On the changing face of UC Berkeley...

There's an interesting article at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all that discusses the changing face of UC Berkeley into a predominantly Asian student body after P209.

The reporting preliminarily sourced from interviews with a few Asian students there, one lone black student quote, the UC administration, and a few other academics. There is no mention from the whites or not much from the Latinos (as if the blacks equate the hispanics). It's reported that there is this angst among other minorities (blacks/hispanics) that Asians are taking over, after the racial preference is removed from admission, and meritocracy takes over mostly.

The main theme seems to be that, there is no dispute that everyone wants diversity in the student body. But while the student body's face is turning yellow, there is no argument that there's still harmony, albeit the fact that the real minority (blacks, eg) feels being "absorbed" into the masses, as one quote called it. On that point, I wonder, what tipping point might it be, when a student or a group of students with common identity (eg. they're of the same race, or religion) would feel that they don't "stand out"?? Should the goal be, lets say, 40% whites, 20% Asians, 20% blacks, and 20% hispanics? Should a school lower its bar to attain that goal? If so, how low should (or can) that bar go before one would say, no this student really shouldn't make the cut?

Throughout the article, there's this oft quoted notion of stereotypes of Asian students being more mechanical than creative, compared to, say, the whites. While it's all well and good that a student should be all-round in skills and creativity, if it's of sufficient concern that a student should not be just "receive" an education without much interaction and involvement, why shouldn't this be a factor to be measured during the admission? All through the discussions, this kind of stereotypical talk only feeds on subjective beliefs and bias that I find it hard to accept.

I myself was very much a minority during my college days. I didn't feel it to be such an issue. In fact, I felt it almost an advantage to me, since I was like a sponge, soaking in all sorts of cultures while interacting with other students not of my race. Obviously, there will always be those who stay in their comfort zone and don't socialize with other heterogeneous groups, and it will always feel easier to fit in to your own self-segregated social clubs (as the article calls it), but if anyone cares about diversity, and if s/he really appreciates it, there is no lack of opportunity to go out and reach out. If there has not been discrimination (implicit/explicit), simply complaining about yourself being a minority would not earn any sympathy from me or sway my opinion that any one group should be treated anything differently.

And I agree with one of the observations in the article, that Berkeley has not (and should not) be the one to fix a problem in higher education, if the fundamental issue (that the poor minorities do not have ready access to good schools and resources) rests in the basic education system throughout the state. Those who try hard and succeed should not be penalized, simply because of what they have achieved.