SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

I wonder how this will play out when the percentage of asians getting into elite schools next year is about the same as it was this year, but the percentage of white kids went up. Will they see they got conned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

I wonder how this will play out when the percentage of asians getting into elite schools next year is about the same as it was this year, but the percentage of white kids went up. Will they see they got conned?

Asians are already 4x overrepresented in elite schools. Not sure what their complaint is, other than perhaps they think all Asians, and only Asians should be attending elite schools...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anything particularly special about Harvard without the "legacy" special sauce? Would the prestige, brilliant professors, mega donors, smart students etc. all still be drawn to Harvard without "legacy"?

The majority of the value proposition of Harvard to which people are drawn is grounded in centuries of "legacy", which becomes a mutually reinforcing virtuous circle when more talented people want to associate with the brand to reap their own benefits and then become a part of the brand themselves.

If you strip "legacy" from the Harvard value proposition (which is pretty much impossible to do), then you can probably get way better bang for your buck elsewhere. The ugly truth is that proximity to "legacy" is a lot of what you're paying for at Harvard.

If you remove all of the underserving rich, political or celebrity kids, princes, trust fund kids and the attendant donations, brand cache, visibility etc. that come with them and replace it with a strictly meritocratic system, would people still be clamoring for Harvard in the same way 50 years from now, when those people have decamped to another exclusive institution?

To be sure, a lot of legacies independently qualify on meritocratic grounds, but a bunch of others get their sh*t together way later in life and can go on to great success and prominence by banking on their relationships and connections that they would've had with or without Harvard.

Huh? The legacy admits at these places are seen as that. It's not exactly a particularly desired distinction as it clouds the impression as to why the student got admittance...kinda like athletic recruits.

This isn't true. Once you get there social groups form around things other than your gpa and SAT score lol. And this socialization is where a lot of the value is derived.

In short, what are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anything particularly special about Harvard without the "legacy" special sauce? Would the prestige, brilliant professors, mega donors, smart students etc. all still be drawn to Harvard without "legacy"?

The majority of the value proposition of Harvard to which people are drawn is grounded in centuries of "legacy", which becomes a mutually reinforcing virtuous circle when more talented people want to associate with the brand to reap their own benefits and then become a part of the brand themselves.

If you strip "legacy" from the Harvard value proposition (which is pretty much impossible to do), then you can probably get way better bang for your buck elsewhere. The ugly truth is that proximity to "legacy" is a lot of what you're paying for at Harvard.

If you remove all of the underserving rich, political or celebrity kids, princes, trust fund kids and the attendant donations, brand cache, visibility etc. that come with them and replace it with a strictly meritocratic system, would people still be clamoring for Harvard in the same way 50 years from now, when those people have decamped to another exclusive institution?

To be sure, a lot of legacies independently qualify on meritocratic grounds, but a bunch of others get their sh*t together way later in life and can go on to great success and prominence by banking on their relationships and connections that they would've had with or without Harvard.

Huh? The legacy admits at these places are seen as that. It's not exactly a particularly desired distinction as it clouds the impression as to why the student got admittance...kinda like athletic recruits.

Yes yes, that's why nyc investment banks and hedge funds make special efforts to not hire ivy legacies and athletic recruits. You can hardly find any of them there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

I wonder how this will play out when the percentage of asians getting into elite schools next year is about the same as it was this year, but the percentage of white kids went up. Will they see they got conned?

Asians are already 4x overrepresented in elite schools. Not sure what their complaint is, other than perhaps they think all Asians, and only Asians should be attending elite schools...

OMG are you all this dense? Or just pretending to be to allow this racism to go on? The complaint is that Asians were denied admissions because of their race. The ask is not that only Asians attend elite schools, but that EVERY student be judged on their own merits and not by their race. I do not see how the percent of asians at elite schools vs general population is relevant at all, unless your basic assumption is racism (only looking at what is fair through the lens of race).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Facts matter. The right has "won" again on this thanks to a corrupt court and the Federalist Society that has perfected gaming the system.

Is it your belief that no Asian Americans feel aggrieved by the recent admissions practices at elite colleges and universities?

These schools have single digit admit rates. No one is entitled to gain acceptance. The fact is, the Asian population makes up X percent of the US population. Asian students make up X+++ at these elite schools. They are already oversampled. Do you think the student bodies should just be all Asian students?

You didn't answer my question.

To answer yours, no.

By your logic, African-Americas are also "oversampled" in the Harvard student body. Weird.

Yes, I believe there are Asian-Americans who feel aggrieved. There are also whites, blacks, women, gays, lesbians and others who feel aggrieved too. Tons of kids who worked their tails off and were certainly qualified to be considered for schools like Harvard. But a manufactured lawsuit that complains about a fictional "less deserving black student" over the more deserving Asian student is ridiculous.

So a black son of a biglaw partner from from McClean is more deserving than an Asian daughter of poor, recent immigrants with better stats?

These policies were on a path toward creating a class within a class wherein privileged black kids had their places essentially secured at these elite schools by dint of their privilege with numbers that were incomparable to their similarly (though not exactly the same) privileged peers. Similarly enough, these educated professional class types were also the chief beneficiaries reaping the largess flowing from BLM and DEI initiatives while leaving everybody in the hood still poor and downtrodden and settling in their wealthy enclaves with other elites.

These institutions wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Wanted to keep "acceptable" diversity figures, while keeping a sufficient quotient of full-pay students and keeping minority retention/attrition rates from looking like a complete mockery AND pretending that they are doing the lord's work by throwing a kid from the trenches a scholarship every now and then. They should just own that they are instruments for the perpetuation of generational privilege and keep the song and dance.

Surely these games are not the answer.

You all keep citing this one example. My response, I don't know, I am not in the admissions office and not responsible for the composition of a class of incoming students. What I do know, having two kids very recently gone through the college admissions process, is that the schools weigh many factors into each applicant - can they do the work, what in their background makes them a unique applicant, what will they study? What does our school need in terms of students who will contribute to the school community, be it as a writer for a student newspaper, an actor, a musician, an athlete, whatever. So I don't know anything beyond what you have posted that is bolded. Assuming both students scored well enough (your scenario says the Asian student has better stats) - maybe the Asian student wants to go into engineering and the stats for that are not the same as the African-American applicant, who in addition to stats that are good enough for the school, also plans to major in English, has won writing awards, and also plans to continue their acting career in the school's theater department? Whereas the Asian student comes from a less advantaged background, has good stats, never worked a job, didn't do much otherwise in terms of extracurriculars etc.

See the dilemma these schools face? Provide more context for both students AND the school, and then we can play the game. In fact, this is an exercise my kids school does with the parents of juniors early in junior year, so parents can understand what the Admissions officers are up against with these applications.

As others have noted in the college thread over the last several years, with grade inflation, the watering down of the SAT etc, the fact is, there are tens of thousands of "good" students with "strong stats" and tons of awesome extracurriculars and volunteer service. All of that is good enough to get tossed into a viable admissions pool, so you go from the 50,000 applications down to 12,000 applications for the same 2,000 spots. From there it is a whole host of non-academic considerations.

And still, there are more Asians relative to the general population and fewer blacks relative to the general population.

Now, post SCOTUS decision, I am willing to bet that neither of the applicants you note, will gain admission to these schools. Oh well.

You have to remember the Asian applicants to Harvard excelled in all categories. They had greats scores, great extracurriculars, great everything. By assuming the Asian applicants had poor extracurriculars, you're perpetuating the stereotype that Asians are just test taking machines.

The one area where Asian applicants failed as a group was in the personality rating, where somehow the Asian applicants had the lowest personality ratings across every decile. The evidence is damning unless you believe Asians uniformly have the worst personalities. What's worse, the Asian applicants ranked high in the personal interviews too, but somehow systematically ended up with the worst personality scores.

I don't know if Affirmative Action as a whole needed to be removed, but Harvard needed to be rebuked. I don't know how anyone can defend what Harvard did, and it's kind of telling that the left basically condones Harvard's casual racism. Hardly anyone on the left admits to the discrimination. Yes, Asian are overrepresented at Harvard. You can be overrepresented and still be discriminated against.

I made no such assertions. I was going on an extended hypothetical offered by the person I was responding to. the bottom line is, there are hundreds of thousands of "top" students qualified to be at these elite schools, where there are only thousands of seats available. So many more qualified kids will be rejected. Crying to the supreme court about it doesn't open up more seats, doesn't raise the admission rate, etc. the bottom line is that there are kids who are going to be upset about being rejected. The idea that Asian applicants are somehow more worthy of any of these seats when their percentages relative to the overall population were oversampled makes the case less compelling. So congratulations, rather than being 21% of the make up of these schools, you should expect that it will fall to closer to 10% or less and in total, it will now be much harder for minorities to gain acceptance to these schools.

Hoisted by your own petard.

This isn't how merit based admissions work. They don't look at racial percentages in the overall population and then compare same-race applicants against each other to fill up a quotation for each race. They compare all applicants against each other and select the best. Asian students are the highest performers. Therefore, in a meritocratic system that considers academic performance to be the dominant factor, Asians would see drastically higher admissions. It's odd that your not understanding that the entire point of the case was to end race based admissions-- not to reinforce it. That's the entire point, to make admissions colorblind.

There was one study that showed this was not the case, that whites would gain and Asian numbers would drop, across multiple colleges. I never went into the details of the study to reconcile the discrepancy. They looked at SAT scores and some other academic metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

The trial court has already established anti-Asian race based discrimination. The Supreme Court was being asked if a diversity rationale and deference to colleges' expertise was enough to excuse that.
You say useful idiots, but in having white conservatives bring this lawsuit, more Asians were admitted to Harvard the past few years, about 10 % of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

I wonder how this will play out when the percentage of asians getting into elite schools next year is about the same as it was this year, but the percentage of white kids went up. Will they see they got conned?

That is still a substantially higher level than before the lawsuit was filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anything particularly special about Harvard without the "legacy" special sauce? Would the prestige, brilliant professors, mega donors, smart students etc. all still be drawn to Harvard without "legacy"?

The majority of the value proposition of Harvard to which people are drawn is grounded in centuries of "legacy", which becomes a mutually reinforcing virtuous circle when more talented people want to associate with the brand to reap their own benefits and then become a part of the brand themselves.

If you strip "legacy" from the Harvard value proposition (which is pretty much impossible to do), then you can probably get way better bang for your buck elsewhere. The ugly truth is that proximity to "legacy" is a lot of what you're paying for at Harvard.

If you remove all of the underserving rich, political or celebrity kids, princes, trust fund kids and the attendant donations, brand cache, visibility etc. that come with them and replace it with a strictly meritocratic system, would people still be clamoring for Harvard in the same way 50 years from now, when those people have decamped to another exclusive institution?

To be sure, a lot of legacies independently qualify on meritocratic grounds, but a bunch of others get their sh*t together way later in life and can go on to great success and prominence by banking on their relationships and connections that they would've had with or without Harvard.

Huh? The legacy admits at these places are seen as that. It's not exactly a particularly desired distinction as it clouds the impression as to why the student got admittance...kinda like athletic recruits.

Yes yes, that's why nyc investment banks and hedge funds make special efforts to not hire ivy legacies and athletic recruits. You can hardly find any of them there.

Of course they hire them. Having lots of contacts and being able to bring in business is valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So that everyone understands this case, a Canadian national student at Berkeley was recruited by the Federalist Society to prosecute this case against Harvard - who had an over sampled Asian student population, because they ran it through Federal courts and a SCOTUS that were tilted by Bush and Trump appointees.

You are saying appointees by Democrats would rule in favor of discriminating against Asian students. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Facts matter. The right has "won" again on this thanks to a corrupt court and the Federalist Society that has perfected gaming the system.

Because generally the admissions is too opaque for an individual student to claim they were discriminated against.
This is not unusual for civil rights claims, in employment.
An specific black individual could not show they were discriminated against in not getting a job versus other applicants, but the overall number of employees hired can show a pattern of behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

I wonder how this will play out when the percentage of asians getting into elite schools next year is about the same as it was this year, but the percentage of white kids went up. Will they see they got conned?

Asians are already 4x overrepresented in elite schools. Not sure what their complaint is, other than perhaps they think all Asians, and only Asians should be attending elite schools...

OMG are you all this dense? Or just pretending to be to allow this racism to go on? The complaint is that Asians were denied admissions because of their race. The ask is not that only Asians attend elite schools, but that EVERY student be judged on their own merits and not by their race. I do not see how the percent of asians at elite schools vs general population is relevant at all, unless your basic assumption is racism (only looking at what is fair through the lens of race).

The problem is that SCOTUS only outlawed one particular type of racial preference- the one in favor of disadvantaged races. The ones that advantage white kids (legacy and athletics for niche sports) are still allowed. So EVERY student will not be judged on their own merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

I wonder how this will play out when the percentage of asians getting into elite schools next year is about the same as it was this year, but the percentage of white kids went up. Will they see they got conned?

Asians are already 4x overrepresented in elite schools. Not sure what their complaint is, other than perhaps they think all Asians, and only Asians should be attending elite schools...

OMG are you all this dense? Or just pretending to be to allow this racism to go on? The complaint is that Asians were denied admissions because of their race. The ask is not that only Asians attend elite schools, but that EVERY student be judged on their own merits and not by their race. I do not see how the percent of asians at elite schools vs general population is relevant at all, unless your basic assumption is racism (only looking at what is fair through the lens of race).

The problem is that SCOTUS only outlawed one particular type of racial preference- the one in favor of disadvantaged races. The ones that advantage white kids (legacy and athletics for niche sports) are still allowed. So EVERY student will not be judged on their own merits.

Those are not explicitly racial discrimination. Also, the Supreme Court did not outlaw affirmative action. Clarence Thomas said they effectively did in his concurrence, but technically they stuck to their original ruling from 2003 rather than overturn it. The discrimination has to be justified on certain grounds, and these colleges failed to do so.

[Anonymous]

Someone above was talking about (I think they said, or maybe I misread) "personality" ratings. It was actually "personal" ratings -- one of the criteria used by Harvard:

The personal rating ... attempts to measure the positive effects applicants have had on the people around them and the contributions they might make to the Harvard community. Factors considered include an applicant's perceived leadership, maturity, integrity, reaction to setbacks, concern for others, self-confidence, likeability, helpfulness, courage, kindness, and whether the student is a "good person to be around." Admissions officers generally assess an applicant based on the applicant's admissions essays, teacher and guidance counselor recommendations, accomplishments, and alumni interview report, but almost any information in a student's application can factor into the personal rating.

According to Harvard's written reading procedures, a score of "1" is "outstanding," a score of "2" is "very strong," and a score of "3" is "generally positive." Applicants who receive ratings of "4," "5," or "6" are typically described as "bland or somewhat negative or immature," having "questionable personal qualities," or having "worrisome personal qualities," respectively.
...
Harvard denies that race is considered in assigning an applicant's personal rating during the "first read."

I found the 10th Circuit Opinion more detailed and easier to follow with respect to the facts: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/19-2005P-01A.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"In the case of university admissions over the past decade, Asians serve as this sort of mask for white privilege," Chang says. "A mask that white privilege can wear in order to hide itself." A mask, he says, with the veneer of very real experiences of racism by Asian Americans.

"Is anti-Asian racism real? Yeah, absolutely," says OiYan Poon, a professor at Colorado State University who studies race-based admissions. "I have experienced it firsthand."

But according to her research, affirmative action is not the source of that racism.

"I've been pouring over the data for years," she says — including the admissions data of Harvard before the court in one of the case that just ended affirmative action. "There is no evidence that there's a practice of anti-Asian discrimination."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Asians are useful idiots for white conservatives.

I wonder how this will play out when the percentage of asians getting into elite schools next year is about the same as it was this year, but the percentage of white kids went up. Will they see they got conned?

Asians are already 4x overrepresented in elite schools. Not sure what their complaint is, other than perhaps they think all Asians, and only Asians should be attending elite schools...

OMG are you all this dense? Or just pretending to be to allow this racism to go on? The complaint is that Asians were denied admissions because of their race. The ask is not that only Asians attend elite schools, but that EVERY student be judged on their own merits and not by their race. I do not see how the percent of asians at elite schools vs general population is relevant at all, unless your basic assumption is racism (only looking at what is fair through the lens of race).

Because if Asians are over-represented, Universities aren't disqualifying Asians because of their race.