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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the justice, Black kids who can get in on their own would be the biggest winners.

They'll get the proper respect they reserve.

You’re an ass. They’re all smarter than you and deserve respect now.

43% of White kids at Harvard is ALDC.
When I see a White kid, there's almost 50% the kid got in backdoor.

Same with Black kids, Majority of them have significantly lower stats, but got in with big bonus points.

I can't respect these.

If you see an Asian kid, he/she got in despite the discrimination.
Huge respect.

My kid is Asian and a legacy. Got you there. You know what ALL the kids who get admitted are super accomplished. They’d all be admitted to whatever state honors program you jerk off to at night.

Of course it's not 100%.
I don't respect your Asian kid.

[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.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

What a bizarre post. Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asians - they clearly prefer the applications of non Asians. The question is whether this preference is legal. A previous SC ruling said it was.

In what tangible way do they discriminate? If they take an Asian student with a lower GPA or fewer APs than another is it discriminatory? What if it’s a white athlete? Is it your position that the X highest GPAS get in and if they don’t it’s discriminatory?

+1 Yes, I believe that is their position, although it includes test scores where they are still important.

There's real data in the cases. Like PP said, it is clear that race is being used and that's not a question. Only whether the extent to which race is being used is unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the justice, Black kids who can get in on their own would be the biggest winners.

They'll get the proper respect they reserve.

You’re an ass. They’re all smarter than you and deserve respect now.

43% of White kids at Harvard is ALDC.
When I see a White kid, there's almost 50% the kid got in backdoor.

Same with Black kids, Majority of them have significantly lower stats, but got in with big bonus points.

I can't respect these.

If you see an Asian kid, he/she got in despite the discrimination.
Huge respect.

My kid is Asian and a legacy. Got you there. You know what ALL the kids who get admitted are super accomplished. They’d all be admitted to whatever state honors program you jerk off to at night.

Of course it's not 100%.
I don't respect your Asian kid.

My child and I are so wounded by your lack of respect.

[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:

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.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

What a bizarre post. Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asians - they clearly prefer the applications of non Asians. The question is whether this preference is legal. A previous SC ruling said it was.

In what tangible way do they discriminate? If they take an Asian student with a lower GPA or fewer APs than another is it discriminatory? What if it’s a white athlete? Is it your position that the X highest GPAS get in and if they don’t it’s discriminatory?

+1 Yes, I believe that is their position, although it includes test scores where they are still important.

There's real data in the cases. Like PP said, it is clear that race is being used and that's not a question. Only whether the extent to which race is being used is unconstitutional.

It’s only being used if you believe that the stats being chosen are somehow being ranked. If not and just merely used to create a pool of qualified applicants, then the result is not so clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the justice, Black kids who can get in on their own would be the biggest winners.

They'll get the proper respect they reserve.

You’re an ass. They’re all smarter than you and deserve respect now.

43% of White kids at Harvard is ALDC.
When I see a White kid, there's almost 50% the kid got in backdoor.

Same with Black kids, Majority of them have significantly lower stats, but got in with big bonus points.

I can't respect these.

If you see an Asian kid, he/she got in despite the discrimination.
Huge respect.

My kid is Asian and a legacy. Got you there. You know what ALL the kids who get admitted are super accomplished. They’d all be admitted to whatever state honors program you jerk off to at night.

Of course it's not 100%.
I don't respect your Asian kid.

My child and I are so wounded by your lack of respect.

Yea you sound pretty mad

[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:

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.

Numbers please. It’s meaningless to otherwise make comparisons.

[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.

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?

Did the universities say they would be eliminating race in admissions by 2031? That would be a possible way for them to win their case, as John Roberts likes to make minimalist decisions.

[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:

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.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

What a bizarre post. Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asians - they clearly prefer the applications of non Asians. The question is whether this preference is legal. A previous SC ruling said it was.

In what tangible way do they discriminate? If they take an Asian student with a lower GPA or fewer APs than another is it discriminatory? What if it’s a white athlete? Is it your position that the X highest GPAS get in and if they don’t it’s discriminatory?

+1 Yes, I believe that is their position, although it includes test scores where they are still important.

There's real data in the cases. Like PP said, it is clear that race is being used and that's not a question. Only whether the extent to which race is being used is unconstitutional.

It’s only being used if you believe that the stats being chosen are somehow being ranked. If not and just merely used to create a pool of qualified applicants, then the result is not so clear.

Why were the Asian kids consistently ranked low in personality (by the admissions office but not by their counselors or interviews)? I generally support affirmative action but that's pretty telling.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

How many ethnic minorities are getting into the top universities in China?

Actually quite a lot. China practices affirmative action internally to an astonishing degree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China

This is such nonsense. Having spent a lot of time in Yunnan and Tibet, home of actual ethnic minorities, mainland Han Chinese are not tripping over themselves to provide opportunities to the small percentage of Chinese citizens who are not Han. If you think the token Uyghur at Tsinghua is there because of their Uyghur-ness, you'd be right. Minor little propaganda point but I will guarantee you that that particular family is either broken or bought. But if Chinese affirmative action is something you celebrate, go ahead and send your 18 year old kid there for college and see how it goes. Particularly if your child is black.

America has its problems, but if you think for a minute that China is somehow better when it comes to race, I genuinely cannot fathom that level of ignorance and idiocy.. Ugh... I may have to make a cup of tea and reset. Dumbest thing I've read this week.

Keep calm. It was a statement of fact, not an endorsement. Hope your job at Langley is going well.

[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.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

What a bizarre post. Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asians - they clearly prefer the applications of non Asians. The question is whether this preference is legal. A previous SC ruling said it was.

In what tangible way do they discriminate? If they take an Asian student with a lower GPA or fewer APs than another is it discriminatory? What if it’s a white athlete? Is it your position that the X highest GPAS get in and if they don’t it’s discriminatory?

In the court record: Harvard sends out invitations to apply to students in states where they do not get many students. In these states, they sent to white students who scored at least X on SAT, I think it was 1300, but for Asians it was higher, with Asian boys higher than Asian girls.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

How many ethnic minorities are getting into the top universities in China?

Actually quite a lot. China practices affirmative action internally to an astonishing degree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China

"Internally" is the key word in your statement. It refers to less represented Chinese minorities, not whites, blacks, Hispanics, or even other Asians.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Harvard cares about connections more than anything and has unleashed a lot of unethical crooks on our country. What is the obsession with this school?????

[Anonymous]

Harvard discriminates against Asians. Here is the chart showing the difference between Asian and White applicants in the SLDC lawsuit.

Please note that the Personal Rating, given by the Harvard Admissions office, is HEAVILY NEGATIVE for Asians. This means that overall Harvard admissions officers view Asian applicants less favorably on subjective ratings BECAUSE they are Asian. I refuse to believe that categorically Asians are less personable that White applicants.

Not giving Harvard another dollar as an alum.


https://compote.slate.com/images/51fa8f2b-4730-4711-ab04-a9b702964a00.jpeg?width=600&rect=1560x1040&offset=0x0

[Anonymous]

Just to elaborate on the above chart, also notice that Asians on average score higher on extracurricular and academic rating and test scores, so the fact they have to perform generally at a much higher level than white applicants to be admitted is also fact.

They are admitted at lower rates because of the nebulous personal, which I interpret as finger on the scale.

[Anonymous]

F Harvard. They’re cancelled for my half Indian family.