Working Class-Poor Whites Excluded from Top Universities

by Lewis Loflin

Our college campuses are dominated by mainly white leftists who have no identity as whites, but a world identity. They are only interested in non-white identity politics to exploit for political gain. Most blue-collar and working class whites tend to be conservative Christians. The white working class faces hostility from the secular-leftist white elite.

These facts have been borne out by a study by Thomas J. Espenshade & Alexandria Walton Radford, their book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Parts of the book can be read online at Google Bookshelf. In scanning the incomplete online version some facts noted in the book:

In elite colleges income inequality is "reproduced." (P379) And the "economic return on a college degree has continued to increase," but attending an elite college the payoff is much better than a non-elite college. The situation overall is getting worse. The question becomes if elite colleges are mainly open to children of the elite, then income inequality will continue.

300,000 low income but high SAT score students don't attend college. (P384) and in the 1990s 1 to 1.6 million degrees were lost by college ready lower income students due to price barriers. The vast majority of these students are white. On P388 notes blacks self-segregate themselves from whites and all other groups. Whites and Asian/Hispanics have close social interaction. Page P390 notes that over 50% of whites and even more Asians hold negative attitudes towards blacks/Hispanics. All racial groups prefer their own.

And no matter how much the authors write about student candidates using prep schools, taking expensive classes on how to take a SAT, etc., who gets into these colleges is up to the whims of those operating these colleges. And while this study focused on eight elite colleges such as Princeton and Yale, I'd argue it holds true for most large colleges.

The conclusion is these colleges are racist and biased against lower income whites. They seek students socially and politically like themselves and are hostile to the culture and life of average white Americans. The white opposition to President Obama is not about race, but the racist policies he and the mostly racist elite whites he represents such as affirmative and wealth redistribution for low-achieving non-Asian minorities. In elite institutions poor whites are excluded because of income and cultural reasons, and along with Asians both are often excluded to make room for less qualified blacks and Hispanics.

And these racist and elitist attitudes do matter because these colleges like it not produce the people that become government policy makers, control academia, the press, arts, business, education and government at all levels.

Diversity for non-whites only

In the article How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others by Russell K. Nieli that concerns this study, proves this point. To quote,
When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely.

When they say "diversity" that means anything but white. Most of these positions are reserved for the rich kids of former graduates, who share a similar political and social ideology of the institution. A lot of positions go to selected international students.

What is left is used to fill racist diversity quotas. That diversity doesn't include the vast majority of white Americans that aren't filthy rich and/or leftist:

Most elite universities seem to have little interest in diversifying their student bodies when it comes to the numbers of born-again Christians from the Bible belt, students from Appalachia and other rural and small-town areas, people who have served in the U.S. military, those who have grown up on farms or ranches, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, lower-middle-class Catholics, working class "white ethnics," social and political conservatives, wheelchair users, married students, married students with children, or older students first starting out in college after raising children or spending several years in the workforce. Students in these categories are often very rare at the more competitive colleges, especially the Ivy League...

This is borne out again by studies conducted by the Center for Equal Opportunity. (www.ceousa.org) These are public not private institutions. They found at the University of Nebraska College of Law:

Grades and LSATs. In 2006 and 2007:

Blacks admitted to the law school had lower LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs than did Hispanic, Asian, and white admittees. Hispanic admittees had lower LSAT scores and college GPAs than did Asians and whites admitted to the law school. Asian admittees had lower LSAT scores and GPAs in 2006 than did their white counterparts. They had lower LSAT scores in 2007.

In this same period, 5 Hispanics, 12 Asians, and 389 whites were rejected by the law school despite higher test scores and undergraduate GPAs compared to the average black admitted in those years.

Odds Ratios. Odds ratios favoring black over white candidates in admission were extremely large, controlling for test scores, grades, Nebraska residency, and sex. The odds favoring black over white applicants with the same background and academic credentials were 442 to 1.

And from the Arizona State University College of Law the most racist of all:

Grades and LSATs. In 2006 and 2007:

Black admittees generally had lower LSAT scores and college GPAs than did Hispanic, Asian, and white admittees. Hispanic admittees' scores and GPAs were lower than those of Asian and white admittees. Asian admittees generally had lower scores and GPAs than white admittees.

In these two years, ASU's law school rejected one Hispanic, 16 Asian, and 232 white applicants having higher LSAT scores and college GPAs compared to the average black.

Odds Ratios. Odds ratios favoring black over white candidates in admission were the largest ever found by CEO, controlling for year of admission, test scores, grades, Arizona residency, and sex. The odds ratio favoring black over white applicants with the same background and academic credentials was over 1,100 to 1.

The law school also favored Hispanics and Asians over whites. The odds ratio favoring Hispanic over white applicants (controlling for background and qualifications) was 85 to 1. In contrast, the Asian-over-white odds ratio for these years was a modest 2 to 1.

Here in Virginia we have the same racist nonsense. From the CEO study:

The law schools at the University of Virginia and William & Mary give massive preference to black applicants over their Hispanic, white, and Asian counterparts. The relative odds of admission of a black over a white applicant for UVA, controlling for other factors, were almost 650 to 1 in 1998 and 730 to 1 in 1999 (the highest in any CEO study). At William & Mary, black-white odds ratios were roughly 350 to 1 in 1998 and 170 to 1 in 1999.

The evidence is overwhelming that working class and poor whites are excluded by policy. They in fact have superior scores to non-Asian minority students they admit. The excuse they make that minorities lack of money is unfair and should be compensated for is nonsense. The vast majority of poor people in America are white. Even poor whites far outscore even rich blacks. According to Journal of Blacks in Education article The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test (2005).

Diversity racists go on to note that blacks fail the test because "white culture" is reflected in the test. No they are simply unqualified. I'm sorry hard work, education, being able to read/write are an aspect of "white culture," so I suggest blacks and Hispanics join that culture. In the article The Roots of White Anxiety by Ross Douthat New York Times July 18, 2010 notes:

Unsurprisingly, they found that the admissions process seemed to favor black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last week on the conservative Web site Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.

This was particularly pronounced among the private colleges in the study. For minority applicants, the lower a family's socioeconomic position, the more likely the student was to be admitted. For whites, though, it was the reverse. An upper-middle-class white applicant was three times more likely to be admitted than a lower-class white with similar qualifications.

This may be a money-saving tactic. In a footnote, Espenshade and Radford suggest that these institutions, conscious of their mandate to be multiethnic, may reserve their financial aid dollars "for students who will help them look good on their numbers of minority students," leaving little room to admit financially strapped whites.

But cultural biases seem to be at work as well. Nieli highlights one of the study's more remarkable findings: while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or "Red America."

This provides statistical confirmation for what alumni of highly selective universities already know. The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren't racial minorities; they're working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions. Inevitably, the same under-representation persists in the elite professional ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts.

As Mr. Douthat points out this breeds paranoia on both sides.




donate


Gateway Pages for this website:   » General Subjects
  » Archive 1   » Archive 2   » Archive 3
  » Archive 4   » Archive 5   » Archive 6
  » Archive 7   » Archive 8   » Archive 9