Update on Harvard Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to college 25 years ago and had to deal with foreign instructors who could barely speak English. Now my kids are in college and say they don't have *one* native English speaking GA. Break up the college cartels. Start with ending this diversity scam and ending the student visa scam. If visa kids want to study here let them attend colleges outside of the top 100.

This lawsuit is about Asian AMERICANS not Asian nationals (i.e., foreign graduate students). Stop thinking of Americans as just white and black people.

+1 First PP is a narrow minded, bigoted embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to college 25 years ago and had to deal with foreign instructors who could barely speak English. Now my kids are in college and say they don't have *one* native English speaking GA. Break up the college cartels. Start with ending this diversity scam and ending the student visa scam. If visa kids want to study here let them attend colleges outside of the top 100.

This lawsuit is about Asian AMERICANS not Asian nationals (i.e., foreign graduate students). Stop thinking of Americans as just white and black people.

+1 First PP is a narrow minded, bigoted embarrassment.

+2 And absurdly ignorant as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who are pro affirmative action should have their families forced to go to affirmative action doctors and surgeons so that anti racist admissions folks don't get accidently and unfairly put under their care.

Tell us about your childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just saying. Separating Indians from Asians (since India is in the continent of Asia) is like saying North Americans (meaning the Canadians and the Mexicans) and Americans.

In this case, it does make sense. This lawsuit is primarily fueled by Chinese Americans. Most Indians I know do not support this. Couple of the Deans at H are Indians and they are obviously defending Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who are pro affirmative action should have their families forced to go to affirmative action doctors and surgeons so that anti racist admissions folks don't get accidently and unfairly put under their care.

Tell us about your childhood.

You first. -DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saying. Separating Indians from Asians (since India is in the continent of Asia) is like saying North Americans (meaning the Canadians and the Mexicans) and Americans.

In this case, it does make sense. This lawsuit is primarily fueled by Chinese Americans. Most Indians I know do not support this. Couple of the Deans at H are Indians and they are obviously defending Harvard.

It’s actually primarily driven by a white guy who doesn’t want black kids getting any advantages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saying. Separating Indians from Asians (since India is in the continent of Asia) is like saying North Americans (meaning the Canadians and the Mexicans) and Americans.

In this case, it does make sense. This lawsuit is primarily fueled by Chinese Americans. Most Indians I know do not support this. Couple of the Deans at H are Indians and they are obviously defending Harvard.

It’s actually primarily driven by a white guy who doesn’t want black kids getting any advantages.

Shouldn't all kids have equal advantages and our society not separate us by race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal philosophy that has served me well is.. never hire a professional that is a product of AA. The standards were lowered too much, commitment and capacity is not either. The few times I went to doctors for emergencies, the AA candidate proved my philosophy right.

How do you know if someone is the product of AA? Do you assume anyone that is not white or Asian?

That's one of the tragedies of AA. Unfortunately, black Americans at Harvard are assumed to be there because of AA -- and the data supports it.

No one cares. Same way that people assume that the white manager got the job because of race. Have you ever seen a marginally competent white manager hang their head in shame when he or she sees several black and Asian coworkers who are more competent?
Also, news flash! Harvard does not necessarily take the white or Asian kid with the highest scores compared to other white or Asian kids respectively.
I personally know of one African American woman who got into Harvard with very good scores, but her scores were lower than another African American girl who had better scores on standardized tests (800 math plus high 700s in other parts). Their GPAs were the same. Harvard saw something that was different about the one with lower SAT scores. I actually saw more potential in the girl they took. She was much more mature and introspective. She is doing very well there now. Many white and Asian kids are not doing as well as she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal philosophy that has served me well is.. never hire a professional that is a product of AA. The standards were lowered too much, commitment and capacity is not either. The few times I went to doctors for emergencies, the AA candidate proved my philosophy right.

How do you know if someone is the product of AA? Do you assume anyone that is not white or Asian?

That's one of the tragedies of AA. Unfortunately, black Americans at Harvard are assumed to be there because of AA -- and the data supports it.

No one cares. Same way that people assume that the white manager got the job because of race. Have you ever seen a marginally competent white manager hang their head in shame when he or she sees several black and Asian coworkers who are more competent?
Also, news flash! Harvard does not necessarily take the white or Asian kid with the highest scores compared to other white or Asian kids respectively.
I personally know of one African American woman who got into Harvard with very good scores, but her scores were lower than another African American girl who had better scores on standardized tests (800 math plus high 700s in other parts). Their GPAs were the same. Harvard saw something that was different about the one with lower SAT scores. I actually saw more potential in the girl they took. She was much more mature and introspective. She is doing very well there now. Many white and Asian kids are not doing as well as she is.

How do you know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal philosophy that has served me well is.. never hire a professional that is a product of AA. The standards were lowered too much, commitment and capacity is not either. The few times I went to doctors for emergencies, the AA candidate proved my philosophy right.

How do you know if someone is the product of AA? Do you assume anyone that is not white or Asian?

That's one of the tragedies of AA. Unfortunately, black Americans at Harvard are assumed to be there because of AA -- and the data supports it.

No one cares. Same way that people assume that the white manager got the job because of race. Have you ever seen a marginally competent white manager hang their head in shame when he or she sees several black and Asian coworkers who are more competent?
Also, news flash! Harvard does not necessarily take the white or Asian kid with the highest scores compared to other white or Asian kids respectively.
I personally know of one African American woman who got into Harvard with very good scores, but her scores were lower than another African American girl who had better scores on standardized tests (800 math plus high 700s in other parts). Their GPAs were the same. Harvard saw something that was different about the one with lower SAT scores. I actually saw more potential in the girl they took. She was much more mature and introspective. She is doing very well there now. Many white and Asian kids are not doing as well as she is.

How do you know this?

She studies with them and they have shared their grades! Yes. Sometimes it happens that way.

[Anonymous]

Will the schools be allowed to take country of origin into consideration? What about residency or citizenship status? Will it be GRADES ONLY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who are pro affirmative action should have their families forced to go to affirmative action doctors and surgeons so that anti racist admissions folks don't get accidently and unfairly put under their care.

Tell us about your childhood.

You first. -DP

Why would my childhood help you understand the PP's point of view?

[Anonymous]

Pun not intended, but it’s not black-and-white.

There can be a legitimate interest in using affirmative action or other tools to raise the enrollment of underrepresented minorities at top universities.

However, discriminating against Asian-Americans (a minority group that is a protected class) in furtherance of that interest is where this case is different than the others challenging affirmative action for college admissions.

It’s one thing to use race as an effective tiebreaker between two roughly comparable candidates. However, that’s NOT what’s happening and anyone suggesting otherwise is being willfully blind. Show me an underrepresented minority candidate with perfect grades and test scores with STEM extracurricular activities and you’ll see someone that will get into every school in the country... and I don’t think anyone has an issue with that. What I do think is a problem is that an Asian-American candidate with the same background is essentially pegged as a “robot” and this somehow doesn’t get treated by a lot of people as clearly racist.

The most compelling part of the plaintiff argument isn’t that Asian-Americans would receive more spots if admissions were just based on GPAs and test scores because we know that’s not how the top elite universities work with holistic admissions. Instead, what’s eye-opening is that the Asian-American holistic personality/leadership assessments of alumni interviews in-person were right in line with every other race, but then were docked on that score when they got to the admissions office level (who didn’t meet them in-person) compared to every other race. Essentially, the admissions people appear to be (a) applying that “robot” stereotype to Asian-Americans even when their alumni interviewers who actually met them in person didn’t think that at all and/or (b) artificially depressing those personality scores in order to achieve a certain racial balance for their class. Either one of those is illegal discrimination.

Now, are there many other schools outside of Harvard that would suffice for reflected Asian-Americans? Certainly. However, don’t people realize that this *exactly* the “separate but equal” argument that was used to justify racism for generations? (“We don’t need to serve your kind at this school, restaurant or bakery because there’s another one that can serve you across the tracks.”) The existence of other options at other institutions doesn’t justify or excuse racism at any particular institution - that’s the very definition of “separate but equal”.

I’m actually a large believer of giving underrepresented minorities, particularly those that have dealt with lower socioeconomic status growing up, an advantage in the admissions process at colleges. I’m not saying that we should expect a kid coming from an inner city school to have the same test scores as those that came from affluent suburbs. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to use a policy that appears to systematically using subjective “personality” scores to depress the admissions of another minority group. There are ways to use affirmative action (or achieve the purported goals of affirmative action) without resorting to discriminating against Asian-Americans on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pun not intended, but it’s not black-and-white.

There can be a legitimate interest in using affirmative action or other tools to raise the enrollment of underrepresented minorities at top universities.

However, discriminating against Asian-Americans (a minority group that is a protected class) in furtherance of that interest is where this case is different than the others challenging affirmative action for college admissions.

It’s one thing to use race as an effective tiebreaker between two roughly comparable candidates. However, that’s NOT what’s happening and anyone suggesting otherwise is being willfully blind. Show me an underrepresented minority candidate with perfect grades and test scores with STEM extracurricular activities and you’ll see someone that will get into every school in the country... and I don’t think anyone has an issue with that. What I do think is a problem is that an Asian-American candidate with the same background is essentially pegged as a “robot” and this somehow doesn’t get treated by a lot of people as clearly racist.

The most compelling part of the plaintiff argument isn’t that Asian-Americans would receive more spots if admissions were just based on GPAs and test scores because we know that’s not how the top elite universities work with holistic admissions. Instead, what’s eye-opening is that the Asian-American holistic personality/leadership assessments of alumni interviews in-person were right in line with every other race, but then were docked on that score when they got to the admissions office level (who didn’t meet them in-person) compared to every other race. Essentially, the admissions people appear to be (a) applying that “robot” stereotype to Asian-Americans even when their alumni interviewers who actually met them in person didn’t think that at all and/or (b) artificially depressing those personality scores in order to achieve a certain racial balance for their class. Either one of those is illegal discrimination.

Now, are there many other schools outside of Harvard that would suffice for reflected Asian-Americans? Certainly. However, don’t people realize that this *exactly* the “separate but equal” argument that was used to justify racism for generations? (“We don’t need to serve your kind at this school, restaurant or bakery because there’s another one that can serve you across the tracks.”) The existence of other options at other institutions doesn’t justify or excuse racism at any particular institution - that’s the very definition of “separate but equal”.

I’m actually a large believer of giving underrepresented minorities, particularly those that have dealt with lower socioeconomic status growing up, an advantage in the admissions process at colleges. I’m not saying that we should expect a kid coming from an inner city school to have the same test scores as those that came from affluent suburbs. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to use a policy that appears to systematically using subjective “personality” scores to depress the admissions of another minority group. There are ways to use affirmative action (or achieve the purported goals of affirmative action) without resorting to discriminating against Asian-Americans on race.

There is why the Harvard defense of the case is so disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pun not intended, but it’s not black-and-white.

There can be a legitimate interest in using affirmative action or other tools to raise the enrollment of underrepresented minorities at top universities.

However, discriminating against Asian-Americans (a minority group that is a protected class) in furtherance of that interest is where this case is different than the others challenging affirmative action for college admissions.

It’s one thing to use race as an effective tiebreaker between two roughly comparable candidates. However, that’s NOT what’s happening and anyone suggesting otherwise is being willfully blind. Show me an underrepresented minority candidate with perfect grades and test scores with STEM extracurricular activities and you’ll see someone that will get into every school in the country... and I don’t think anyone has an issue with that. What I do think is a problem is that an Asian-American candidate with the same background is essentially pegged as a “robot” and this somehow doesn’t get treated by a lot of people as clearly racist.

The most compelling part of the plaintiff argument isn’t that Asian-Americans would receive more spots if admissions were just based on GPAs and test scores because we know that’s not how the top elite universities work with holistic admissions. Instead, what’s eye-opening is that the Asian-American holistic personality/leadership assessments of alumni interviews in-person were right in line with every other race, but then were docked on that score when they got to the admissions office level (who didn’t meet them in-person) compared to every other race. Essentially, the admissions people appear to be (a) applying that “robot” stereotype to Asian-Americans even when their alumni interviewers who actually met them in person didn’t think that at all and/or (b) artificially depressing those personality scores in order to achieve a certain racial balance for their class. Either one of those is illegal discrimination.

Now, are there many other schools outside of Harvard that would suffice for reflected Asian-Americans? Certainly. However, don’t people realize that this *exactly* the “separate but equal” argument that was used to justify racism for generations? (“We don’t need to serve your kind at this school, restaurant or bakery because there’s another one that can serve you across the tracks.”) The existence of other options at other institutions doesn’t justify or excuse racism at any particular institution - that’s the very definition of “separate but equal”.

I’m actually a large believer of giving underrepresented minorities, particularly those that have dealt with lower socioeconomic status growing up, an advantage in the admissions process at colleges. I’m not saying that we should expect a kid coming from an inner city school to have the same test scores as those that came from affluent suburbs. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to use a policy that appears to systematically using subjective “personality” scores to depress the admissions of another minority group. There are ways to use affirmative action (or achieve the purported goals of affirmative action) without resorting to discriminating against Asian-Americans on race.

?? No it isn't. Under current law it is perfectly permissible for private universities to shape their incoming classes anyway they want. If the U.S, DOE wants o file a complaint fine, but they haven't. Just a white guy who wants to kill affirmative action.