone is angry and resentful.If this elemental truth is
> understood in many poor countries ,then a rich country like America should
> understand it also.And you're damn right  art i will keep this alumni legacy
> an issue until this blight is wiped off from the face of the earth(sounds
> like don Quixote,huh ?....getting tired of this e-mail stuff ....i might go
> to other websites)
> 
> 


From:             GCruz29176@aol.com
Date sent:        Sun, 6 Jul 1997 19:19:01 -0400 (EDT)
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Copies to:        caaction@aimnet.com
Subject:          affirmative action


I just want to clarify further in my previous e-mail 43 % of of the 3775
freshman of UC berkeley for the 1996 freshman class scored above 700 in the
math portion of the  SAT . Also i said that 3 % of stanford undergraduates
 in 1965 were Asian, that was probably a liberal estimate a more conservative
one would be 1 %, at any rate what happened in 1987 or 1988 was bizarre.
Iimagine the percentage  of Asian undergraduates in the space of one yerr
increasing from 8 %  to 12 %, and the percentage of freshman increasing from
9% to 15 to 16% who are Asian. That kind exponential growth is lunacy. No
other public university I know has managed to to double the number of its
Asian freshman in the space of 1 year. What STanford was really doing was it
was untangling its truly vile,evil , duplicitous admissions process and its
quotas on Asians.That incident exposed the web of lies and deceit that
Stanford and the Ivy League had been doing for a long time, and of course
Stanford doubled the # of freshman because it was reacting out of fear of
lawsuits and criticism. Also i'd like to make a correction about the the
probable percentage of Asian freshman in the entering class of Suny Stony
Brook for 1997, I checked and found out that the fall '96  percentage of
Asian freshman in Suny Stony Brook is 26.8 %, so probably the percentage of
 Asian freshman in the entering class for 1997 is 30 %. What it does tells us
is that as i had stated previously was that  would not have been possible if
Stony Brook had admissions practices similar to the Ivy League schools.what
is the difference anyway between I vy League schools who warehouse mediocre
alumni children,celebrity children etc. and an insane asylum who also
warehouses you know what.Finally let me say to Asian alumni who give money to
these Ivy league schools,sure it is your money but the history and current
practices of these schools had or have a negative impact on Asians.Why should
Gordon Wu of Hongkong donate millions to Princeton when that school has
limited for the past 10 years a fluctuating 7-10 % for Asians in the entering
class.It would have been better for him to spend his money on neighboring
Rutgers college of engineering where Asians make up 24 % of the students at
NJIT in Newark where ASians make up 18% of the students or to City College in
Harlem where Asians make up 25% of the graduates and 25% of the engineering
graduates. I did this e-mail just to make these corrections.As i said earlier
this is my last e-mail to you but will drop by your website from time to time
to make a commentary when I find something interesting.


It's good that you're interested in this, and it looks
like you've got a lot of this figured out for yourself
You Asian or something?


Yeah, Stanford at the time claimed the huge increase
didn't have anything to do with changed admissions
policies, and said it was a change in accounting of
immigrants, but it was still nearly a 2X increase in
one year. You might want to check into MIT which
has been stuck at about 30% Asian for the past few
years, but their admission rates seem kosher.




BTW, this thread is up on the web at


http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/97/04/gcruz.txt


for posterity sake, tell you friends.


You're the only other guy I've ran into that makes
some sense the numbers I've dug up, especially the
huge increase inn high score blacks on the SAT. That's
great, you're obviously not a complete nut (assuming
that I'm not one too...)




Again, the absence of a law that makes something legal
does not make it illegal, there have been no cases 
where people have won on the basis of proving that
alumni policies are illegal, and given that most
places have them and and are relatively open about it,
I wish you luck on convincing people that this is
illegal. My postion, again, is that it doesn't bother
me as long as colleges disclose it and are willing
to take the heat for it from people who dont' like
such policies.




> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Fri, 4 Jul 1997 04:57:51 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Cc:            caaction@aimnet.com, cdaabamn@uclink4.berkeley.edu, admin@cal-net.com,
>                webmaster@dlcppi.org, Reyes@law3.ucla.edu, emilamok@compuserve.com
> Subject:       affirmative action


>  I had not been able to reply to your e-mail lately because of other things i
> have to attend to. It is a waste of time for me disprove your contention that
> alumni legacies are not legal , since you so ardently believe it is legal,
> again let me reiterate that nothing in the law books tells us that it is
> legal. Let me also say that in regards to the ease of securing admissions
> data from the Ivy league schools,then consider the testimony of Harumi Befu
> an Asian languages prof at Stanford ,when he requested admissions data from
> Stanford.Jean Fetter, now the ex-admissions chief of the "Farm" told him that
> it was not  his buiseness and that Stanford had nothing to hide from him.
> Befu remarked that  it would not be possible for him to discuss admissions at
> Stanford without any data forthcoming from Stanford.Would it surprise you,
> and perhaps you know it already that in the admissions cycle of 1986-1987 the
> percentage of Asian students  at Stanford jumped from 8 % to 12 %  or was
> that in the admissions cycle for year 1987-88 . That was a feat of magic that
> even UCB could not emulate . Perhaps Jeff Au's and Bunzel's investigation
>  might have spurred the change.Even the 1983 drop in the # of Asians  at UCB
> with even the same percentage change could hardly emulate the enormous lies
> and hypocrisy of  STANFORD.Befu at that time was investigating qoutas against
> Asians at STAnford.
> In the span of 1 year the total number  of ASIANS AT STANFORD INCREASED BY50%
> ,now i call that real magic Art.I t just tells you what sort of animals you
> are dealing with in the Ivy League schools. And i am really irritated at this
> point and angry.STAnford had quotas against Asians for a long time,
> considering the increase in the # of Asians in California from 1965 to 1988,
> I think ARt you get the picture, even Fred Hagadorn an ex-Stanford admissions
> chief now admits that alumni legacy admissions are a necessary evil.Art I
> don't really care whether Asians increase or decrease in number at Stanford.
> It is the moral and ethical perversity of the admissions process at the Ivy
> league schools and the private universities(at least many of them) that
> infuriates me.And obviously the ruling classes in this society tolerates that
> abomination.Considering the enormous increase in the number of ASians in
> California from  1965 to 1988, does it make  sense that Asians increased in
> percentage from 3% in  1965 to 8 % in 1987 and then suddenly jump from 8% to
> 12 % in the space of 1 year? That is bizarre, more like you are watching a
> freak show. What do you expect from a buiseness like Stanford anyway which
> all Ivy League schools are anyway? I used Bill Lann Lee not Bill Lann Hing as
> an example of the inability of  the feds to damn the "non-disadvantaged
> preferences" perpetrated by these private schools because of his background.
> I take it from your e-mail that you approve alumni legacies because you
> continiously claim it is as legal or you are taking the first amendment plea
> by not venturing a categorical statement saying you approve of it or not. I
> take it then that you are the sort of person who approves a Bell curve
> representing the SAT scores of the Harvard freshman class that has endpoints
> of 900 and 1600 (representing the 1st and 99th  percentile) rather than a
>  bell curve with endpoints of  1460 and 1600 (representing the 1st and 99th
> percentile). 
> The first bell curve obviously has a higher median or apex than the 2nd bell
> curve. If the 2nd bell curve actually came into existence, it would mean that
> Harvard would close its undergraduate department because there would be no
> place for alumni children in its freshman class(thus Harvard would not have
> any money don't depend too much on the endowment Art). The first bell curve
> would have a median of 1330 or thereabouts and the 2nd bell curve would have
> a median of  1530 or thereabouts,the first bell curve closely represents the
> fall ' 96' freshman class of Harvard.Let me tell you another observation ,per
> ETS data for 1996, 900 <#  of Stanford freshman in entering frosh class of '
> 96 with SAT scores greater than 1400<950. The figures for Harvard goes like
> this , 1050< # of 1996 Harvard freshman scoring above 1400 in the SAT<1110.
> The figures for Berkeley goes like this 1150<# of berkeley 1996 freshman
> whose SAT scores are greater than 1400<1200. 43% of 1996  BERkeley  freshman
> of 3600-3800 have SAT  math scores greater than . That roughly translates to
> between 1550-1650, that is equal to or greater than the entire freshman class
> of                  Stanford or Harvard for 1996. The Universities of
> MIchigan and Ilinois have also a higher # of 1996 freshman who score  above
> in 700 in the math SAT compared to Harvard or Stanford. They use the ACT of
> course mainly,but even if Illinois and Michigan freshman took the SAT i
> believe there will be more freshman in those 2 schools who will score above
> 700 in the math SAT than either Harvard or Stanford. And those schools
> including Berkeley have more than twice as many freshman of course.But my
> real point about this figures is this, if alumni legacies were widespread at
> UCB,UIUC and UM like they are at Ivy league schools , do you think some of
> them  would be admitted? Probably that situation would apply more for
> applicants with SAT math scores between 600-700 and below at
> UCB,UIUC,Michigan.At any rate what the figures are telling us is that the
> less schools rely on "nondisadvantaged preferences of any kind(alumni,racial
> etc.) the more better achieving students they are gonna get; something that
> Ivy League schools cannot do because they can only admit a limited # of
> freshman who score in the 99th percentile of SAT testakers because of the
> alumni preference buiseness.The country is not going to suffer if we close
> down the Ivy leage schools because of this alumni preference garbage art.
> Asians will make up 33% of Suny STony BRook entering freshman class for 1997,
> do you think that would be possible if there were widespread alumni
> preferences at Suny Stony Brook? in fact ART non-whites would probably make
>  up 33 % of the entering freshman classes at the 4 university centers of the
> Suny System(Albany,Binghamton,STony Brook, Buffalo) for 1997.Do you think
> that is going to happen if the STAte University of New York had a widespread
> alumni preference system like the Ivy League schools? Asians have replaced
> blacks as teh largest non-white ethnic group in flagship or elite public
> universities in many states, do you think that would have happened with the
> widespread use of alumni preferences? As a final note ART, let me cite this
> story in 1956 Harvard made a study as to how well children of alumni did
> compared to their non-children of alumni peers,the study found out that the
> children of alumni were hugging the bottom of the grade curve. I don't think
> Harvard is going to do another study now to replicate the results, it would
> be too humiliating.Maybe your children can disprove that when  they go to
> Harvard or MIt.Finally, this is the 2nd time I used the word "final", recent
> UCB graduate admission data says per 1997 entering class figures the numbers
> of blacks and latinos fell, the # of whites remained constant and the number
> of Asians increased by 6 %(preliminary figures).This is probably  a
> harbringer of what is to come for the undergraduate freshman class of
> 1999(when the regents racial preferences ban finally kicks in with full
> force). This is what i think is going to happen in that year for the freshman
> class the # of blacks and Latinos are going to increase(on a very small or
> incremental basis),the # of Asians are going to increase and the # of whites
> are going to decrease.Why? for the past 20 or 10 years the SAT scores of
> blacks are increasing  faster than that of whites.
> >From 1991-1995 per ETS figures blacks scoring above 700 in the math SAT
> doubled in # .You can imagine ,blacks scoring between 600-700  in the math
> SAT increased even greater in terms of absolute numbers. This is a simplistic
> picture because in reality there are other factors to be considered.Honestly
> , I am getting tired of this e-mail(easy on the brain but hard on the
> fingers,and i need a better audience ,just kidding).This is probably my last
> e-mail to you,however I'll pop in from time to time if i see anything worthy
> to comment about in your website.
> 
> 
>
BTW, this thread is up on the web at


http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/97/04/gcruz.txt


for posterity sake, tell you friends.






From:             GCruz29176@aol.com
Date sent:        Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:32:02 -0400 (EDT)
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Copies to:        caaction@aimnet.com
Subject:          affirmative action


Art, this is my final,final postcript , I just forget to say a thing or two
about your e-mail, yeah I did noticed the MIT figures.It seems that for the
past 3 years the percentage of Asian undergraduates had fluctuated about
27-29 %.Generally , I don't really have a problem with MIT, they have treated
Asians in the past better than the Ivy League in the admissions process.The
figures at Harvard in the past 4 years seem to hover between 17-19 %.At
Stanford the for the past 4 years the figures seem to hover between 23-25
%.It took 10 years for the percentage of Asians to rise from 6 to 14 percent
at Brown.I won't even mention Princeton-theirs is a hopeless case.It seems
that Ivy league schools will hold the percentage of Asians at a certain
level, for example Harvard will hold it at 20%,Columbia and Johns Hopkins
will hold it at 25 %,Yale at 20% also.And they do that likely because
admitting more Asians means taking away more slots from "non-disadvantaged
preferences"(alumni etc.).And also let me clarify further about the situation
at Stony Brook , there are other factors involved in the enrollment data
asida from Sat scores and gpa, and I am sure that a computer simulation
involving all these factors will show us a clearer picture of what's going
on.In fact in New York , Stony Brook is not regarded as competetive as
Binghamton or Geneseo so probably enrollment data from Suny Binghamton is
more meaningful.At any rate I still believe that the stable percentage of
blacks in the freshman class during a 10 year period has more to do with the
increase in the percentage of blacks with higher Sat scores in the entering
classes of Stony Brook,rather than an increase in the percentage of Blacks
who were admitted because of racial preferences as had happened in 1993 in
the entering class.There is a possiblility that this might have happened also
for the freshman class of 1997 at Berkeley.The # of black and Chicano
applicants declined for the entire UC system, but the # of blacks and
Chicanos offered admissions to the entire UC system also increased.The number
of Whites,East Asians, Indos and Pakis,Pilipinos offered admissions to the
entire UC system also increased. The # of Native Americans and Latinos(Puerto
Ricans,Cubans,Nicaraguans,El Salvadoreans,Brazilians ) declined possibly
because they are no longer accorded racial preference status.If the total #
of offers of admissions for blacks and Chicanos increased for the the entire
UC system,
,this could possibly be the due to the increased numbers of Blacks and
Chicanos
admitted because of their Sat scores and gpa alone rather than racial
preference.And
the perdentage of blacks and chicanos in the 1997 freshman class for the UC
system probably remained stable because of the ongoing court odyssey of Prop
209
and the regents ban on racial preferences.






























c








Any table you could put together I would appreciate.


If you can do a regular foot-noted study together
that ties togehter what I've found and what you've got
(you seem to be the only person who understands, and
I haven't had the time to sum it up in human understandab'
ble form) in terms of what happened when at each campus,
that would be great. Did you understand when I say that
in 88-89, UCLA and Berkeley simply admitted 8% black and
20% Hispanic equal to their stated quotas? This is what
they backed away from in 1990 reforms.


It is also excellent that you recongize that the number
of high scoring blacks doubles every 10 years, - unless
standards are raised, standards that result in parity
one year will lead to over-representation. I've been
trying to point this out to the college board for 10
years to no avail, they don't notice, don't care, or
both. Can you try telling them this? They're still stuck
on trying to prove that blacks are going to hell in a
handbasket. The truth is that they started in hell, but
at current rates, they should reach parity in 30-40 years.


Do you believe my position that goals for blacks and
Hispanics in an affirmative action situation like MIT
(since Berkeley and UCLA have backed off) is that 
parity should be set with Catholic and other non-over-
represented whites, NOT with population since Asians and
Jews are over-represented, and that is fair.


> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Sun, 13 Jul 1997 03:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Cc:            caaction@aimnet.com
> Subject:       affirmative action


> I read your replies Art, and although I said that it would be my last e-mail
> to you,
> I still got the itch to write you back to tie loose ends; but this will be my
> definitively
> last , last , last e-mail to you.I just calculated some figures while reading
> the La Times during breakfast, you probably have these figures already.At any
> rate, these
> are the figures of the percentages of the ethnic groups who received offers
> of admission to the freshman  class of 1997 for the entire  U C system.For
> blacks the
> figure was 72% up from 70 last  year , an increase of 2 percent. For East
> Asians(Chinese,Koreans, Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians) 84.8 % same as
> last year. For Chicanos(Mexicans) the figure was 83.7 % an increase of 3.7 %
> from last year. for South Asians(Indians and Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) it
> was 86% same as last year.For Pilipinos it was 79.2% a 2 percent  rise from
> last year.For Latinos(non-Mexican Hispanics) the figure was 80 %, for whites
> despite in the increase in white applicants by 1 % the figure decreased to
> 81.8 from 83.2 %.This fact might have some implication for the decrease in
> absolute numbers of whites in the entering class of 1999 for
> Berkeley.Obviously the racial preferences norms are still in effect. It does
> not tell    us about the picture in the individual campuses , I have seen
> some of the figures for UCLA and they do show declines for blacks and
> Chicanos,the increase in absolute # for blacks and Chicanos in the entire
> system for
> the 1997 entering class suggests that the blocks and Chicanos who could not
> get into Ucla were just shunted to less competetive campuses like Riverside
> and Santa
> Barbara.It does not tell us for example(referring to these figures) about the
> raw deal
> that Pilipinos are getting in Berkeley per your assertion. Anyway Art , I'll
> try to form 
> some ideas about these figures.Let's go back to the Stanford
> episode...yeah...Immigrants... my ass,Art....we all know the real story so
> let us leave
> it at that. Let me just say  that this comical episode will go down in
> college admissions  lore as something hard to top for sheer entertainment
> value.Of course, Stanford was forced to double the number of Asians for fear
> of potential lawsuits and criticisms and in doing so exposed the vile and
> rotten practices of the Ivy league schools . Similar episodes happened in
> other Ivy League schools in one year Harvard was forced to increase the # of
> Asian freshman by a quarter,at Brown the number of Asian freshman increased
> by 40 % in the space of 1 year.Asians at any rate, go to public universities
> in much larger #'s than the Ivy league.Probably 1800-2000 Asians
> enrolled in the Ivy League for the year 1996,significantly less than the
> combined # for 
> Asians who enrolled at Berkeley and UCLA for the same year.Also per the 1997
> freshman class figures ,East Asians have the highest percentage of all ethnic
> groups who accepted the offer of admissions from U C.It was
> 69,68,65,64.2,60,58 percent for
> East Asians,Indians and Paks,Pilipinos,blacks,Chicanos and whites
> respectively.One reason perhaps as to why whites have the lowest "yield rate"
> is they probably have better means or opportunities attending  private
> universities. I had been looking recently at enrollment figures at Suny Stony

>  Brook it was a 10-year 
> longtitudedonal data.When i was looking at the data I realized the  behavior
> was similar to that of the enrollment data at UC Berkeley in terms of racial
> preferances behavior. When the admissions office tries to increase the
> percentage in the freshman class of blacks and latinos the percentage of
>  whites and Asians decrease. This happpened at Stony  Brook in 1993.For the
> academic cycle 1992-3 the of blacks and latinos increased from 9 and 6.6
> percent to 12.5 and 9.5 respectively,thi s resulted in a dip in the
> percentage of Asians and whites from 23.9 and 50.9 percent to 20.4 and 45
> percent respectively.This is in reference to the freshman class.Although
> blacks generally averaged between 9 -10 % of the freshman class during this
> 10 year period it seemed that they were able to  retain this percentage even
> though the average SAT scores and high school gpa were steadily increasinging
> for the  entire entering freshman class .That probably means that the average
> SAT score of black freshman in the entering class was also increasing,and
> indeed that was the case the average Sat scores of blacks were steadily
> increasing every year.There was only 1 year that bucked this trend in that
> academic cycle of 1994-95, where the average SAT score of entering class
> decreased while the average high school gpa increased and percentage of
> blacks decreased for the entering class,the percentage of whites and Asians
> also increased. My particular explanation for the fall'95  class was that the
> school admitted a cohort of whites and Asians who had an average SAT score
> lower than the average Sat score of the white and Asian cohort admitted in
> 1993 needed to raise the mean SAT score of the entering class of 1993.IN the
> entering class of '95 the average black SAT scores also rose.This is perhaps
> simplistic because there are other factors involved.At any rate what happened
> at Berkeley can be applied at any public university in the country, and i
> essentially believe that more and more blacks are admitted every year in the
> public universities based on their sat scores and grades. I believe of course
> that eventually the average sat scores of blacks will be equal to that of
> whites. I did not have an easy time explaining this at a Ucla forum to
> somebody.He seemed perplexed as to why blacks will be reduced to less than
> half their number in the 1998 ,and then will increase in incrementally very
> small number in 1999. I told him to relate that consequence to the increasing
> Sat Scores of blacks.Blacks will probably increase by 1-2 % from 1998-9 in
> the Berkeley freshman class.At least they will increase , while that of
> whites will decline.As i had joked to several people ,the only way whites
> can increase their numbers in the UC system is study themselves to exhaustion
> or migrate in massive numbers from the East to California ,and both of which
>  you know are unlikely to happen. Anyway , thank you everyone and Mr. Hu , I
> will drop by at your website from time to time....kam-pei,,,,,,bottoms up., 
> 
> 
Tagalog? Then did you find in my numbers that the only
Asian groups that are or were getting screwed the past
few years at UCLA and Berkeley were the Filipinos? 
It's astounding that the activists are fighting back
to be put back on preferences, which they don't need,
but they are ignoring evidence that Filipinos are
actually disriminated against, they have the lowest
admission rates, even lower than foreign students, and
they are doing it only because they've figured out that
they can get away with it, it is far worse than 
what they did wit the Chinese in 1984.


Can you help me spread the news to the Filipino
community, so far they've expressed zero interest.


> From:          GCruz29176@aol.com
> Date:          Fri, 18 Jul 1997 02:53:11 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            arthurhu@halcyon.com
> Cc:            AJFavish@worldnet.att.net, sadp@ucsd.edu,
>                "lscr"<fauth@uclink2.berkeley.edu>, carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu
> Subject:       Re: affirmative action


>    I am new to this e-mail thing and and has not yet gotten out all the
> kinks....
> guess i have to write better prose and figure out all the technical stuff
> first ..I 
> should have adressed my original messages as an open letter to everybody
> rather
> rather than as a message to you....i guess they have a term for that sort of 
> thing in cyberspace and indeed it is an omission that i have rectified.The
> first thing  that came to my mind when i read your 2  replies was that jaded
> and cynical that i
> am ...it seems that arthur hu wants Asians to have a piece of the pie just
> like everyone else whether they get it by hook or by crook(isn't it what
> every other
> ethnic group is doing ? trying to get their share of the pie by hook or by
> crook...
> ....I am Asian too you know and a Tagalog one at that.)  Art before i
> participated in the e-mail buiseness i had attended   community discussions
> about
> affirmative action at Ucla,the Holocaust Simon Wiesenthal Museum and at vario
> us forums sponsored by the JACL ...I am not going to recount the things that
> happened at those various sites ,but my impressions are varied...ranging from
> 
> disgust at the ignorance of many so called invited panelists about the
> statistical data regarding affirmative action to their total confusion about
> the consequences of the current affirmative action policies as practiced by
> the universities for example.
> self-serving and aspiring politicians many of them are with hidden agendas.So
> much for that...this is my reply to your question however, I had stated
> frequently
> at these events that all preferences be they racial,alumni,celebrity,for rich
> people
> who are not alumni,for the mondavi family from the rural sonoma county are
> suspect,
> wrong and evil if it has nothing do with a disadvantage(now we are talking
> ...about
> wine,for as you know there had been recent proposals to admit the top 2 % of
> all
> 844 california high schools or at least the top 2 students of these 844 high
> schools without regard to their sat scores...this has the potential of
> benefiting rural high schools in California which are heavily white and
> therefore ergo it will benefit the scions of the rich mondavi and
> sebastiani wine families....I must have something against italians ...just
> kidding
> tell lt governor gray davis about that.....I am talking about admittance to
> the uc
> system....the missive above was all about that.).Of course , i am against
> racial
> preferences , it is vile and evil like alumni preferences and all the other
> preferences mentioned above...race arthur is an immutable thing and you know
> that...it is 
> not a disadvantage...I had mentioned my opposition to racial preferences in
> my
> original e-mail to you, and if there are no laws right now against alumni
> preferences it it is necessary and imperative to create that much needed
> legislation immediately( I suppose you are going to say to me " good luck on
> that'").I favor preferences to the truly disadvantaged. Preference should be
> given for example to people who have sat scores of 1000 who had 3 siblings to
> take care of and had taken all the courses 
> offered by her high school and who cannot afford Kaplan Sat review classes
> over someone who scored 1300 in the sat who can afford Kaplan review classes
> and who does volunteer work because her family can afford a maid to do all
> the household chores for her(sounds like premed students with all the
> volunteer buiseness to make their resume shine when applying to medical
> schools).Situations like these i 
> believe warrant a justified preference for entrance in the uc
> system,,,although this
> might be good only for the humanities and social sciences dept of uc berkeley
> because sat scores of 1400 are the starting point of consideration for
> admittance to
> the engineering and computer science depts of ucb ...so i believe it is
> necessary to
> consult the psychology faculty if an sat score of 1000 is good enough to pass
> course work in the psychology dept....it is probably necessary too to ask the
> engineering and  computer science faculty if an sat score is of 1200 is good
> enough to pass the course work in the engineering and computer science
> depts....a sat score of 1000
> is probably good enough to pass the coursework in the psychology dept of ucb
> be-
> cause math and physics are much harder to study than psychology(I see the
> flames coming....sorry i can't help being sarcastic right now....all these
> social sciences majors are probably angry at me right now ). I am sure you
> can come up with other examples where a preference for a disadvantage is
> warranted and justified.art I am getting sleepy i will e-mail you later. 
> 
>