Affirmative action: “A bitter, but necessary pill.” Diverse campuses are more interesting campuses.
We had a rollicking debate over whether race should be a factor in college admissions, tied to the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue this year.
I am not sure if the debate was that fruitful, given how few people understand that colleges do not now and will never admit students solely on highest GPAs and test scores. Colleges seek a diverse student body because they believe that a wide range of backgrounds and experiences enriches their campuses and their students. And few students want to be surrounded by classmates who look, sound and act just like them.
Here is an inside view of the issue from Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, president emeritus and university professor at George Washington University. I thought he made some interesting points that were worth sharing.
This is an excerpt from his piece on Bloomberg: (Before commenting, try to read his full essay.)
Using only high-school grades and standardized tests would give us a freshman class with far more women than men. Therefore, some balancing will be necessary to ensure gender equity (except at Barnard, Smith and Mount Holyoke). Geographical representation (for non-state-supported schools) will be sought. The major field of study will become more significant in choosing applicants than is currently the case: There will be room for chemists, yes, but also linguists. It is hard to predict if this system would be better or worse, more or less equitable than the present system.
Affirmative action has been a bitter, but necessary, pill. Designed to right a wrong, it began to provide opportunities for a portion of the population that has been unjustly denied access to education and opportunity. What began as a remedy for one group — black Americans — was later broadened to include a wide selection of others: women, Latinos, American Indians, people with disabilities and special needs, veterans and several other groups.
The current special set-asides in college admissions serve two very different purposes: to improve access for under- represented groups, as noted; but also to deliberately build a diverse multidimensional class because a diversity of gender, ethnicity, geographical origin and talents is good for its own sake, irrespective of whether a wrong is to be righted.
How does one define merit in admissions? Standardized tests have their own problems and are often criticized for perceived biases against disadvantaged students who have received an inferior k-12 education or who lack experience in taking such exams. Letters of recommendation are subjective and often tell us as much about the writers as about the candidates. High-school grades and, by extension, class standings are increasingly subject to a subtle gaming of the ranking system. School districts want to be known as places where their graduates go on to excellent colleges and universities. Since students with high grades tend to be admitted more easily than those with lower ones, there has been an inflation of grades over recent years. Today’s B plus is yesterday’s B minus, and hardly anyone in college-bound classes ever flunks. High-school students are not always held to rigorous standards, and colleges often have a difficult time equating the grades from one school to another.
Merit measured solely by grades would bring us a class of students who were one-dimensional in some ways and uneven in others. Harvard could fill its class with high-school seniors with near-perfect SATs, all valedictorians. Who wants to go to college to meet fellow freshmen from only Newton, Scarsdale, Bethesda, Shaker Heights or Palo Alto — the tried and true upper-middle-class communities?
Colleges are going to look for ways to continue economic diversity, cultural pluralism, gender equity and geographic distribution because it makes a far more interesting group of students to study with and learn from. The purpose of the admissions officer is not to attract to his or her campus a group of students who are uniformly consistent. It is to take from some large pool of applicants a reduced number with a cross section of characteristics.
In the end, the view of merit in students and the concept of what makes up a high-quality entering class have evolved in the past 25 years. A multicultural community is at the heart of every campus from New York University to the University of Mississippi.
For generations colleges were most inventive in finding ways to keep Jews and blacks out. Now they may have an opportunity to use their wits to find the legal means to admit and enroll multicultural classes without the use of affirmative action. My money is on the universities, which were, after all, open for business before the Constitution was drafted.
–from Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
177 comments Add your comment
biaknabato
February 29th, 2012
2:56 pm
I meant ” these monied contributors ………..” In the 2011 entering freshman class of Harvard there were 400 students who scored a perfect 800 in the Math portion of the SAT, in 2009 there were 3200 applicants to the Harvard freshman class with a perfect score of 800 in the math portion of the SAT. That tells you right away as to why my assertion is correct that the Harvard or private school admission process is all about money and cost reduction.
biaknabato
February 29th, 2012
3:03 pm
I mean’t ” more mediocre legacy and wealthy students…… ” and ” Neither Harvard or private schools would want to do that for that matter……”
Lurker
February 29th, 2012
3:17 pm
It seems to me that the implication of this essay is that ANY objective criteria for admissions would cause fewer members of “protected” classes of people to gain admission. That assumption itself seems to be extremely biased. I interpret the statement to basically say that if you use GPA, SAT, and essay composition as the only criteria, that every single entrant will be male, white, and upper middle class.
I have read reports that detailed racial and eco-social problems with the SAT. I remember there were questions that a majority of Hispanic test takers missed because of cultural differences. I don’t have the answers to what exactly the entrance requirements should be, but I believe that objective non-group based criteria should be used.
For example: If four students apply with almost equal objective qualifications (one white, one black, one asian, and one hispanic). I think that there would be many people who would object to accepting the XX student based on race no matter which the XX is.
JOSE
February 29th, 2012
3:19 pm
What colleges need is more pricing transparency and less government aid……………. if consumers knew the true costs associated with degrees among multiple universities then they can make informed decisions and let markets decide the best route……….but with government aid (pell grants, financial aid, hope scholarshis) all colleges do is raise their tuition to the level that the aid raises it………… for example i heard cited that if milk prices increased at the rate college did from 1980 then we’d be paying $13 a gallon……….. now by no means say that is accurate but it points to the lack of transperancy of pricing in colleges
td
February 29th, 2012
3:22 pm
I wonder why we do not have a “diversity” of opinions by professors in our college classroom? Should there not be an equal number of conservative and liberal professors, Administrators and Presidents? When this happens come back and talk to me about how diversity is good for the students.
JOSE
February 29th, 2012
3:24 pm
less focus should be made on having a DIVERSE class of students and more focus on providing REAL WORLD training for jobs at affrodable prices………….. the goal should be to to provide the country with graduates who can work…………never once did i learn how a PO# system worked in college yet i use it extensively in the business world……….. being multi cultural like Georgia State pushed on me is useless…………… i value competency over race or ethnicity…………
William Casey
February 29th, 2012
3:24 pm
Much ado about nothing. Success in life does not depend on being admitted to a particular institution. There are many roads to success. It all depends upon the individual. If one is determined to get an good education, one can get it almost anywhere. I learned this competing in the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Competition (often called the “Domestic Rhodes” back in the day.) Did very well in spite of attending a “no name” institution. That’s a dirty little secret that expensive, high prestige institutions don’t want you to know.
Sarah Coulter
February 29th, 2012
3:30 pm
Who knew that the name Skipper or Chip had huge significance? Or the rise in the first name “Palin” or “Campbell” or “Trig” or “Trac” or even “Bristol”. But I guess those names are sufficient for you, Skipper. And in fact, I did not make up Jaquavious. He should be in middle school by now.
Anti-intellectualism is not just confirmed to people of color or minorities. Wasn’t it Paris Hilton, a blond blue-eyed heiress, that whined about hating to read even a simple menu? Or the Rhodes scholars on Teen Mom and Jersey Shore, two of the highest rated shows?
Jimmy, but you skipped a step in my statement. The employee, affirmative action, was into the company and worked hard to work his or her way up.
I love how whenever affirmative action is mentioned that only comes down to African…I mean blacks (don’t wanna say African-American because it is deemed “separatist”). What about the women (as mentioned by Maureen) that have benefited from Affirmative Action? Not a peep from the posters.
Ron Burgundy
February 29th, 2012
3:31 pm
Good point TD….how about some diversity in university professors….oh wait conservatives are busy making a living based on merit.
skipper
February 29th, 2012
3:43 pm
@ Sarah Coulter;
Liberal ranting will not do any good; I reiterate: making up names will do no one good. I never said YOU made it up. However, making up crazy names (which OBVIOUSLY MANY DO, AS YOU YOURSELF POINTED OUT) is just another way to deepen the divide. Jaquavious? Quintavious? Shemika? Cool if you like it, I guess, but a direct attempt to further diversify….. however it does make it easier (not harder) to in fact identify the race that you think should be a non-issue……you’re a ranter, not a realist.
Lakeisha Jackson
February 29th, 2012
3:48 pm
I will be glad to see affirmative action ended, and I hope that the Supreme Court does so as soon as possible. For one thing (as someone pointed out) it is against what our laws plainly declare.
And I am tired of having achievements that I worked hard for questioned and doubted because of my race. I am pefectly willing to compete with anyone. I won’t win every time, but I will win my share…and not because I fit the right “slot”. And if someone beats me out in a fair and open competition, then they deserve whatever it is we’re competing for…a place in a class, a job, a promotion. We can make the playing field level…just eliminate all references to race, gender, ethnicity, etc. What we can’t make equal…to again use a sports analogy…is the preparation for the “game”.
And I’d like to point one more thing about in regards to Dr. Trachtenberg. He came along right at the beginning of the Civil Right’s movement…earning his graduate degrees in the early 60’s. He taught at Boston University before going to the Presidency at George Washington University. (There may have been other posts in between.) But the point is…there were almost CERTAINLY qualified Black educators and scholars who…because of the times…had clearly been discriminated against because of their race. Black students with Harvard doctorates were finding that the only teaching positions they could find was teaching high school…because many colleges still discriminated (some openly, some “unofficially”) due to race. (My own great uncle among them.)
So why didn’t Dr. Trachtenberg decline some of HIS teaching and administrative positions and request that they be filled by a minority instead?
It’s amazing how easy it is to decide that a “bitter pill” is “necessary” when it’s being swallowed by someone ELSE.
Peadawg
February 29th, 2012
3:58 pm
Shouldn’t be about race or color…it SHOULD be about the best and brightest students PERIOD.
Sarah Coulter
February 29th, 2012
4:01 pm
And “Chip”, “Palin”, “Campbell”, “Trig”, “Trac”, “Bristol”, “Pilot Inspektor” and “Apple” don’t?!
Get out of here with your idiocy. You add no value by ignoring that all races name their children crazy names.
Sarah Coulter
February 29th, 2012
4:05 pm
What began as a remedy for one group — black Americans — was later broadened to include a wide selection of others: women, Latinos, American Indians, people with disabilities and special needs, veterans and several other groups.
Peadawg, et.al, pay attention to this paragraph because you seem to skip over it. Let me break it down for all of you since this paragraph is over your levels of reading comprehension. It began by helping black Americans, but broadened to include women (no race there), people with disabilities and special needs (is a disability or a special need a race?), and veterans (I guess I am Veteran-American).
Geez, it is not about race. Leave it alone. Affirmative Action has helped more than just racially.
skipper
February 29th, 2012
4:07 pm
@Sarah
Of course many races, nationalities, etc. do have different names, but not NEARLY in the proportion. Go to a minority dominated school and look at all the “new” names…..names many cannot even write correctly until they are in the third grade, nor can they even pronounce! The fact that you call my pointing out of the facts idiocy is why rants like yours will never help; you just want to be a crusader and really have nothing to contribute.
Sarah
February 29th, 2012
4:09 pm
Affirmative action and diversity are not the same thing. Of course colleges are including students that demostrate skills and abilities that are not measured by test scores. An eighteen year old who worked part time and who came from an underpriviliged background is more valuable to the institution than another high grades/high test score kid from the same high school as fifty other incoming freshmen. No problem
That choice is wise and appropriate.
Admitting students based on the color of their skin is both wrong and illegal. Seeing the role of the university as picking winners and losers is also wrong as is “levelling the playing field” what ever that means.
skipper
February 29th, 2012
4:12 pm
My previous post was meant to be @ Sarah Coulter, not Sarah.
Bernie
February 29th, 2012
4:21 pm
Affirmative action: “A bitter, but necessary pill.” The bitter part by most who want to do away with Affirmative Action, is the perception that minorities somehow are getting a free ride at cost of another non-minority enrolled student. The necessary pill is the “MONEY” that the Universities and State’s benefit from those students, who may participate in atheltic programs that may have sub-standard grades in comparison to their peers. However, a sucessful sub-par grade average athelete on the field, may easily generate milions of dollars in revenue (ie, ticket sales, bowl games, concession revenue, parking, television rights, etc) for a university and/or college, which in turn the profit is ultimately passed on to a State’s educational fund for future or ongoing and programs to the benefit of all students. The sad part ,is those students that provide that benefit are usually the ones who suffer the most. They tend not graduate and no one at the Unvistity or colleges really cares. Just bring on the next one to be cheered on. UGA is a classic example.
Orange12
February 29th, 2012
4:25 pm
Shouldn’t seats go to the best qualified person regardless of race, sex, physical limitations, vet status. This is just an opinion but it seems that the public would be better served havung a number1 candidate continue vice being snubbed for a number two candidate. Like I said it’s just an opinion which is what the Supreme Court is considering.
Orange12
February 29th, 2012
4:34 pm
Sorry for the typos.
Sarah Coulter
February 29th, 2012
4:37 pm
I did just as you said. I went to a minority-majority school, and saw that more than the majority had names that were not as you describe “unique”. The reason why (going off of several people that I know): parents are tired of people like you by-passing them, their friends, etc. because they are profiled simply for having a name that isn’t “mainstream”. Who cares if they are qualified? Who cares if they can afford the mortgage or rent?
I am no crusader, and this isn’t a rant. I just call people out on their bullcrap.
But why let facts get in the way of your hasty generalization.
skipper
February 29th, 2012
4:53 pm
You must be older…..try checking one out now! Mainstream has nothing to do with it….most of the crazy names like Lonquasious did not go to the achievers.
Dean Wormer
February 29th, 2012
4:56 pm
Don’t you want students that earn their way? Basing any selection on skin color is discriminatory. Those who disagree cannot be reasoned with.
Quit having babies
February 29th, 2012
5:05 pm
Some people are not meant for college. There are actually successful, productive, law abiding people that have not attended or graduated college.
So much overpopulation cannot handle the numbers for most anything nowadays. Have to find different avenues in life.
Quit having babies
February 29th, 2012
5:10 pm
Basing any selections on skin color is discriminatory.
Earn admission.
Something wrong with that MD
Atlanta Mom
February 29th, 2012
5:11 pm
Skipper,
If you can’t get past a person’s name, there is no hope for you.
And if you don’t like the “made up names”, check out some of the “real” asian names out there, 18 letters and maybe 3 vowels. But, you can’t pronounce it, so surely that person is unworthy.
David
February 29th, 2012
5:15 pm
Though only 12 percent to 13 percent of the U.S. population, blacks hold 18 percent of all federal jobs. African-Americans are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of State Department employees, 37 percent of the Department of Education, 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the Government Printing Office, 82 percent of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
According to the Washington Post, blacks hold 44 percent of the jobs at Fannie Mae and 50 percent of the jobs at Freddie Mac.
The EEOC, where African-Americans are overrepresented by 300 percent, has been asked to oversee the new “government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce.”
You take all the MDs based on skin color and I'll take an MDs that has earned it
February 29th, 2012
5:16 pm
I sure as heck want my surgeon to be of the highest intelligence and capability instead of being there for his skin color.
valid arguments banned?
February 29th, 2012
5:17 pm
Why the moderation?
Mom
February 29th, 2012
5:21 pm
I have always supported Affirmative Action in principle, but I admit that I feel less support for it when it applies to my family personally. For example, my husband was once interviewed by a panel, selected for the job, and notified by one of the panelists in advance of the formal notification. He was later nonselected by the approval authority who told my husband, in person, that he would not approve his selection because “45 year old white men are speed bumps on the road to diversity.” The job was given to an African American woman–who did a fine job I am sure. Likewise, college admissions were eye opening for my son, a fine student who had exceptional credentials, and recieved many nice acceptances and some money for college. We were surprised however to learn that some his peers with much lower grades and scores received acceptances and generous scholarships to colleges he could only dream of.
While we understood in theory that this was fair in principle, it stung personally. That is one of my worries about Affirmative Action in practice–I think it creates a sense of bitterness even among people of good will. We all have in innate sense of what is fair, we want to be judged on our merits, especially when we have worked hard to earn something. It stings when we see others receive benefits and rewards that we feel we earned by merit and they did not.
In the end though, “merit” is such a nebulous term, I am not sure we can even use it and all agree on its meaning. I think we “feel” its meaning more than anything, and its the feeling that Affirmative Action isn’t fair that makes people so angry. I think its supporters should do a little more to make people understand its purpose beyond the vague explanation that diversity is important. But that’s just my opinion.
CJ
February 29th, 2012
5:21 pm
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg: Affirmative action has been a bitter, but necessary, pill. Designed to right a wrong, it began to provide opportunities for a portion of the population that has been unjustly denied access to education and opportunity.
Forgive me if this has been addressed, but when defining affirmative action, I usually hear it described in ways similar to how Mr. Trachtenberg described it above. As you can see from many of the comments, a lot of people don’t understand this explanation. The old “why should I pay for the sins of my father?” argument.
But affirmative action isn’t a process by which this generation pays for the sins of previous generations; it’s a process by which we don’t benefit from the sins of previous generations…anymore than we should benefit from inheriting stolen riches.
In fact, as a white male, I continue to benefit from discrimination of previous decades and centuries against blacks, women, and other minorities in that I would otherwise have less competition for higher level educational opportunities and continue to have less competition for employment at numerous middle income and above positions.
Poverty is a vicious cycle that perpetuates for generations, so removing the institutional obstacles that put a class of people into poverty in the first place is not enough. Until minorities are in the same place that they would otherwise have been without prior generations of discrimination, we will continue to benefit from such discrimination. That’s the reason for affirmative action, and I’m wholeheartedly behind it.
see
February 29th, 2012
5:41 pm
Well, mom, what happens to my sons? They are white, do very well in school and on tests, but we only make $42,000 a year as a family. If my sons don’t get generous scholarships, how will they afford college? They are in the most discriminated group…the poor, white male! How worrisome for me as a mother, to watch my sons excel, with ideals of becoming engineers, only to wonder if they will even be accepted. Many colleges don’t want to accept the poor white male when they can accept the poor black male, and tick off economic and minority status…no matter how promising the white male may be.
Maureen Downey
February 29th, 2012
5:45 pm
Moderation is either because you triggered it through a word choice or because you have no posting history. New posters go into moderation.
Maureen
TW
February 29th, 2012
5:50 pm
The NAACP ought to spend every dime they got getting the Court to rule AGAINST affirmative action.
Because in 25 years, the only way WHITES are going to get into college is with it!
LOL!
mountain man
February 29th, 2012
6:14 pm
Diversity sounds great until your white daughter doesn’t get to go to her first choice of college, despite her outstanding curricular and extra-curricular attributes.
I liked the post on another blog:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character.”
Me, too, Martin.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 29th, 2012
6:16 pm
To all the “usual” posters complaining about censorship….here ya go:
http://wordpress.com/
Mom
February 29th, 2012
6:16 pm
@see. That is my point exactly–perhaps I explained it badly. My husband and sons are also white males and, like your sons, they are the demographic that Affirmative Action was created to–for lack of a better description–to keep down while lifting non white males up. So while I understand and support the premise and value of Affirmative Action for society in general, it bothers me a lot when it disadvantages my husband and sons personally. I think also, your case (having an income insufficient to pay for college for two promising young men) is particularly representative of how Affirmative Action hurts white men who, in fact, are not beneficiaries of the mantle of power that they are supposed to carry as a birthright.
Affirmative Action lifts minorities and women who are from all socioeconomic levels up often at the expense of poor white males who could use a little lifting of their own. When we imagine the white men the Affirmative Action choice is replacing, in a job or a college acceptance, we do not imagine a low income white male being replaced by an affluent African American, rather the opposite. Its one of the paradoxes inherent trying to create a more fair society with a tool that is inherently unfair. It is the bitter pill.
mountain man
February 29th, 2012
6:17 pm
I always thought that affirmative action meant going the extra mile to FIND a person of “diversity” who was EQUIVALENT to the best candidates, not LOWERING the standards to accept people of “diversity”.
BTW, what about us rednecks? Are we represented correctly at Havard?
mountain man
February 29th, 2012
6:20 pm
“In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin.”
This is affirmative action, not setting quotas to how many “diverse ” students they need.
bu2
February 29th, 2012
6:27 pm
What about poor people
You are 100% right. And that is specifically why the University of Texas is being sued. They aren’t using affirmative action to get disadvantaged minorities. They are trying to get suburban minorities who didn’t do as well as their peers. The University of Texas president said it was “The University of Texas,” not “The University of 20 suburban school districts in the Houston, San Antonio, Austin and Dallas/Ft. Worth metro areas.” Yet its minority students from those good schools who don’t qualify under the 10% rule that they are trying to get.
I agree that diversity (i.e. getting people with different backgrounds who think differently from each other) is good in higher education. I don’t think racism is a good way to achieve it. I don’t think bringing in the suburban doctor’s son because of his skin color adds much useful diversity as he has had many of the same experiences as the other suburban kids with different skin colors.
Chris C.
February 29th, 2012
6:31 pm
Obviously, to chief diversocrat Trachtenberg, EVERY high-scoring white or Asian student is JUST LIKE every other white or Asian student. Obviously, EVERY student from town X is JUST LIKE every other student from town X. But students of a different skin color–the ones who couldn’t get into the university on their own merits–somehow add something special to the mix and MUST be different. These assumptions sound absurd, but they’re precisely what Trachtenberg et. al. believe.
Read “The Gatekeepers” for the hilarious, if sad, story of the consequences of this racist approach to college admissions. A highly qualified Asian girl (who later goes on to great success elsewhere) is denied admission while the admissions counselors bend over backwards to admit an unqualified Native American who flunks out quickly. Of course, the admissions officials never recognize their mistake–they’re too busy patting themselves on the back for having struck a blow for “equality.”
B. Killebrew
February 29th, 2012
6:55 pm
Great post, Mom.
B. Killebrew
February 29th, 2012
6:55 pm
Great post, CJ.
B. Killebrew
February 29th, 2012
7:05 pm
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2011/09/10/another-myth-from-todays-white-frame-students-of-color-get-a-lot-more-scholarships/
Atlanta Mom
February 29th, 2012
7:15 pm
It appears that the vast majority of people posting here, only want to be surrounded by people who either look like them, or have the same background as they have. How sad.
Lee
February 29th, 2012
7:35 pm
This is the second post on this topic by Maureen. In the interest of fairness and to ensure a “diversity of perspectives”, I am sure tomorrow she will post an article about affirmative action by former US Representative David Duke, Phd.
Right Maureen?
Maureen??
Maaaauuuurrreeeeeennnnnn…
DawgDad
February 29th, 2012
7:38 pm
Diversity may be a means to certain ends, but it is not an end in itself. Diversity is a measure of fairness and equity in access, but forced diversity can be VERY unfair and even counter-productive. And I would point out there is a HUGE difference in set-asides and open access for veterans (as a reward for services rendered) vs. racial, sex, and other “characteristic” -based groups.
There is an article in the AJC today bemoaning the lack of job candidates in the work force with technical skills. If there are too many women eligible for college maybe colleges aren’t providing a “sexually balanced” cirriculum? We have many “garbage degree” programs that contribute precious little in terms of practical work force preparation, let’s dump some of these for technical studies. Think about it, if colleges can justify developing all these “one and done” college athletes why not master machinists?
Lee
February 29th, 2012
7:41 pm
So, this is the same Stephen Joel Trachtenberg who, while President of GWU, raised tuition to the highest in the nation, raised his pay to the highest in the nation ($3.7 million), and was narcistic enough that he insisted on getting one of the schools on campus named in his honor. And yet, he wants to lecture the rest of us poor, white saps that sacrificing our children on the altar of politically correct diversity is “good for the school.”
The real George Washington is probably rolling in his grave…
Lee
February 29th, 2012
7:46 pm
Here’s a little known tip if you are the parent of a white student who may be on the bubble for college acceptance into a competitive school. Just declare your major in “African American Studies”, or “Sociology”, or any of the other hack programs predominately populated by black students. Your son or daughter will be by far the most qualified of the applicants and once accepted, they can simply change majors after the first semester.
Prof
February 29th, 2012
8:20 pm
@ Lee. I guess you haven’t been to college lately…… The admission process of schools, competitive or otherwise, doesn’t include any request for the applicant to declare a major; and usually majors aren’t declared until after the freshman year.
If you’re white and want to lie about your race or ethnic group to be admitted to college, just check whatever box you like in the Demographics section. Race/ethnicity is always self-identified. And if you feel queasy about lying, then just check the box for “Multiracial.” It’s most probably accurate for everyone if you go far enough back.