Asians are NOT the model minority: the Affirmative Action Chess Game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionth time:

Colleges seeking racial balance in admissions is not affirmative action.

That’s not why they do it. Read the above sentence many times and get it through your thick skulls.

They do it so they can build the class they want more readily. You don’t have to take my word for it call any college admissions office and talk to them about it. And yes someone there will talk to you. But you won’t do that because it will conflict with the narrative you’ve already committed to.

You are free to debate the efficacy and appropriateness of affirmative action but that discussion has nothing to do with college admissions. Nothing.

Abbott Lowell was also very concerned about what you call "racial balance" in admissions: "The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense."

You can call it what you want to make yourself feel better. It's just racism, though.

No, you idiot, you miss PPs point entirely.

And you also did not do as suggested : call a college admissions office and ask them why.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

Here's the test, try answering this: assuming you are not AA, would you send your kid to a HBC, even though there are many great ones? No, you wouldn't, because your kid would feel very out of place.

THAT'S why colleges seek a representative balance. That's it. And you just proved it is valid with your answer.

It's not affirmative action, it's not reparations, it's not to right past injustices (even if it should be). It's so those colleges can get the kids THEY WANT at the college THEY RUN.

And you don't want them to be able to do that.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

This would have been a valid argument 25 years ago.

So you would send your kid to Howard? Or Spelman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionth time:

Colleges seeking racial balance in admissions is not affirmative action.

That’s not why they do it. Read the above sentence many times and get it through your thick skulls.

They do it so they can build the class they want more readily. You don’t have to take my word for it call any college admissions office and talk to them about it. And yes someone there will talk to you. But you won’t do that because it will conflict with the narrative you’ve already committed to.

You are free to debate the efficacy and appropriateness of affirmative action but that discussion has nothing to do with college admissions. Nothing.

Abbott Lowell was also very concerned about what you call "racial balance" in admissions: "The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense."

You can call it what you want to make yourself feel better. It's just racism, though.

No, you idiot, you miss PPs point entirely.

And you also did not do as suggested : call a college admissions office and ask them why.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

Here's the test, try answering this: assuming you are not AA, would you send your kid to a HBC, even though there are many great ones? No, you wouldn't, because your kid would feel very out of place.

THAT'S why colleges seek a representative balance. That's it. And you just proved it is valid with your answer.

It's not affirmative action, it's not reparations, it's not to right past injustices (even if it should be). It's so those colleges can get the kids THEY WANT at the college THEY RUN.

And you don't want them to be able to do that.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

This would have been a valid argument 25 years ago.

So you would send your kid to Howard? Or Spelman?

Is Howard or Spelman T20?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionth time:

Colleges seeking racial balance in admissions is not affirmative action.

That’s not why they do it. Read the above sentence many times and get it through your thick skulls.

They do it so they can build the class they want more readily. You don’t have to take my word for it call any college admissions office and talk to them about it. And yes someone there will talk to you. But you won’t do that because it will conflict with the narrative you’ve already committed to.

You are free to debate the efficacy and appropriateness of affirmative action but that discussion has nothing to do with college admissions. Nothing.

Abbott Lowell was also very concerned about what you call "racial balance" in admissions: "The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense."

You can call it what you want to make yourself feel better. It's just racism, though.

No, you idiot, you miss PPs point entirely.

And you also did not do as suggested : call a college admissions office and ask them why.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

Here's the test, try answering this: assuming you are not AA, would you send your kid to a HBC, even though there are many great ones? No, you wouldn't, because your kid would feel very out of place.

THAT'S why colleges seek a representative balance. That's it. And you just proved it is valid with your answer.

It's not affirmative action, it's not reparations, it's not to right past injustices (even if it should be). It's so those colleges can get the kids THEY WANT at the college THEY RUN.

And you don't want them to be able to do that.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

This would have been a valid argument 25 years ago.

So you would send your kid to Howard? Or Spelman?

Is Howard or Spelman T20?

So I will take that as a "NO".

And also now know you only care if top 20 schools have these policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionth time:

Colleges seeking racial balance in admissions is not affirmative action.

That’s not why they do it. Read the above sentence many times and get it through your thick skulls.

They do it so they can build the class they want more readily. You don’t have to take my word for it call any college admissions office and talk to them about it. And yes someone there will talk to you. But you won’t do that because it will conflict with the narrative you’ve already committed to.

You are free to debate the efficacy and appropriateness of affirmative action but that discussion has nothing to do with college admissions. Nothing.

Abbott Lowell was also very concerned about what you call "racial balance" in admissions: "The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense."

You can call it what you want to make yourself feel better. It's just racism, though.

No, you idiot, you miss PPs point entirely.

And you also did not do as suggested : call a college admissions office and ask them why.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

Here's the test, try answering this: assuming you are not AA, would you send your kid to a HBC, even though there are many great ones? No, you wouldn't, because your kid would feel very out of place.

THAT'S why colleges seek a representative balance. That's it. And you just proved it is valid with your answer.

It's not affirmative action, it's not reparations, it's not to right past injustices (even if it should be). It's so those colleges can get the kids THEY WANT at the college THEY RUN.

And you don't want them to be able to do that.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

This would have been a valid argument 25 years ago.

So you would send your kid to Howard? Or Spelman?

Is Howard or Spelman T20?

So I will take that as a "NO".

And also now know you only care if top 20 schools have these policies.

That wasn't me but yeah there are lots of reasons not to go to HBCs if you care about academics.

[Anonymous]

I am late to this discussion.

My husband and I are both Korean-American, college-educated, and we support affirmative action.

And personally, I believe Asian Americans are being used in this case. It is very infuriating...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am late to this discussion.

My husband and I are both Korean-American, college-educated, and we support affirmative action.

And personally, I believe Asian Americans are being used in this case. It is very infuriating...

You are being used, of course. But that is entirely separable from the merits of the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionth time:

Colleges seeking racial balance in admissions is not affirmative action.

That’s not why they do it. Read the above sentence many times and get it through your thick skulls.

They do it so they can build the class they want more readily. You don’t have to take my word for it call any college admissions office and talk to them about it. And yes someone there will talk to you. But you won’t do that because it will conflict with the narrative you’ve already committed to.

You are free to debate the efficacy and appropriateness of affirmative action but that discussion has nothing to do with college admissions. Nothing.

Abbott Lowell was also very concerned about what you call "racial balance" in admissions: "The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense."

You can call it what you want to make yourself feel better. It's just racism, though.

No, you idiot, you miss PPs point entirely.

And you also did not do as suggested : call a college admissions office and ask them why.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

Here's the test, try answering this: assuming you are not AA, would you send your kid to a HBC, even though there are many great ones? No, you wouldn't, because your kid would feel very out of place.

THAT'S why colleges seek a representative balance. That's it. And you just proved it is valid with your answer.

It's not affirmative action, it's not reparations, it's not to right past injustices (even if it should be). It's so those colleges can get the kids THEY WANT at the college THEY RUN.

And you don't want them to be able to do that.

If there are nearly no people of a certain race at a college, it is nearly impossible to get those people to apply. If there aren't any AA kids, they can't get AA kids. It's self fulfilling.

This would have been a valid argument 25 years ago.

So you would send your kid to Howard? Or Spelman?

Is Howard or Spelman T20?

So I will take that as a "NO".

And also now know you only care if top 20 schools have these policies.

That wasn't me but yeah there are lots of reasons not to go to HBCs if you care about academics.

Oh yeah? Like what, exactly?

You are so full of shit. he top HBCs are academically superior to the vast majority of US colleges and anyone who isn't an idiot knows that. You know why you wouldn't attend one. And that is why colleges need to apply racial consideration in applications.

The fact that you don't like that reason is your problem. It's the reason. And you are proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Echoing the other posters but I’m Asian American and all Asian Americans I know who support AA have already gone to college/med school and don’t have kids. And I’d say it’s more of a 60/40 split of against/for AA.

I agree the article is very insulting to Asian Americans, trying to paint us as having been tricked by conservatives. Many Asians, including immigrants, actually are proud and happy conservatives themselves.

It's not "insulting. " It's the truth.

Asians are being used by conservative groups in an "us versus them" ploy.

And if you REALLY look at the Harvard SCOTUS case, the alleged discrimination against Asians on personal ratings, while proven untrue, has [b] nothing to do with affirmative action itself.[/b]

When affirmative action is banned next year, do personal ratings under holistic admissions get banned too? No. Because the personal ratings have nothing to do with race.

The SFFA is using apparent Asian " why aren't we getting into Harvard in higher percentages" grievance to ban race-conscious admissions.

DP.. disagree with bolded. Until you can provide evidence that shows that URM were given low "likeability" scores having never met the applicant at a similar rate to Asian Am. students, what Harvard is doing there is very much relevant. It is very much on point regarding the discrimination. Harvard had to find a way to give the Asian Am. applicants lower scores. They couldn't do that for academics, extra curriculuars, leadership, so they picked something that is completely subjective and easy to fudge: likeability.

This is *exactly* the method that Harvard used to weed out Jews back in the 1920s, so don't tell me a college wouldn't do that. They probably think it's fine to do that because in this case they are trying to admit a URM group rather than not. Regardless, the ends does not justify the means. It was a discriminatory practice then and it's a discriminatory practice now.

I have zero problems giving first gen, low income students priority, but *not by race alone*.

Different issue than affirmative action.

IF Asians - as a group, not as individuals- were discriminated against in the case ( lower courts said no) with these personal ratings, it would be because of their race, no?

IF true, it would imply that the affirmative action narrowly used to consider race one of many factors in college admissions, is still needed to protect Asians - from racial discrimination.

If affirmative action is banned, the personal rating methodology still remains.

+1

Ironically, the SFFA claims that Asian Americans are being discriminated against presumably because of their race, but want to ban the consideration of race in college admissions. Hmm.

No wonder a majority of Asian Americans support AA and diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you explain how Asian Americans can claim discrimination in college admissions but are overrepresented on most college campuses relative to their U.S. population?

Easy. If they are 30% of the elite college population but would be 60% on the basis of merit, then they have been discriminated against.

Merit as defined by you, you mean.

What Harvard is way more interested in than GPA and test scores is who's going to be a future leader in a realm that will be sure to garner Harvard lots of attention and potentially money. Some of that comes from being smart and hard-working, but there's much more to it than that.

Asians are not being discriminated against.

Merit as defined by Harvard itself, actually.

So you think Asians, who excel in extracurriculars as well as grades, lack "future leadership potential"? They just don't have that extra je ne sais quoi on top of their intelligence and grades? The only reason to think this is... racism.

Asians are being discriminated against by racists just like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Echoing the other posters but I’m Asian American and all Asian Americans I know who support AA have already gone to college/med school and don’t have kids. And I’d say it’s more of a 60/40 split of against/for AA.

I agree the article is very insulting to Asian Americans, trying to paint us as having been tricked by conservatives. Many Asians, including immigrants, actually are proud and happy conservatives themselves.

It's not "insulting. " It's the truth.

Asians are being used by conservative groups in an "us versus them" ploy.

And if you REALLY look at the Harvard SCOTUS case, the alleged discrimination against Asians on personal ratings, while proven untrue, has [b] nothing to do with affirmative action itself.[/b]

When affirmative action is banned next year, do personal ratings under holistic admissions get banned too? No. Because the personal ratings have nothing to do with race.

The SFFA is using apparent Asian " why aren't we getting into Harvard in higher percentages" grievance to ban race-conscious admissions.

DP.. disagree with bolded. Until you can provide evidence that shows that URM were given low "likeability" scores having never met the applicant at a similar rate to Asian Am. students, what Harvard is doing there is very much relevant. It is very much on point regarding the discrimination. Harvard had to find a way to give the Asian Am. applicants lower scores. They couldn't do that for academics, extra curriculuars, leadership, so they picked something that is completely subjective and easy to fudge: likeability.

This is *exactly* the method that Harvard used to weed out Jews back in the 1920s, so don't tell me a college wouldn't do that. They probably think it's fine to do that because in this case they are trying to admit a URM group rather than not. Regardless, the ends does not justify the means. It was a discriminatory practice then and it's a discriminatory practice now.

I have zero problems giving first gen, low income students priority, but *not by race alone*.

Different issue than affirmative action.

IF Asians - as a group, not as individuals- were discriminated against in the case ( lower courts said no) with these personal ratings, it would be because of their race, no?

IF true, it would imply that the affirmative action narrowly used to consider race one of many factors in college admissions, is still needed to protect Asians - from racial discrimination.

If affirmative action is banned, the personal rating methodology still remains.

+1

Ironically, the SFFA claims that Asian Americans are being discriminated against presumably because of their race, but want to ban the consideration of race in college admissions. Hmm.

No wonder a majority of Asian Americans support AA and diversity.

The California elections have shown that Asian Americans oppose AA. A selective sample survey in a left leaning rag may tell you otherwise but it is far from the truth. They do support diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are when it comes to crime. Asians commit crime at the lowest rate of all races, including whites. By far.

Yakuza

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are when it comes to crime. Asians commit crime at the lowest rate of all races, including whites. By far.

Yakuza

Well to be fair most people who commit crimes IN JAPAN are Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you explain how Asian Americans can claim discrimination in college admissions but are overrepresented on most college campuses relative to their U.S. population?

Easy. If they are 30% of the elite college population but would be 60% on the basis of merit, then they have been discriminated against.

Merit as defined by you, you mean.

What Harvard is way more interested in than GPA and test scores is who's going to be a future leader in a realm that will be sure to garner Harvard lots of attention and potentially money. Some of that comes from being smart and hard-working, but there's much more to it than that.

Asians are not being discriminated against.

Merit as defined by Harvard itself, actually.

So you think Asians, who excel in extracurriculars as well as grades, lack "future leadership potential"? They just don't have that extra je ne sais quoi on top of their intelligence and grades? The only reason to think this is... racism.

Asians are being discriminated against by racists just like you.

You should really be more judicious in your use of the term 'racist'. I was dating women of Asian descent and studying Asian languages because I love the culture before you were born probably.

Nothing in my statement said that I don't believe those with Asian ancestry can be leaders--you just inferred it incorrectly. But Harvard, which examines each application very carefully, chooses who they will make great leaders. Almost all are extremely bright and hard-working, but those that aren't have something beyond that. Students who aren't chosen, regardless of background, don't have as much of what they're looking for as those they do choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you explain how Asian Americans can claim discrimination in college admissions but are overrepresented on most college campuses relative to their U.S. population?

Easy. If they are 30% of the elite college population but would be 60% on the basis of merit, then they have been discriminated against.

Merit as defined by you, you mean.

What Harvard is way more interested in than GPA and test scores is who's going to be a future leader in a realm that will be sure to garner Harvard lots of attention and potentially money. Some of that comes from being smart and hard-working, but there's much more to it than that.

Asians are not being discriminated against.

Merit as defined by Harvard itself, actually.

So you think Asians, who excel in extracurriculars as well as grades, lack "future leadership potential"? They just don't have that extra je ne sais quoi on top of their intelligence and grades? The only reason to think this is... racism.

Asians are being discriminated against by racists just like you.

You should really be more judicious in your use of the term 'racist'. I was dating women of Asian descent and studying Asian languages because I love the culture before you were born probably.

Nothing in my statement said that I don't believe those with Asian ancestry can be leaders--you just inferred it incorrectly. But Harvard, which examines each application very carefully, chooses who they will make great leaders. Almost all are extremely bright and hard-working, but those that aren't have something beyond that. Students who aren't chosen, regardless of background, don't have as much of what they're looking for as those they do choose.

You should really be more judicious in your use of the term 'racist'. I was dating women of Asian descent and studying Asian languages because I love the culture before you were born probably.

Just want to pause and reflect on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are when it comes to crime. Asians commit crime at the lowest rate of all races, including whites. By far.

Yakuza

Well to be fair most people who commit crimes IN JAPAN are Asian.

Japan has one of the lowest crime rate