Yale discriminated against whites and Asians, per Justice Department

[Anonymous]

The root cause of inequity is the level of parenting from age 0-3.

For all the talk about the achievement gap, no school or system has closed it.

Don't blame the schools blame the poor parenting occurring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't like this graphic because of its implication: blacks are mental midgets

I am the OP of the graphic, and it does not say that at all.

I've never liked that graphic either. It should have all of the people the same size but the fence should be higher for the 2nd and 3rd one. Then, the fence should be taken down to remove the obstruction for all of them.

The graphic as it was presented assumes that the 3rd person is lacking (height) and needs a "handout" to achieve. In reality, it should be the fence that is keeping him from achieving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As far as I am aware, not only did the Asian lawsuits use test scores, IT ALSO used soft skills to prove that Asian-Americans were discriminated against. Many of these kids are musicians and artists. There are less athletes but it is not nil. We have Asian-American friends who have had to prove themselves 3x over purely because of their race. I am so tired to claim Americans of Asian ethnicity lack soft skills when I see plenty who prove otherwise.

+1 this is true. Plenty of Asian Americans who have great e.c. and top scores get denied. If a URM person had the same exact transcript/application, that person would get in.

The problem is that they are competing against themselves as a group rather than against ALL applicants.

As my white DH says, Asian Americans are victims of their own success.

No, Asian Americans are victims of racial discrimination due to their inadequate political clout.

PP here.. I'm Asian American.

I don't think they are discrimianted because they are of Asian heritage. The problem is that these institutions want a diverse student body. I don't think that's a bad thing. We chose a school cluster in part because of the diversity. I think it's a laudable goal.

Unfortunately, there are just a lot of really qualified Asian American students. Many of these students don't have legacy or sports as their "hook". They only have their brains and hard work, and many are not from really wealthy families.

The group is indeed a victim of their own success, unfortunately. Is there some discrimination against them purely because of their "race"? There certainly could be some in the admissions office who are indeed racist. For example, I read an article about how some in the admissions office would mark the Asian American applicants as not having good "people skills" or whatever label they use even though they had ever met the application, but the person who interviewed the applicant stated on the feedback that the applicant did have those skills.

I don't know if this type of thing is systemic or it was just a few bad apples. But, I do think that these institutions have a right to achieve a diverse student body.

Having stated that, however, I think that in order to achieve this, they really should get rid of legacies. I know why they admit legacies, but if they truly want a diverse student body and care about the purety of their admissions, then they should get rid of legacies. IMO, they are trying to play two games at the same time.

What does it mean to have a "diverse student body"? Not trying to be difficult, but who gets to decide what it means to be a "diverse student body"? I think the problem with this concept is that then you're effectively creating quota systems based on some pre-conceived notion of how things should be. I support the concept of affirmative action, but I worry that it devolves into a quota system based on the arbitrary choice of some admission officers of what a "diverse student body" should look like. A quota system I think is what causes people to cry that the process is unfair.

All that being said, none of this really gets at the larger structural issues in society. That is, by the time you're applying to college at 17 years old, much of your life has been shaped by the opportunities in front of you, so in some sense, things can never be fair or equal. Even if you eliminated all the "unfair" preferences (race, legacies, etc.) in an admissions process, it wouldn't change the larger structural issues. That is, you could have a "fair" admissions process but it still may not actually really be fair.

Who guess to decide this? The univesities, certainly not the government.

As far as the unfair structural issues, life is unfair, period. Life is a combination of luck and hard work. Is it fair that one kid hit the genetic jackpot of being born to super smart, wealthy, good looking parent, while another kid is born to poor parents? I'm for providing the structure for poor kids to get additional services, but "life" will never be fair. That's not possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You know.. this would mean a lot more with respect to these elite insitutions if they did not use hooks like athletes and legacies. But, they don't, so it makes this graphic condescending.

If they want to apply that to every applicant, then fine. But, unless they get rid of these hooks, then this graphic is just crap.

Except study after study shows athletes/artists/etc do much better long term than people that don't have hooks. Being exceptional at more than 1 thing make you more exceptional.

Much of that is due to connections, ie, legacies. And as stated before, many Asian American students are exceptional at more than one thing. The problem is that there are so many more of them compared to the multi-excpetional URM students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That may begin to change very soon when we have our first asian american vice president!

She doesn’t identify herself as Asian.

she speaks of her indian mom and says her mom understood that they would be treated as african american girls but she describes herself as the child of an indian born mom and a jamaican born dad.

And 99% of news articles and media coverage refer to her as black or African American which is misleading and the reason Why some people call them fake news.

Huh? Obama is half white but it is not fake news to describe him as our african american president.

Except she is quarter black.

What are you quibbling about? She describes her heritage. What is your issue? She does not say she is white or indian or black. She describes herself as a mix and she went to howard University.

I know plenty white or Asian people who attended Howard and that doesn’t make them black.

what makes her part black is that she is part black. howard has nothing to do with that. Howard is an hbcu and she had the experiences of getting her undergraduate education there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As far as I am aware, not only did the Asian lawsuits use test scores, IT ALSO used soft skills to prove that Asian-Americans were discriminated against. Many of these kids are musicians and artists. There are less athletes but it is not nil. We have Asian-American friends who have had to prove themselves 3x over purely because of their race. I am so tired to claim Americans of Asian ethnicity lack soft skills when I see plenty who prove otherwise.

+1 this is true. Plenty of Asian Americans who have great e.c. and top scores get denied. If a URM person had the same exact transcript/application, that person would get in.

The problem is that they are competing against themselves as a group rather than against ALL applicants.

As my white DH says, Asian Americans are victims of their own success.

No, Asian Americans are victims of racial discrimination due to their inadequate political clout.

PP here.. I'm Asian American.

I don't think they are discrimianted because they are of Asian heritage. The problem is that these institutions want a diverse student body. I don't think that's a bad thing. We chose a school cluster in part because of the diversity. I think it's a laudable goal.

Unfortunately, there are just a lot of really qualified Asian American students. Many of these students don't have legacy or sports as their "hook". They only have their brains and hard work, and many are not from really wealthy families.

The group is indeed a victim of their own success, unfortunately. Is there some discrimination against them purely because of their "race"? There certainly could be some in the admissions office who are indeed racist. For example, I read an article about how some in the admissions office would mark the Asian American applicants as not having good "people skills" or whatever label they use even though they had ever met the application, but the person who interviewed the applicant stated on the feedback that the applicant did have those skills.

I don't know if this type of thing is systemic or it was just a few bad apples. But, I do think that these institutions have a right to achieve a diverse student body.

Having stated that, however, I think that in order to achieve this, they really should get rid of legacies. I know why they admit legacies, but if they truly want a diverse student body and care about the purety of their admissions, then they should get rid of legacies. IMO, they are trying to play two games at the same time.

What does it mean to have a "diverse student body"? Not trying to be difficult, but who gets to decide what it means to be a "diverse student body"? I think the problem with this concept is that then you're effectively creating quota systems based on some pre-conceived notion of how things should be. I support the concept of affirmative action, but I worry that it devolves into a quota system based on the arbitrary choice of some admission officers of what a "diverse student body" should look like. A quota system I think is what causes people to cry that the process is unfair.

All that being said, none of this really gets at the larger structural issues in society. That is, by the time you're applying to college at 17 years old, much of your life has been shaped by the opportunities in front of you, so in some sense, things can never be fair or equal. Even if you eliminated all the "unfair" preferences (race, legacies, etc.) in an admissions process, it wouldn't change the larger structural issues. That is, you could have a "fair" admissions process but it still may not actually really be fair.

Who guess to decide this? The univesities, certainly not the government.

As far as the unfair structural issues, life is unfair, period. Life is a combination of luck and hard work. Is it fair that one kid hit the genetic jackpot of being born to super smart, wealthy, good looking parent, while another kid is born to poor parents? I'm for providing the structure for poor kids to get additional services, but "life" will never be fair. That's not possible.

I mean.. if that's going to be your go-to conclusion what's the point of BLM then? Feminism? LGBTQ rights movement?
Isn't it worth openly discussing how different standards are required for each racial group in college admissions and what that has to do with the concept of equality/ equity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still fascinated that some Asians find comfort in having white supremacists on their side on college admissions. Luckily most of us understand that those who don't want African-Americans in elite colleges would be happy to bring back the Chinese Exclusion Act.

+1. They're just using Asian-Americans here.

Asian American kids are discriminated in college admissions - it is fact.

Lol: You get that saying “it is fact” (sic) doesn’t make it one, right? So the least you could do is throw in some supporting data or something.
Also, showing that there are students with great grades, nice extra curricular activities, and wonderful test scores who don’t get accepted by Yale, or wherever, isn’t saying anything since there are a lot of Valedictorians with good scores who apply.

OP — you’re making a great point.

My guess is that Yale is thrilled to get more students like Maya Lin — who are brilliant, creative individuals, and somewhat less thrilled to get students of any background who don’t stand out from the crowd of hardworking valedictorians who write essays about their over supervised community service projects.

Talk about racist stereotypes. I’m surprised you didn’t work in the term “Tiger Mom.” This is exactly the type of racist stereotypes that are used against Asians in admissions. “Over supervised,” “not creative,” “no personality.” The fact that you describe Maya Lin as an outlier only makes it worse.

Also, perhaps I should add that my intention was NOT to describe Maya Lin as an outlier. She’s the first classmate that I could think of that I felt most people would immediately recognize as brilliant and accomplished in multiple areas. If there is an “outlier” aspect it’s that she’s publicly known, and has been since she designed the Vietnam Memorial — in contrast to others whose considerable accomplishments may not have been as widely recognized by the general public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asians are always saying that they're discriminated against in the college admissions process. We've been hearing this for years and now they're supporting right-wing politicians who are using them for their own racist agendas.

I don't know why Asians don't understand that colleges (especially the Ivy League) don't just admit the highest scores. There are so many other factors. This is a hard fact and I just don't understand why that isn't getting through. You can complain and support all of the anti-URM politicians you want but the schools are going to do what they want to do.

It's not like Asians aren't represented at all of the top colleges...Maybe your kid didn't get in with his high scores but someone else's Asian kid did. Maybe you should look at their scores and complain about them. We all know that schools have a "quota" on the number of Blacks, Asians, Latinos, gender, everything. You're competing against your own racial category....and everyone that's admitted has met the minimum quantitative score standards. If you raise the standards, nothing will change...you'll still be in the same situation. If the school is going to admit 500 Asians and your kid is ranked #501, then you don't get in under any situation.

You are delusional and the scotus will reverse the court of appeals decision regarding the Harvard case when it is appealed to the scotus. I am assuming the court of appeals to affirm given the make up of the court.

[Anonymous]

I doubt scotus touches this - too many of the justices would have to recuse themselves if the test case is an appeal from a first circuit ruling in the Harvard case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt scotus touches this - too many of the justices would have to recuse themselves if the test case is an appeal from a first circuit ruling in the Harvard case

Disagree. No need for any justices to recuse for the Harvard case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt scotus touches this - too many of the justices would have to recuse themselves if the test case is an appeal from a first circuit ruling in the Harvard case

Disagree. No need for any justices to recuse for the Harvard case.

The ones with Harvard degrees have a vote in the Harvard cooperation with helps govern the school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The root cause of inequity is the level of parenting from age 0-3.

For all the talk about the achievement gap, no school or system has closed it.

Don't blame the schools blame the poor parenting occurring

The root cause of inequity is centuries of systemic racism. Don’t blame the families or even the schools — blamed the society that has continued to perpetuate systemic racism and segregation — with the consequences that one would expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As far as I am aware, not only did the Asian lawsuits use test scores, IT ALSO used soft skills to prove that Asian-Americans were discriminated against. Many of these kids are musicians and artists. There are less athletes but it is not nil. We have Asian-American friends who have had to prove themselves 3x over purely because of their race. I am so tired to claim Americans of Asian ethnicity lack soft skills when I see plenty who prove otherwise.

+1 this is true. Plenty of Asian Americans who have great e.c. and top scores get denied. If a URM person had the same exact transcript/application, that person would get in.

The problem is that they are competing against themselves as a group rather than against ALL applicants.

As my white DH says, Asian Americans are victims of their own success.

No, Asian Americans are victims of racial discrimination due to their inadequate political clout.

PP here.. I'm Asian American.

I don't think they are discrimianted because they are of Asian heritage. The problem is that these institutions want a diverse student body. I don't think that's a bad thing. We chose a school cluster in part because of the diversity. I think it's a laudable goal.

Unfortunately, there are just a lot of really qualified Asian American students. Many of these students don't have legacy or sports as their "hook". They only have their brains and hard work, and many are not from really wealthy families.

The group is indeed a victim of their own success, unfortunately. Is there some discrimination against them purely because of their "race"? There certainly could be some in the admissions office who are indeed racist. For example, I read an article about how some in the admissions office would mark the Asian American applicants as not having good "people skills" or whatever label they use even though they had ever met the application, but the person who interviewed the applicant stated on the feedback that the applicant did have those skills.

I don't know if this type of thing is systemic or it was just a few bad apples. But, I do think that these institutions have a right to achieve a diverse student body.

Having stated that, however, I think that in order to achieve this, they really should get rid of legacies. I know why they admit legacies, but if they truly want a diverse student body and care about the purety of their admissions, then they should get rid of legacies. IMO, they are trying to play two games at the same time.

What does it mean to have a "diverse student body"? Not trying to be difficult, but who gets to decide what it means to be a "diverse student body"? I think the problem with this concept is that then you're effectively creating quota systems based on some pre-conceived notion of how things should be. I support the concept of affirmative action, but I worry that it devolves into a quota system based on the arbitrary choice of some admission officers of what a "diverse student body" should look like. A quota system I think is what causes people to cry that the process is unfair.

All that being said, none of this really gets at the larger structural issues in society. That is, by the time you're applying to college at 17 years old, much of your life has been shaped by the opportunities in front of you, so in some sense, things can never be fair or equal. Even if you eliminated all the "unfair" preferences (race, legacies, etc.) in an admissions process, it wouldn't change the larger structural issues. That is, you could have a "fair" admissions process but it still may not actually really be fair.

Who guess to decide this? The univesities, certainly not the government.

As far as the unfair structural issues, life is unfair, period. Life is a combination of luck and hard work. Is it fair that one kid hit the genetic jackpot of being born to super smart, wealthy, good looking parent, while another kid is born to poor parents? I'm for providing the structure for poor kids to get additional services, but "life" will never be fair. That's not possible.

I mean.. if that's going to be your go-to conclusion what's the point of BLM then? Feminism? LGBTQ rights movement?
Isn't it worth openly discussing how different standards are required for each racial group in college admissions and what that has to do with the concept of equality/ equity?

That's completely different. One is about treating people the same no matter the skin color, gender or sexuality. The other is about income level and opportunities. You will never be able to achieve complete fairness in life in terms of income level and opportunities. The only way to achieve that is to remove every child from their parents and raise them all the same way. That's not possible.

Civil rights is different. We have laws and shifts in cultural norms and paradigms that can lead us to equality be it by race, gender or sexual orientation.

Who your parents are and the way you are raised is pure luck and cannot be regulated by laws. We do try to provide better opportunities through laws, regulations via public funding of social programs and what not, but that can never replace what happens in the home.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of very talented and high test scoring/high GPA Asian Americans who deserve to get into Ivy league schools but don't get accepted. It is what it is. It sucks for those who don't get accepted and it's probably not going to change (SCOTUS or not).

However, you're not going to change how it works because it's a zero sum game. You'd have to take something away from another racial group and that's not going to happen anytime soon. Asians are competing against themselves and the only ones complaining are the ones who didn't get accepted. It's not like there aren't any Asians getting accepted. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE SCORES AND GPAs!!!

Also, if they made it harder for URMs to get accepted, do you really think they'd make room for more Asians? If you think that, then you don't know how society works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of very talented and high test scoring/high GPA Asian Americans who deserve to get into Ivy league schools but don't get accepted. It is what it is. It sucks for those who don't get accepted and it's probably not going to change (SCOTUS or not).

However, you're not going to change how it works because it's a zero sum game. You'd have to take something away from another racial group and that's not going to happen anytime soon. Asians are competing against themselves and the only ones complaining are the ones who didn't get accepted. It's not like there aren't any Asians getting accepted. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE SCORES AND GPAs!!!

Also, if they made it harder for URMs to get accepted, do you really think they'd make room for more Asians? If you think that, then you don't know how society works.

I agree, it is what it is. The US finds social engineering acceptable in certain processes whereas many other western countries or developed Asian countries use pure meritocracy. Both have its pros and cons. I guess time will tell which one is a better system for achieving a ‘desirable’ society.