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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

In a sense, yes. If you're asking schools that have been around for over 300 years which grew up in one specific cultural and historical context to now remake their systems so that they more closely resemble the admissions procedures in Chinese universities, etc. then you're asking too much. And you're not entitled to ask for it just because it's what you want.

A historical context of discrimination. 100+ years ago, they put in procedures to hold down the number of Jews. Now they seek to hold down the number of Asians.
China doesn't have issue of racial discrimination in their university admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn't matter which races.

These should be considered nothing much more than good ECs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sound of white people crying over selective college admissions is amazing.

The lawsuits are being led by Asian Americans.

Edward Blum is not Asian American, you dumbass.

I wonder how Edward Blum will feel about his little crusade when every Ivy league school is 60% Asian American though

There is always a step 2. Once the Supreme Court decides then it’s back to holistic admissions and how it can’t just be on test scores and GPA.

You have no idea what you're talking about. "Holistic admissions" is what is happening NOW, and is a codeword for allowing racial discrimination. When the supreme court rules, it will DO AWAY with "holistic admissions" and any attempt to revert to that system will result in immediate and very expensive lawsuit losses for the universities.

They are using it as a pretext for discrimination. However, holistic admissions by itself is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard does not want to be labeled the “Asian Ivy”. Top non-asian donors will stop sending money.

Unfortunately, I do think this is true.

[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:

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.

That is ridiculous. Of course it would exist. It would just be different. Countries like Canada, Australia and NZ all managed to develop without slavery.

[Anonymous]

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.

In the 2006 case, the majority set a 25 year timeline to eliminate considering race in admissions. The universities went the other way and considered race more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard does not want to be labeled the “Asian Ivy”. Top non-asian donors will stop sending money.

Unfortunately, I do think this is true.

Harvard is not the only one.
Most of the elite schools will be filled with 40-50% Asians.

If we have less handed down elitism as a result, and more merit oriented, that would be fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard does not want to be labeled the “Asian Ivy”. Top non-asian donors will stop sending money.

Unfortunately, I do think this is true.

Harvard is not the only one.
Most of the elite schools will be filled with 40-50% Asians.

If we have less handed down elitism as a result, and more merit oriented, that would be fantastic.

Perhaps they should consider cutting back on employment visas for Indians and Chinese in the tech sector, and this will propagate to keep Asians from dominating these spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard does not want to be labeled the “Asian Ivy”. Top non-asian donors will stop sending money.

Unfortunately, I do think this is true.

Harvard is not the only one.
Most of the elite schools will be filled with 40-50% Asians.

If we have less handed down elitism as a result, and more merit oriented, that would be fantastic.

Perhaps they should consider cutting back on employment visas for Indians and Chinese in the tech sector, and this will propagate to keep Asians from dominating these spots.

You're missing the point - it's to America's advantage to have these people in American tech. Otherwise all that talent would stay in Asia and run laps around America. We're beginning to see this in China, and India will catch up too

[Anonymous]

Harvard is not the only one. Most of the elite schools will be filled with 40-50% Asians. If we have less handed down elitism as a result, and more merit oriented, that would be fantastic.

As the athletes, legacy & big donors leave, the student body community, character & reputation of the schools will change, which ironically is a main draw of the these schools and why so many people strive to get their kids admitted. The intent of the lawsuit wasn't to stop discrimination, it was to bring down elite institutions.

[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:

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.

That is ridiculous. Of course it would exist. It would just be different. Countries like Canada, Australia and NZ all managed to develop without slavery.

You are incorrect.

Canada, Australia, and NZ all had slavery.

[Anonymous]

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.

In the 2006 case, the majority set a 25 year timeline to eliminate considering race in admissions. The universities went the other way and considered race more.

I’m confused. Is it 2031?

[Anonymous]

Non-white = a minority, so it's diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a Black kid born in 2005 blames and whine about slavery in college admissions for 2023, the kid is certainly not an elite school material.

What Black kid whines about slavery in college admissions? It’s obvious you don’t see any Black kid as Elite school material.

[Anonymous]

Please don't feed the race baiting troll.