Post SCOTUS Ruling: Let the Essays Begin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

There’s a pretty big difference between a for profit business with the goal of selling a product to the public and non-profit academic institutions which provide educational opportunities to students. There is nothing the least bit similar about the goals and purposes of these organizations so it makes no sense at all to compare their selection procedures.

Clearly someone came up with this talking point years ago and keeps sending it out for people to use. They think it’s is very clever, but it is actually too clever by half, as it simply shows in what regard the people who use this talking point have for the people they are trying to persuade.

Colleges are also “selling a product to the public” and they are non profit in name only, as the ginormous endowments of these institutions illustrates. They select students based on a competitive admissions process, and the competition to get to the top level if fierce. It’s not that different.

[Anonymous]

The silly NBA theme....

There is almost nothing analogous about the comparison.

Ticket buyers pay to watch the best and/or most entertaining players. Teams pay those players to show up and deliver the best/most entertaining performance.

Universities get paid by the students/families. The higher the status the more they are willing to pay to attend.

There is almost no way to think of these as similar at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The silly NBA theme....

There is almost nothing analogous about the comparison.

Ticket buyers pay to watch the best and/or most entertaining players. Teams pay those players to show up and deliver the best/most entertaining performance.

Universities get paid by the students/families. The higher the status the more they are willing to pay to attend.

There is almost no way to think of these as similar at all.

Yes, college students are a lot more like NBA fans than NBA players. And NBA teams work hard to ensure that fans from many different backgrounds (and especially rich white fans) feel comfortable attending their games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

There’s a pretty big difference between a for profit business with the goal of selling a product to the public and non-profit academic institutions which provide educational opportunities to students. There is nothing the least bit similar about the goals and purposes of these organizations so it makes no sense at all to compare their selection procedures.

Clearly someone came up with this talking point years ago and keeps sending it out for people to use. They think it’s is very clever, but it is actually too clever by half, as it simply shows in what regard the people who use this talking point have for the people they are trying to persuade.

Colleges are also “selling a product to the public” and they are non profit in name only, as the ginormous endowments of these institutions illustrates. They select students based on a competitive admissions process, and the competition to get to the top level if fierce. It’s not that different.

Anyone care to guess how many years Sarah Lawrence would survive if they took in no tuition dollars and had to pay an NBA-level salary to each and every student? Because I’d guess less than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools cannot work race into their algorithm. Applicants can write whatever they want.

The ambulance chasers are praying that people

1. Waste their essays writing about race
2. Banking that they will be able to sue schools every single time a "URM" is accepted and force them to cough up their essays.

And I can't wait until they reveal students' cancer, HIV status, mental health treatments, history of physical abuse, parents in jail, scratch off lottery winnings, and a thousand other things that are none of their business.

Get your popcorn and wet wipes. This is going to be trashy AF

College application essays are confidential. The lawyers are going to have to go after them one at a time. And how are they going to identify which ones they want to see?

Then try defending that in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

How about the URMs who have high scores, 1550+? Still pressure to deny so as not to attract suspicion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

There's a fallacy that a SAT score is the definitive factor in selecting an applicant. Far from it. Standardized test scores are becoming less relevant each admissions cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

There's a fallacy that a SAT score is the definitive factor in selecting an applicant. Far from it. Standardized test scores are becoming less relevant each admissions cycle.

Yes. To exclude Asians. It’s a plot to keep Asians out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will result in lots of trauma essays and I’m a good ally essays.

My African American DS refuses to write a trauma essay in response to this type of question. Although he has been profiled by police and in stores, he is upper middle class and doesn't think it is appropriate to construct an essay around racial identity/ trauma or else you are low-income, something significant happened that negatively impacted his life, discrimination in an educational setting, attend an under-resourced school. etc.

Well whatever. That’s not the universal experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

There's a fallacy that a SAT score is the definitive factor in selecting an applicant. Far from it. Standardized test scores are becoming less relevant each admissions cycle.

Yes. To exclude Asians. It’s a plot to keep Asians out.

Really?

I thought it was the "personality " score that was the excuse ( note that the SCOTUS banned affirmative action but did not stop the personality score...hmm).

Bogus.

[Anonymous]

Threads like this are so pathetic. Your white kid is and will be FINE. Your Asian kid is FINE. STFU already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

There's a fallacy that a SAT score is the definitive factor in selecting an applicant. Far from it. Standardized test scores are becoming less relevant each admissions cycle.

Yes. To exclude Asians. It’s a plot to keep Asians out.

Really?

I thought it was the "personality " score that was the excuse ( note that the SCOTUS banned affirmative action but did not stop the personality score...hmm).

Bogus.

Schools knew they were going to lose this and have already started moving the goalposts with “test optional.”

Obviously yes previously they sandbagged Asians with personality scores as was crushingly obvious in discovery.

TO is the new strategy to exclude them for the crime of having too many qualified students as a race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Threads like this are so pathetic. Your white kid is and will be FINE. Your Asian kid is FINE. STFU already.

Black kids are also FINE. What’s your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.

And here is where you can see the true beliefs of the anti affirmative action people on display.