Be careful before you say that “deep passion” and “love of learning” go “against the Asian stereotype.” That’s an unfair characterization. Many Asian-Americans exhibit deep passion and curiosity.

Discrimination in the college admissions process isn’t anything new . . . whites have had it harder for quite a few years now, despite the fact that being white does not necessarily mean you enjoy so very many more advantages. White people can also have impoverished nobodies for ancestors, can come from groups traditionally discriminated against, and are not necessarily wealthy/otherwise privileged . . . Perhaps names, race, gender, etc. should not be on applications.

That said, an article appeared in some major outlet a few months ago, and there certainly is discrimination against Asians, extending well beyond the Ivy League. It was quite interesting, they cited figures from a school (can’t remember the name) that actually does race-blind admissions.

@ Beige

In regards to your last sentence: the University of California schools all practice race-blind admissions, and as a result, give us a snapshot of what the demographics of elite schools would look like if race-based affirmative action were eliminated. For example, UC Berkeley’s undergraduate body is 42% Asian and 4% African-American. In contrast, Harvard’s undergraduate body is 18% Asian and 12% African-American. This discrepancy highlights the effect of race-based affirmative action.

Also, your discussion of white students in this context is somewhat misleading. If race-based affirmative action were eliminated at elite schools, the vast majority of spots that would be taken from underrepresented minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) would be given to Asians. For various historico-cultural reasons, Asians significantly outperform all other racial groups in the U.S. by all objective measures of academic performance (principally, grades and test scores). Thus, white students would only benefit very marginally from the elimination of race-based affirmative action.

Keep in mind that grades and test scores are the two most important factors in college admissions. Of course, schools do not want to accept only 4.0/2400 drones, but it is very much a stereotype to declare (as this article seems to insinuate) that Asians are merely academic robots who are not in large numbers invested in various extracurricular and personal pursuits.

So, I guess the $64,000 question is… Is it ultimately worth it for elite schools like Penn and the Ivy League to eliminate race-based affirmative action? This method would probably be most respected for its merit-based approach to admissions — I think everyone can agree that giving an applicant a “boost” (or the opposite, in the case of Asians) because of an innate and unchangeable attribute like race is not at all based on merit (whether academic, extracurricular, or otherwise). I think this is what tends to be most troubling for white and especially Asian applicants; that is, the fact that applicants of other racial groups receive a boost for having done nothing of merit.

That said, the other (and current) approach — of using race as a factor in admissions — also has potential positives. Arguably the greatest advantage of this approach is that it generates a more all-around diverse student body, which is undeniably a respectable goal. I don’t think most would deny that it is beneficial to interact with others from a wide array of backgrounds and environments. However, is this goal important enough to justify discriminating against certain applicants because of an innate and unchangeable quality unrelated to merit? Essentially, would you rather be a member of a less racially diverse but more merit-based student population similar to that of UC Berkeley, or one more racially diverse but less merit-based similar to that of Harvard? It seems that the most “elite schools” justify turning away more qualified applicants in favor of the goal of a more racially diverse class (i.e., the latter (Harvard) approach).

For what it’s worth, I think that there is a third approach that tends not to be the focus of much conversation, but one which I personally would advocate for the strongest. That is, an approach to admissions that considers an applicant’s socioeconomic – but not racial – status. For one, socioeconomic-based affirmative action would still recruit underrepresented minorities in larger numbers than they would be otherwise (because underrepresented minorities comprise lower socioeconomic tiers in disproportionate numbers), and thus, this approach would indirectly support a more racially diverse student population than would an approach based entirely on merit. Additionally, this approach would largely compensate for the inherent advantages of wealthier students. For example, students from a ritzy private school in New York City participate at greater rates in “prestigious” activities (such as working for major name-brand corporations, traveling extensively, affording reputable tutoring services, etc). So, by giving a boost to students from lower socioeconomic brackets (who, for example, may have to limit their extracurricular involvement in order to work to support family, to watch over a sibling, etc), admissions officers could counteract the fundamental advantages of wealthy students over those from more humble backgrounds.

Great comments 79. Admissions officers have a tough job. Never going to make everyone happy. The biggest form of discrimination if admissions were merit based only would come in the form of less advantages and opportunities for the poor. Just like it is impossible for a poor person to become President of the US, it would be virtually impossible to get into Ivy league schools. I know a white boy who had 1570 (math/verbal) on his SAT’s and incredible extracurriculars and was rejected at both Ivy league schools he applied to. And I know another white boy who was a spectacular high school athlete and had 1250 on his SAT’s and he was courted by all the Ivies. Is it fair for Boy #1? How about for Boy #2? Boy #1 ended up going to a great school and all worked out fine. Boy #2 chose an Ivy and he is performing very solidly from an academic standpoint. At the end of the day, the mix of students on campus is what makes the Ivies a special place. Learning is not just what you get in the classroom, but more so what you get in exposure to different types of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds, different cultures, different countries, different interests, etc. If admissions were solely merit based, many of the “legacies” would not have a chance to go to the alma mater of their parents and grandparents. While many think this is unfair, the generous gifts to the universities of these families have enhanced the overall experience of thousands who have come after them. The sense of tradition and school pride runs deeper in these kids as well and that is a good thing to have on campus. A wide mix is best in my opinion. And unfortunately, to obtain the mix, one needs to look at the whole package. The Asian kids who don’t get into the school of their choice will be fine. If they are bright and work hard, there are plenty of other great schools out there.

The following post is based on my best understanding of something I learned from a professor a couple years ago here at Penn. I haven’t verified its truth and I ma not have understood the professor correctly the first time, but I’m pretty sure this is the case….

An interesting component that doesn’t get discussed here (or often) is the fact that admissions offices don’t have to tell anyone anything. Unlike employers, who can be compelled to reveal their hiring process and have it combed for instances of unfair and illegal use of race as a component, admissions offices can hide behind the veil of the academy and avoid such scrutiny. They are entitled to certain privileges under the law under the guise of academic freedom. Normally this privilege is great as it promotes a full intellectual climate without undue government interference, but in this case it basically gives them the ability to open and close the gates of admissions as they choose.

As long as admissions offices aren’t boneheaded enough to produce documents with quotas or points that make their racial discrimination explicit, they can operate with very little scrutiny even if government agencies such as the Office of Civil Rights choose to investigate.

I haven’t yet taken a position on either side of this issue, but I hope the DP chooses to investigate this matter further. My own take is I support affirmative action including affirmative action based on race. We probably need to start transitioning from race to class, as a racially balanced elite class is only a little bit better than a racially homogeneous elite class. Some affirmative action for the sole purpose of diversity is good for everyone, but the real power of affirmative action is to provide the best education and networks to people who would otherwise lack access to the kind of power, money, and influence Penn-type schools can provide. The real goal of affirmative action in elite institutions of higher learning ought to be the discovery of high school students who could cut it at their universities with the right assistance and resources despite coming from high schools and/or families that aren’t in the business of turning out high SAT scores and top-notch applications. Even if this becomes the new norm, there might not be all that much material change. African Americans and Hispanics are still disproportionately poor, and Asian-American seem to tend to put a higher emphasis than other groups on moving to high performing school districts as a financial priority. (This last comment is pure speculation based on personal experience and stereotypes, so I’d love to hear what others with more info have to say. My basic proposition is that with income as a constant, Asian-American families will spend a greater amount of their income than other racial groups to move into situations where their children can excel academically.)

This NEEDS to be a conversation going on at Penn all the time.

Social engineering in admissions does not work. For Asian Americans, they have to meet a higher standard, not only in test scores and GPAs, but in every other criteria used, such as recommendations, personal evaluations, extra-curricular activities, life experiences and obstacles, motivations, work ethic and perseverance. Please read this Duke study on the Mismatch theory re: admissions criteria used and performance after admissions disaggregated by race/ethnicity. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch Testing for ‘Mismatch’
April 20, 2009 – 3:00am
By
Scott Jaschik
If members of some minority groups are admitted to elite colleges because of affirmative action — and don’t perform as well as they expected — does this show a serious flaw in efforts to diversify student bodies?
Critics of affirmative action answer in the affirmative, and this is the basis of the controversial “mismatch” theory — namely that affirmative action doesn’t actually help its intended beneficiaries because they may struggle academically where admitted instead of enrolling at less competitive institutions where they might excel. Mismatch is heatedly debated — in part because of the political potency of the argument. After all, it allows critics of affirmative action to say that they aren’t just worried about white applicants, but about black and Latino students, too.
In a paper released Friday, four scholars at Duke University (three in economics and one in sociology) propose a new way to test for mismatch. They say that much more information is needed than has typically been available in the past. But because they were able to obtain this information for Duke, they argue that a mismatch test is possible. They propose a test in which applicants admitted to an elite university are asked to predict their first-year grades and are then told the average grades earned by members of similar ethnic and racial groups admitted under similar circumstances. In this situation, they argue, students admitted under affirmative action could make an informed judgment on whether they were being mismatched.
The data released by the scholars in explaining their idea could be quite controversial. Private colleges and universities historically release very little information, broken down by race and ethnicity, about the admissions qualifications and subsequent performance of students. Getting even SAT averages by race can be difficult. Duke provided the researchers not only with SAT averages, but with admissions officers’ average rankings of admitted students on a five-point scale, by race, as well as the students’ own projected first-year grades and actual grades.
Generally, the data show that Asian admitted students had better rankings and scores than all other groups, although their advantage over white students was modest. But Asian and white applicants are generally far above other applicants. And while all groups, on average, overestimated their academic performance in their first year at Duke, black and Latino students had the largest gaps between the performance they expected and what they achieved.
The study, “Does Affirmative Action Lead to Mismatch,” is by Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban M. Aucejo, Hanming Fang and Kenneth I. Spenner, and was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research. (An abstract is available here, as is information on how to download the study for $5.)
Via e-mail, the researchers collectively answered questions about their study, and said that they are trying to change the way mismatch theory is measured. Some of the early, controversial studies have used statistics such as graduation rates or passage rates on bar exams.
The Duke researchers argue for a broader examination of mismatch, including some sense of students’ actual perspective. And they say that existing data — even the detailed information from Duke — is not enough to demonstrate that mismatch exists or doesn’t.
“As is amply clear from the introduction and the literature review in our paper, the literature on mismatch is very important, but still in very early stage,” the Duke scholars said. “Researchers are not even settled on what ‘mismatch’ should mean, let alone making firm statements about whether there is ‘mismatch.’ As you read through our paper, you will notice that we take a very nuanced view about what should ‘mismatch’ mean: We think it should be measured by whether the minority students are made worse off, in utility terms, by attending elite universities. Since utility can not and is not captured by any single outcomes, in our formulation mismatch should not be judged from any single outcomes.”
Asked if they are generally supporters or critics of affirmative action, the scholars replied: “We are neither supporters nor critics (or in a sense, both critics and supporters) of affirmative action. We, as social scientists, have only one goal: contribute to the understanding of the implications of affirmative action in admissions practices by proposing new concepts, new tools and new data sets. We firmly believe that higher education and its stakeholders are best served if we understand the process.”
The data on which the paper is based come both from Duke admissions and from the university’s Campus Life and Learning Project, which surveys cohorts of students on a range of issues. This gave the Duke researchers an unusual mix of data — including both student views of their academic performance, actual performance and admissions analysis.
Here are the data used by the scholars from a recent Duke class cohort to show the gaps in admissions rankings, test scores, students’ own projected grades, actual grades and other factors. The admissions rankings are based on a five-point scale used by the staff to evaluate applicants, and cover assessments of applicants academic achievement, quality of their curriculum and various other factors.
Duke Admissions and Academic Performance Statistics by Race and Ethnicity
Variable White Black Asian Latino
Admissions office evaluations (on 5-point scale)
—Achievement 4.34 3.75 4.67 4.13
—Curriculum 4.71 4.46 4.91 4.72
—Essay 3.52 3.26 3.58 3.31
—Personal qualities 3.57 3.34 3.52 3.30
—Recommendations 3.97 3.55 4.06 3.55
—Test scores 3.69 2.09 4.10 2.79
SAT average 1417 1281 1464 1349
Family income
—Less than $50,000 10% 32% 19% 22%
—$50,000-$99,999 19% 30% 24% 23%
—$100,000 and higher 71% 37% 57% 54%
Academic performance
—Students’ expected first year grade-point average 3.51 3.44 3.67 3.53
—Students’ actual first year grade-point average 3.33 2.90 3.40 3.13
The authors of the study offer two ways to determine if mismatch is real and a problem. One would be for the admissions office to conduct an experiment in which admitted minority students are divided into two random groups. One group would receive the standard letter. The other would receive information related to the admissions officers’ rankings and possible impact on post-enrollment academic performance. “If we observe that the enrollment rate for the second group is smaller than the first group, this will prove that the university’s private information may have generated mismatch,” the paper says.
A second test the authors offer would involve asking admitted students what they expect their grade-point average to be their first year, and then telling them what it is likely to be.
The authors stress that this information Duke has doesn’t mean that there is mismatch, and that it can actually be used so that entering students know what they getting into and make informed decisions. “To the extent that a university with active affirmative action programs is concerned about potential mismatch, it suggests that releasing more information to their applicants about how the admission officers feel about their fit with the university will minimize possibilities for actual mismatch,” the paper says. “More transparency and more effective communication with the students, and possibly pre-enrollment sit-ins in college classrooms, etc. can help minority students enrolling an an elite university potentially find out that they would have been better off elsewhere.”
A key point stressed by the authors is that their views are theirs as scholars, and do not represent Duke’s opinions.
Christoph Guttentag, dean of undergraduate admissions, said he has yet to read the paper, but he noted that Duke’s graduation rates are extremely high across ethnic and racial groups.
“I’d say that our ratings system is a tool — no more and no less — for gathering, organizing, and interpreting some of the information we use in the admissions decision. There are many additional factors that we consider in making our decisions, which is why we read and discuss each individual application rather than simply let a rating system determine the decision,” he said.
As for potential mismatch, he said: “We believe that every student we admit has the preparation and attitude to be fully successful at Duke. We certainly don’t admit anyone about whom we have doubts.”

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch#ixzz1mHZSpIbx
Inside Higher Ed

I think this prejudice against Harvard and Princeton is unjustified. Jermey Lin was an average player, whom Harvard graciously admitted and groomed into an athlete. And now he’s replaced Princeton’s Bradley with the Knicks.

@ qa
I think you are a little bit confused about J-Lin. Stanford rejected him, despite the fact that he played his high school basketball in the SF Bay Area and after he was named CA Player of the Year and lead his team to the CA state championship. He was not drafted by the NBA despite establishing scoring records at Harvard College and named IVY LEAGUE player. What else does a Chinese American need to do in order to stand out?
I think the fact that J-Lin was a Chinese-American may have a lot to do with this, in that he had to meet a higher standard in everything he does, including sports, by breaking down negative stereotypes, especially for Asian American males.
RE: Jeremy and the NY Knicks- They remind me of the 1969 NBA Championship NY Knicks team with Dollar Bill Bradley, Earl the Pearl Monroe, Willis Reed, Walt Clyde Frazier, Dave DeBusschere and Dick Barnett with Coach Red Holzman. This team was a dream to watch because they played smart for the open shot by passing the ball around. Bill Bradley played for Princeton before the Knicks. The 1969-70 season saw the NBA into a new decade as well as a new era. The retirement of Bill Russell from the Celtics at the end of the 1968-69 season effectively signaled the end of the Celtics dynasty that had dominated the NBA for the past decade…The New York Knickerbockers were the top team in the league. The Knicks, as they were well-known, had a solid team of players led by star center Willis Reed and rising star guard Walt Frazier. Dave DeBusschere, who had been acquired from the Detroit Pistons the previous year, combined with Frazier and Reed to anchor the league’s best defense. Coach Red Holzman led the club to wins in 60 of its 82 regular season games to top the league. I first saw Dollar Bill (Rhodes Scholar, ex US Senator from NJ) Bradley play for Princeton when I was a student at Columbia. Columbia won its only Ivy League championship with Jim McMillan (NBA Lakers), 7 footer Dave Newmark, and Rhodes Scholar Stuyvesant grad. Heywood Dotson (now a Corporate attorney) during the late 1960s.

There is an individual in my fraternity who is involved in several race-based activities to appear to be a different race (he’s a minority, but not the one he’s building his resume to suggest).
The whole idea of discriminating job recruiting or college admission based on one’s race is disgusting, and just as any person with a working brain would realize, has been absolutely gamed.
Another example I witnessed firsthand — my hallmates freshman year volunteered to host scholars for multi-cultural scholars weekend. The scholars were going around, and when it got to one kid, he said “Yeah, I’m like 1/16th Cherokee or some shit, I dunno. I just put Indian on my application and Penn offered me a free trip to check out campus so of course I came”. So here’s what happens when you discriminate on race: you get an upperclass suburban caucasian kid who gets a free trip to Philadelphia (and we wonder why tuition is $50k and Penn still pleads for donations?), you get Penn with another checkmark under the “Native American” box, you get administrators who feel really good about themselves and can talk about “diversity” and how wonderful it is that they’re crafting a unique class with a range of dynamic backgrounds, and you get a bunch of smug people who think that 50% minority means something beyond a bunch of kids who are smart enough to take advantage of the color of their skin. So I say again: discrimination based on the color of skin, which is precisely what so-called “elite institutions” like ours practices is disgusting and does nothing.

I think that all of these comments are extremely valid, especially 79’s.

I do not really provide racial diversity at Penn, but I do provide socioeconomic diversity. Naturally, while reading my application, Penn had no idea of this due to need-blind admissions… Need-blind admissions is part of what makes Penn’s financial aid possible. Students are admitted without any knowledge of financial status. I may not have been able to afford private tutors, SAT classes, and college application coaches, but I seem to have been just as successful as those who did. That being said, many of the students admitted each year are wealthy and had those advantages. Those students are also not eligible for financial aid and pay full tuition. This, along with the endowment, donations, etc, allows for students like me to be able to attend this University. Without financial aid, I would not be here… But if socioeconomic diversity is taken into account in admissions, it would no longer be need-blind and therefore a financial aid fiasco…

As much as I think socioeconomic diversity makes much more sense than racial diversity from a student perspective, I just don’t know how it would be possible to run a university like Penn without accepting wealthy students / children of alumni / etc…

One correction from above. Although the University of California schools are supposed to embrace race-blind admissions, they don’t — at least not completely. The year following implementation of race-blind admissions was a disaster with respect to African Americans accepted into the UC system, especially grad school. Since then, the UC admissions officers have become much more creative and have been able to identify candidates by race to a degree. Even so, the number of African Americans on campus — especially at the elite UC schools like Berkeley — is very small. There are strong cultural differences at work here. In very general terms, many Asian students come from families where educational excellence is not only valued, it is demanded. These families have no problem spending thousands of dollars on tutoring, prep classes for standardized and AP exams, and other programs designed to help their children excel academically. On the other extreme, many African American students come from a culture where academic achievement is actually frowned upon as being counter-cultural, making it extremely difficult for these students to do as well as their Asian counterparts. Even for African American students who come from families that highly value education, very few of them actually participate in the extra academic programs that virtually all high-performing Asian Americans attend. The Ivy Leagues do a great job in recognizing and dealing with this discrepancy in cultures, and they should be applauded.

@79: do you seriously think that the student population of UC Berkeley has more merit collectively than that of Harvard? I have many good friends at both schools and was recently visiting Berkeley. While the school has amazing graduate programs, I firmly believe that an average Berkeley undergraduate is less impressive and well-rounded than an average Penn undergrad.

I rofl at all of this. Why do 33% of legacies get admitted but 9% of everyone else does?

All this talk about race..blah blah.

$$$$ talks. B.S. walks.

Penn is a bank, run like a bank. The sad state of affairs…but the only way they can stay solvent and run a country-club-like experience for their attendees.

Since money matters…people who send big checks will get in, those who don’t will find it hard (and, the present state of affairs suggests that Asians will find it even harder)

The Administrations and Admissions offices deny that $$$ matters on the premise that they have plausible deniability – and that if they deny it enough the sheeple will believe that money doesn’t matter and that the process is fair.

Technically speaking, it isn’t fair. But let’s be serious here. Middle class Asians are the ones who get screwed because not only are the standards higher, but they don’t get the financial aid b/c ~100k/yr is supposedly “rich”, never mind that college costs 80k pre-tax dollars to pay for – and if you are making a middle-class to upper middle class income, how are you gonna afford to write the checks?

The really great part is when people who are 1/16th whatever complain that the minority-focused group on campus tries to recruit them.

On another note, affirmative action is something that a friend of mine and I often discuss. She’s minority (black—she says the designation African-American is a misnomer, given that most of the world’s black population is not American), and she opposes affirmative action because 1) it makes her feel like she must be dumber than everyone else i.e. she’s only there because she’s black, and 2) it isn’t fair to those who aren’t fully prepared for the challenge. As a few comments pointed out, a non-Ivy school might offer the better chance for excellence. Schools like Penn are extremely competitive and grades are usually curved, so if you can’t compete, you’re screwed. I’m not a racial minority, so I can’t empathize perfectly with her first point, but as a socioeconomic minority, I can say that point #2 is valid. Part of me does wish that I’d gone to a second-tier school where I could’ve been top dog, instead of being middle-ish (or lower) at Penn.

Last year, I met a sophomore disadvantaged minority at Penn who announced that he didn’t believe affirmative action existed. He might have even given his SAT scores. The other disadvantaged minorities in the room just looked away, embarrassed.

@ Graduating senior

You confused “merit-based” with “merit”. When comparing UC Berkeley and Harvard, I said that Berkeley’s approach is more merit based, meaning that they accept applicants almost solely based on merit without considering factors like race; I didn’t say that the student body as a whole was of greater merit than that of Harvard. Despite Harvard’s (and every Ivy’s) policy of de facto race-based affirmative action, in which Asian applicants more qualified than some underrepresented minority applicants are turned away, the merit of the overall student body is undoubtedly still stronger (because of the school’s unparalleled selectivity) than that of a school like Berkeley, even if Berkeley accepts students based solely on merit. So my point was, would you prefer to attend a school in which the admissions process is more “fair” (i.e., the strongest applicants are accepted, but this creates a less racially diverse population), or one whose admissions process is less “fair” but more “diversity-minded” (i.e., not all of the strongest applicants are accepted in order to create a more racially diverse population).

@ 14

You bring up some very valid points regarding potential socioeconomic-based affirmative action at a school like Penn. Penn accepts a large number of wealthy students, who pay full tuition, and make it feasible for talented students of low socioeconomic status to attend the school.

But, it is not as though replacing race-based affirmative action with socioeconomic-based affirmative action would necessarily have a dramatic effect on the number of wealthy students who would still be admitted. The new process would just need to be implemented carefully; that is, students from low socioeconomic brackets could not receive a “boost” so great as to significantly displace the number of wealthy students. I’m not familiar with research done on this topic, so I can’t speak to how exactly the process should or would operate, but I don’t think a process of socioeconomic-based affirmative action would necessarily result in a precipitous drop of wealthy students attending Ivy League schools like Penn, while it would have the positive effects mentioned in my original comment. It still seems, to me, the best balance between “fairness” and “diversity”, as it doesn’t provide a ‘boost’ to certain applicants solely because of their skin color (which in no way effects academic performance or extracurricular accomplishment), and would still accept underrepresented minorities in decent numbers because they comprise low socioeconomic tiers at disproportionately high rates.

@ YaleDad
Did you occupy the buildings with Mark Rudd? What about the Black Panther meetings? The Weather Underground? Did they award degrees in 1970?

Not to incite hate mail here, but try applying to a top school from an elite prep school (without legacy/athletics). You’ll be compared to the other applicants from your high school and peer schools rather than across the applicant pool. The flawed logic here is that the university can’t take too many people from these schools to promote diversity (despite the fact that many of them already ran such filters in their admissions policies), so they’ll only take the best. Students that were enterprising, motivated, and talented enough to leave home at an early age to receive a better education, rather than staying home to be valedictorian at their local public school are consistently turned down in favor of the one that would have been salutatorian behind them had they stayed.

From my experience at Penn, students from elite prep schools are no more accomplished or impressive than students from public schools or other private schools. In fact, many of the most entitled and seemingly lazy students are graduates of the most notable east coast prep schools.

ummm ….. how bout INTELLECTUAL diversity?

I seems to me that this should be the most important type of diversity for an educational institution to seek.

Alas, it is not so. At every Ivy 90% of the students and close to 100% of the faculty and administrators are reflexive Democrats and down-the-line Obama lovers, even though half the Nation may be of a different mind.

If the goal of any diversity policy is to have the student body “reflect America”, then college admissions officers are doing a damn poor job in achieving that goal.

Alum, diversity of thought is not tolerated by those preaching tolerance and diversity.