Harvard’s loss was Boston College’s gain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

Edward Blum is a Zionist.

[Anonymous]

if you think today's Democrats are the ones before Richard Nixon, you are missing a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

What are you talking about? There is a significant number of Asian applicants admitted to Harvard and BC. Not sure about admitted but over 40 percent of the incoming class to Harvard and over 16 percent of the incoming class to BC.

IF you don't want to be with Asian students don't go to those colleges. Suit yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

TBH, the PP you responded to is obviously a Democrat, and it was the democrats who bitterly fought against racial integration.

+1

The KKK was founded by democrats.

That was before the ideology realignment in the 1960s, you dumb fck.

KKK proudly supports the "American First" GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't click on links...does the article itself support the title of your thread?

The paragraphs you quote don't mention anything about Boston College.

+1

publisher? author?

provide a legit link if you want people to read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://archive.ph/9tHjW

Did Asians benefit from Affirmative Action Ban?

This article says no.

Increasingly lost in all this ... is Asian-American students. The thrust of the lawsuit that overturned race in admissions was that Harvard was discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Yet since the ruling, their numbers have barely budged.

Only 10 of the 39 colleges in the New England sample saw the number of Asian-American students increase over the last two years.

“The bottom line is that this lawsuit at Harvard claimed to be about supposed anti-Asian discrimination,”
“And if that were actually the case, then you would expect to see increases in Asian-American students. There are some at super-selective institutions, but what we mainly see are big changes in other underrepresented minorities.”

That would be because Asians were not and are not being discriminated against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

Anything that isn't a single test that you can relentlessly study for or even better cheat on is racist to Asians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

TBH, the PP you responded to is obviously a Democrat, and it was the democrats who bitterly fought against racial integration.

Quit gaslighting.....all of those Southern Democrats immediately switched to the Republican party once Johnson pushed his civil rights agenda through. They were welcomed with arms wide open by Lee Atwater and crew and they feel truly at home in the Republican party

[Anonymous]

and I thought this would be about the 5-1 BC over H win in the BeanPot tourney. As it turns out, I'm not sure what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://archive.ph/9tHjW

Did Asians benefit from Affirmative Action Ban?

This article says no.

Increasingly lost in all this ... is Asian-American students. The thrust of the lawsuit that overturned race in admissions was that Harvard was discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Yet since the ruling, their numbers have barely budged.

Only 10 of the 39 colleges in the New England sample saw the number of Asian-American students increase over the last two years.

“The bottom line is that this lawsuit at Harvard claimed to be about supposed anti-Asian discrimination,”
“And if that were actually the case, then you would expect to see increases in Asian-American students. There are some at super-selective institutions, but what we mainly see are big changes in other underrepresented minorities.”

That would be because Asians were not and are not being discriminated against.

This is the most likely conclusion.

- The number and share of White and Asian American freshmen remained relatively flat across the board, although there was a slight uptick in the number and share of Asian American freshmen at Ivy Plus schools.

- Interestingly, Hispanic enrollment increased in aggregate at more selective institutions that did not provide a legacy preference and declined at those that did. This disparity was not observed for Black students.

- These enrollment patterns reflect a phenomenon known as a cascade effect, in which highly qualified students of color who would have been much more likely to be admitted to highly selective institutions pre-SFFA ended up enrolling in less selective institutions, thus displacing students there and pushing them to less selective institutions.

[Anonymous]

The U.S. population has grown since parent times.

Therefore the population of top kids has grown.

Ivies aren't expanding and are small.

Flagships are big (some growing) and will get more top talent.

Flagship kids are going to win this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

I bet there are quite a few Ed Blum on this board ...

- Another Asian American parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Harvard's Asian admits go up to 41% last year?

That could be international Asians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Harvard's Asian admits go up to 41% last year?

That could be international Asians

international students from Asia