Harvard admits record number of Asian American students while Black and Latino admits drop

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the part we all ignore is that there are MANY qualified students for all of these institutions. So it's basically a lottery among the best. Institutions don't have a vested interest in their population being 100% of any race if done on stats alone (which again, for MIT, might be #1 has 1600 and 4.0 and #4000 also has 1599 and 4.0).

The question before the court is whether it's legal to take race into account as you're suggesting. There's no doubt the schools have an institutional interest in doing so. What matters is whether it's legal.

It’s already been held to be legal. This court will says that it is not. Just like abortion.

Racial discrimination should be ruled illegal. Nothing to do with abrotion.

A group could argue that they are being systematically discriminated against, if they are underrepresented.

The problem is that everyone wants to be the one to define 'underrepresentation' themselves so they can benefit from it. Let the schools choose who they want as long as they're not deliberately excluding anyone because of their race or gender or disability or sexual orientation or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those whole thread is a racist dumpster fire. Just ignore it.

The value of dcum is it provides a behind the curtain look as to people”s real thoughts

And the problem with DCUM is that it could be just one very prolific person making all the stupid comments in an effort to try to rile up a race war. Best to just ignore the idiots and hope they go away. Don't feed the trolls!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the part we all ignore is that there are MANY qualified students for all of these institutions. So it's basically a lottery among the best. Institutions don't have a vested interest in their population being 100% of any race if done on stats alone (which again, for MIT, might be #1 has 1600 and 4.0 and #4000 also has 1599 and 4.0).

The question before the court is whether it's legal to take race into account as you're suggesting. There's no doubt the schools have an institutional interest in doing so. What matters is whether it's legal.

It’s already been held to be legal. This court will says that it is not. Just like abortion.

Racial discrimination should be ruled illegal. Nothing to do with abrotion.

The Court said years ago abortion and the admissions process were legal. Now, this court has and probably will say, that they are not. Not sure what the argument is about other than you picking and choosing.

The big question is "what do Justice Thomas's donors want." And, I suppose the interests of whoever paid off Justice Kavanaugh's debts must be considered as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing's wrong if Harvard becomes 70% Asians just like Howard is 80% Blacks.

And will apply except other asians if this is so?

Probably very few other people. It will reach a tipping point and you'll see white flight out of the ivies and into LACs or Southern flagships or something. Much like TJ - white parents no longer encourage their kids to apply, leaving it even more disproportionately Asian than it otherwise would be

This is why the Asians will never win these cases against the Ivy schools. Too much money and power behind these institutions.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think the SC will end affirmative action in college admissions. It will have a domino effect on legacies, donors, etc, that even Edward Blum is all for:

What is your response to the argument that losing affirmative action would actually worsen inequality in education?

No, it wouldn’t. In our expert reports in Harvard, our expert showed that if Harvard abandoned legacy preferences, if they abandoned preferences for the children of faculty and staff, if they gave less of a preference to certain athletic teams, stopped giving preferences to kids on the Dean’s List—which means the donors list in in stark terms—and lowered the bar a little bit for kids from a lower socioeconomic strata than the typical Harvard kid comes from, do all of that, and you can maintain racial and ethnic diversity without classifying students by race and then treating them differently by race. There is a way to go about doing this without putting a thumb on the scale.

https://time.com/6225372/edward-blum-affirmative-action-supreme-court-interview/


I have listened to some podcasts with college admission officers and college admissions insiders (e.g., college counselors at private high schools, independent counselors, etc.), and they all agree that legacy and even athletic recruitment for elite sports will probably end at T30s will end as a consequence and TO will remain. That will dramatically change the demographics at elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing's wrong if Harvard becomes 70% Asians just like Howard is 80% Blacks.

And will apply except other asians if this is so?

Probably very few other people. It will reach a tipping point and you'll see white flight out of the ivies and into LACs or Southern flagships or something. Much like TJ - white parents no longer encourage their kids to apply, leaving it even more disproportionately Asian than it otherwise would be

This is why the Asians will never win these cases against the Ivy schools. Too much money and power behind these institutions.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think the SC will end affirmative action in college admissions. It will have a domino effect on legacies, donors, etc, that even Edward Blum is all for:

What is your response to the argument that losing affirmative action would actually worsen inequality in education?

No, it wouldn’t. In our expert reports in Harvard, our expert showed that if Harvard abandoned legacy preferences, if they abandoned preferences for the children of faculty and staff, if they gave less of a preference to certain athletic teams, stopped giving preferences to kids on the Dean’s List—which means the donors list in in stark terms—and lowered the bar a little bit for kids from a lower socioeconomic strata than the typical Harvard kid comes from, do all of that, and you can maintain racial and ethnic diversity without classifying students by race and then treating them differently by race. There is a way to go about doing this without putting a thumb on the scale.

https://time.com/6225372/edward-blum-affirmative-action-supreme-court-interview/


I have listened to some podcasts with college admission officers and college admissions insiders (e.g., college counselors at private high schools, independent counselors, etc.), and they all agree that legacy and even athletic recruitment for elite sports will probably end at T30s will end as a consequence and TO will remain. That will dramatically change the demographics at elite schools.

Public flagships at college towns that are attractive are going to be massive beneficiaries of this policy.

[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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

[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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

60 years does not erase 400 years of chattel slavery, jim crow, redlining, lynching, war on drugs, stop & frisk, etc.

[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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

60 years does not erase 400 years of chattel slavery, jim crow, redlining, lynching, war on drugs, stop & frisk, etc.

Do Black people wish slavery didn't happen and so they are in Africa now?

[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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

60 years does not erase 400 years of chattel slavery, jim crow, redlining, lynching, war on drugs, stop & frisk, etc.

Do Black people wish slavery didn't happen and so they are in Africa now?

What? The first people on American soil were Black. Research the oldest skeletal remains found here and see what you get.

[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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

60 years does not erase 400 years of chattel slavery, jim crow, redlining, lynching, war on drugs, stop & frisk, etc.

Do Black people wish slavery didn't happen and so they are in Africa now?

Black people built this country from the ground up. There would be no United States without Black people.

[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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

60 years does not erase 400 years of chattel slavery, jim crow, redlining, lynching, war on drugs, stop & frisk, etc.

Agreed

Hence why I support affirmative action for ADOS blacks

Not Obama, Africans and especially not to Latinos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since people are obsessed with racial demographics, according to the article:

Asians: 29.9
Black: 15.3
Latino: 11.3
Native American: 2
Hawaiian: .5

Total: 59%

Implication: whites are 41%

US racial demographics- tried to find current data and found this for 18-24 y/o as of 2021: https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/11207-young-adult-population-ages-18-to-24-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/2048/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,7983/21595,21596

Asians: 6%
Black: 14%
Latino: 23%
Native American: 1%
Hawaiian: .5%
White: 53%

Interesting. Technically speaking, whites are visibly underrepresented, as are Latinos, if the goal is to have Harvard's student body mirror national demographics. We could add an overlay of faith but that gets tricker so let's leave it aside for now. We all know Harvard doesn't admit on merit, so it's not really clear what they're looking for in the ideal student body as they also don't have proportional racial demographic mix either.

For all you Asian parents who think whites are your ally, this is how it starts. Who do you think is in their crosshairs for being overrepresented?

So Asians should accept discrimination now lest the 'whites' discriminate against them in the future.
The Senate held a vote on denying funds to colleges that discriminate against Asians. Every Democrat voted no, the colleges are free to discriminate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians were used by a wealthy activist named Ed Blum who has a pretty clear agenda. He's the financial backer for the recent cases (Texas, UNC, Harvard) and uses students as his mascots.

His last project was dismantling the voting rights act.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/us/affirmative-action-lawsuits.html

Mr. Blum is not a lawyer. But he is a one-man legal factory with a growing record of finding plaintiffs who match his causes, winning big victories and trying above all to erase racial preferences from American life.

Mr. Blum, 65, has orchestrated more than two dozen lawsuits challenging affirmative action practices and voting rights laws across the country. He is behind two of the biggest such cases to reach the Supreme Court: one attacking consideration of race in admissions at the University of Texas, which he lost; the other contesting parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, widely considered one of this country’s most important pieces of civil rights legislation, which he won.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/30/politics/scotus-affirmative-action-college-admissions-edward-blum/index.html

Blum had previously enlisted White students to sue over race-based admissions at the University of Texas – and lost. He added a new dimension to the Harvard case, claiming that high-achieving Asian American applicants were unlawfully disadvantaged by screening policies that favored traditionally underrepresented Blacks and Hispanics.

A former stockbroker who never went to law school, Blum, now 70, has a talent for fashioning cases that appeal to the increasingly conservative high court. Using many of the same lawyers over the years, he engineered a series of lawsuits against the 1965 Voting Rights Act culminating in Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 decision that curtailed the reach of the Voting Rights Act over designated states with a history of discrimination.

I know some angry activists want to blame the resistance to racial based admissions to white supremacists, but Asians are also firmly opposed to it, especially on this scale as is evident at Harvard where the barrier for Asian heritage students is much higher. If you live and work among Asian Americans, it's a major complaint during college admissions, as well as the concerns over getting rid of magnet programs and tracks for high performing students in the name of equity.

Your attitude is the more racist because you refuse to acknowledge people of different races are capable of having their own experiences and views and can only be manipulated by cackling evil white supremacists.

They want to be the ones doing the manipulating. They manipulate by saying 'whites are using you'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians were used by a wealthy activist named Ed Blum who has a pretty clear agenda. He's the financial backer for the recent cases (Texas, UNC, Harvard) and uses students as his mascots.

His last project was dismantling the voting rights act.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/us/affirmative-action-lawsuits.html

Mr. Blum is not a lawyer. But he is a one-man legal factory with a growing record of finding plaintiffs who match his causes, winning big victories and trying above all to erase racial preferences from American life.

Mr. Blum, 65, has orchestrated more than two dozen lawsuits challenging affirmative action practices and voting rights laws across the country. He is behind two of the biggest such cases to reach the Supreme Court: one attacking consideration of race in admissions at the University of Texas, which he lost; the other contesting parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, widely considered one of this country’s most important pieces of civil rights legislation, which he won.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/30/politics/scotus-affirmative-action-college-admissions-edward-blum/index.html

Blum had previously enlisted White students to sue over race-based admissions at the University of Texas – and lost. He added a new dimension to the Harvard case, claiming that high-achieving Asian American applicants were unlawfully disadvantaged by screening policies that favored traditionally underrepresented Blacks and Hispanics.

A former stockbroker who never went to law school, Blum, now 70, has a talent for fashioning cases that appeal to the increasingly conservative high court. Using many of the same lawyers over the years, he engineered a series of lawsuits against the 1965 Voting Rights Act culminating in Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 decision that curtailed the reach of the Voting Rights Act over designated states with a history of discrimination.

I know some angry activists want to blame the resistance to racial based admissions to white supremacists, but Asians are also firmly opposed to it, especially on this scale as is evident at Harvard where the barrier for Asian heritage students is much higher. If you live and work among Asian Americans, it's a major complaint during college admissions, as well as the concerns over getting rid of magnet programs and tracks for high performing students in the name of equity.

Your attitude is the more racist because you refuse to acknowledge people of different races are capable of having their own experiences and views and can only be manipulated by cackling evil white supremacists.

As an Asian American we’re not so stupid to think that once you take care of this that the next step isn’t to turn on us. We notice that in the crusade for admissions on academic merit that this group is conspicuously silent on athletic recruiting and legacy, both of which overwhelmingly favor white applicants. And we hear the constant perjoative labels of robots and strivers thrown our way.

Athletic recruiting is so teams are viable. It favors people who are good at sports.

Legacy is next generation so if admits evolve so will legacy -- if it stays.

Fencing, rowing, lacrosse, golf, filed hockey, cross country, etc. etc. et.
These should be considered nothing much more than good ECs

Rowing doesn't have to be dominated by whites. Many Asians at my kid's school. Field hockey was dominated by India for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

Do you have a problem with the schools doing this without considering race as a factor?