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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it considered a hardship that most Asian kids don't get to see many teachers, class fellows, sports coaches, police, people in power on national news etc who look like them?

? Asians see plenty of people who look like them in class. Most Asians live in big cities with a decent size Asian population. The rest, I agree, but you know the progressives won't care about that because Asian Americans as a whole are doing well, hence the "model minority". Yes, I know... there are many Asian Americans that aren't doing well, but the white progressive liberal establishment likes to ignore that fact.

that might be true, but we also know what the white right-wing, Trumpists think of us and that's markedly worse.

I think Asian-Americans are great! My college roommate in California was Japanese-American, my best buddy here in NoVA is Chinese-American. My buddy here, by the way, thinks Asians are getting screwed by the elite schools, which I agree with, and he's concerned about the impact on his kids when they apply to college.

Signed,

A white right-wing, Trumpist

how can an overrepresented group be discriminated against. Kinda like black men saying not enough black men in the NBA

It is underrepresented compared to the number who should be there based on academic merit (and yes, extracurriculars too). If you don't get this, you're too dumb to be in this conversation.

To use your NBA analogy, right now the NBA is 73% black and 17% white. But let's say the NBA started recruiting more whites, Hispanics, and Asians - to increase diversity! - until the NBA was 50% black. With a 50% black NBA, blacks are still overrepresented relative to their proportion of the population. So by your logic they should be happy. But it should be obvious that the blacks, in that case, were discriminated against and underrepresented relative to their actual merit.

Again with the stupid NBA analogy! Not applicable. Apples and oranges at best.

Players are only 38% of the NBA's employees, and I guarantee you that there is a representative balance across the league, as well as with the individual clubs, venues and others.

Stupid, stupid analogy! Stop it!

DP. By this logic, the Ivy League represents only a small fraction of all colleges. I'm sure if you include all colleges (incuding HBCUs) and count the Blacks, I'm sure they will be appropriately represented... See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it considered a hardship that most Asian kids don't get to see many teachers, class fellows, sports coaches, police, people in power on national news etc who look like them?

? Asians see plenty of people who look like them in class. Most Asians live in big cities with a decent size Asian population. The rest, I agree, but you know the progressives won't care about that because Asian Americans as a whole are doing well, hence the "model minority". Yes, I know... there are many Asian Americans that aren't doing well, but the white progressive liberal establishment likes to ignore that fact.

that might be true, but we also know what the white right-wing, Trumpists think of us and that's markedly worse.

I think Asian-Americans are great! My college roommate in California was Japanese-American, my best buddy here in NoVA is Chinese-American. My buddy here, by the way, thinks Asians are getting screwed by the elite schools, which I agree with, and he's concerned about the impact on his kids when they apply to college.

Signed,

A white right-wing, Trumpist

how can an overrepresented group be discriminated against. Kinda like black men saying not enough black men in the NBA

It is underrepresented compared to the number who should be there based on academic merit (and yes, extracurriculars too). If you don't get this, you're too dumb to be in this conversation.

To use your NBA analogy, right now the NBA is 73% black and 17% white. But let's say the NBA started recruiting more whites, Hispanics, and Asians - to increase diversity! - until the NBA was 50% black. With a 50% black NBA, blacks are still overrepresented relative to their proportion of the population. So by your logic they should be happy. But it should be obvious that the blacks, in that case, were discriminated against and underrepresented relative to their actual merit.

Again with the stupid NBA analogy! Not applicable. Apples and oranges at best.

Players are only 38% of the NBA's employees, and I guarantee you that there is a representative balance across the league, as well as with the individual clubs, venues and others.

Stupid, stupid analogy! Stop it!

DP. By this logic, the Ivy League represents only a small fraction of all colleges. I'm sure if you include all colleges (incuding HBCUs) and count the Blacks, I'm sure they will be appropriately represented... See how that works?

Yes we have 3800+ 4 year colleges lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity has huge value, whole society benefits from it. As a side effect some individuals benefit greatly and others experience disadvantage but overall everyone benefits.

That's a fine opinion, and I share it. But the important point is that it is subjective, and colleges should be allowed to decide if they feel this is necessary achieve their mission, as long as they do not break the law.

sure, subjective measures are not inherently wrong, however, how can you judge someone's likeability without ever having met them?

Why did you move the goalposts from diversity to likability? Why don't you read the posts you are responding to and do a better job at not mis-representing them?

IMO, what came out of the Harvard trial about likability indicates bias and discrimination. It's part of the goal post.

Likeability is how they are able to create the diversity that they want. It's exactly what they did to the Jews. It wasn't ok then, and it's not ok today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity has huge value, whole society benefits from it. As a side effect some individuals benefit greatly and others experience disadvantage but overall everyone benefits.

That's a fine opinion, and I share it. But the important point is that it is subjective, and colleges should be allowed to decide if they feel this is necessary achieve their mission, as long as they do not break the law.

sure, subjective measures are not inherently wrong, however, how can you judge someone's likeability without ever having met them?

Why did you move the goalposts from diversity to likability? Why don't you read the posts you are responding to and do a better job at not mis-representing them?

IMO, what came out of the Harvard trial about likability indicates bias and discrimination. It's part of the goal post.

Likeability is how they are able to create the diversity that they want. It's exactly what they did to the Jews. It wasn't ok then, and it's not ok today.

But that has nothing to do with the post you replied to. What you did was somewhere between misleading and dishonest. Go back and read the thread. The post was entirely and exclusively about the concept of diversity and its value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity has huge value, whole society benefits from it. As a side effect some individuals benefit greatly and others experience disadvantage but overall everyone benefits.

That's a fine opinion, and I share it. But the important point is that it is subjective, and colleges should be allowed to decide if they feel this is necessary achieve their mission, as long as they do not break the law.

sure, subjective measures are not inherently wrong, however, how can you judge someone's likeability without ever having met them?

Why did you move the goalposts from diversity to likability? Why don't you read the posts you are responding to and do a better job at not mis-representing them?

IMO, what came out of the Harvard trial about likability indicates bias and discrimination. It's part of the goal post.

Likeability is how they are able to create the diversity that they want. It's exactly what they did to the Jews. It wasn't ok then, and it's not ok today.

Except that that was a different time and it was being done deliberately, while there is no deliberate effort to keep Asians out. If there were, these days some if not all of the dozens of people on the admission committee would have gone public with the blatant racism. Do you really think they're lying to SCOTUS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity has huge value, whole society benefits from it. As a side effect some individuals benefit greatly and others experience disadvantage but overall everyone benefits.

That's a fine opinion, and I share it. But the important point is that it is subjective, and colleges should be allowed to decide if they feel this is necessary achieve their mission, as long as they do not break the law.

sure, subjective measures are not inherently wrong, however, how can you judge someone's likeability without ever having met them?

Why did you move the goalposts from diversity to likability? Why don't you read the posts you are responding to and do a better job at not mis-representing them?

IMO, what came out of the Harvard trial about likability indicates bias and discrimination. It's part of the goal post.

Likeability is how they are able to create the diversity that they want. It's exactly what they did to the Jews. It wasn't ok then, and it's not ok today.

But that has nothing to do with the post you replied to. What you did was somewhere between misleading and dishonest. Go back and read the thread. The post was entirely and exclusively about the concept of diversity and its value.

Not pp.
Diversity is good but racial discrimination should never happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity has huge value, whole society benefits from it. As a side effect some individuals benefit greatly and others experience disadvantage but overall everyone benefits.

That's a fine opinion, and I share it. But the important point is that it is subjective, and colleges should be allowed to decide if they feel this is necessary achieve their mission, as long as they do not break the law.

sure, subjective measures are not inherently wrong, however, how can you judge someone's likeability without ever having met them?

Why did you move the goalposts from diversity to likability? Why don't you read the posts you are responding to and do a better job at not mis-representing them?

IMO, what came out of the Harvard trial about likability indicates bias and discrimination. It's part of the goal post.

Likeability is how they are able to create the diversity that they want. It's exactly what they did to the Jews. It wasn't ok then, and it's not ok today.

But that has nothing to do with the post you replied to. What you did was somewhere between misleading and dishonest. Go back and read the thread. The post was entirely and exclusively about the concept of diversity and its value.

Not pp.
Diversity is good but racial discrimination should never happen

NP--Agreed. And it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity has huge value, whole society benefits from it. As a side effect some individuals benefit greatly and others experience disadvantage but overall everyone benefits.

That's a fine opinion, and I share it. But the important point is that it is subjective, and colleges should be allowed to decide if they feel this is necessary achieve their mission, as long as they do not break the law.

sure, subjective measures are not inherently wrong, however, how can you judge someone's likeability without ever having met them?

Why did you move the goalposts from diversity to likability? Why don't you read the posts you are responding to and do a better job at not mis-representing them?

IMO, what came out of the Harvard trial about likability indicates bias and discrimination. It's part of the goal post.

Likeability is how they are able to create the diversity that they want. It's exactly what they did to the Jews. It wasn't ok then, and it's not ok today.

Except that that was a different time and it was being done deliberately, while there is no deliberate effort to keep Asians out. If there were, these days some if not all of the dozens of people on the admission committee would have gone public with the blatant racism. Do you really think they're lying to SCOTUS?

It's not that they are lying but they think it's okay. That the ends justify the means, and also that it's permissible under the law as it stood before this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope you are not this dumb in real life if that example reflects what Asians are saying. Blacks represent about 13% of US population but represent over 73%. What if NBA says, no more than 50% black players in NBA (i.e., still over represented but unfairly reduced to 50% max based on skill and ability levels. Is that fair to blacks? I would say that not fair. Let skill/ability decide whether that player should or should not be in NBA. If it ends up being 90%, let it be 90% black.

The NBA has at various times had executives who considered the league to be too black. Drug problems in the late 70s, at that time the NBA finals wasn't even played live. Then they issued a dress code under David Stern after players like Allen Iverson came in and they didn't like all the tattoos.
There was also a strange reaction by some of the media that the players were too geeky, more like Carlton rather than Will Smith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter. Free handouts for URM coming to an end next year. Amen.

No they are not coming to and no matter how the Supreme Court rules. Barry Goldwater said you can't legislate morality, and colleges will find other ways to discriminate while pretending to stay within the Supreme Court's rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Except that that was a different time and it was being done deliberately, while there is no deliberate effort to keep Asians out. If there were, these days some if not all of the dozens of people on the admission committee would have gone public with the blatant racism. Do you really think they're lying to SCOTUS?

Yes I think they are lying. They claim no quotas, but they are doing quotas by other means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity has huge value, whole society benefits from it. As a side effect some individuals benefit greatly and others experience disadvantage but overall everyone benefits.

That's a fine opinion, and I share it. But the important point is that it is subjective, and colleges should be allowed to decide if they feel this is necessary achieve their mission, as long as they do not break the law.

sure, subjective measures are not inherently wrong, however, how can you judge someone's likeability without ever having met them?

Why did you move the goalposts from diversity to likability? Why don't you read the posts you are responding to and do a better job at not mis-representing them?

IMO, what came out of the Harvard trial about likability indicates bias and discrimination. It's part of the goal post.

Likeability is how they are able to create the diversity that they want. It's exactly what they did to the Jews. It wasn't ok then, and it's not ok today.

But that has nothing to do with the post you replied to. What you did was somewhere between misleading and dishonest. Go back and read the thread. The post was entirely and exclusively about the concept of diversity and its value.

It's very relevant. I responding to " But the important point is that it is subjective, "... diversity being subjective ... and using a subjective criteria like "likeability" to achieve that subjective diversity.

[Anonymous]

I think we need white liberals to explain to the Asian community that they are being duped by evil conservatives. Unfortunately, white liberals are busy right now explaining to Hispanic voters that they were being duped into voting republican by evil conservatives.

🧐

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Except that that was a different time and it was being done deliberately, while there is no deliberate effort to keep Asians out. If there were, these days some if not all of the dozens of people on the admission committee would have gone public with the blatant racism. Do you really think they're lying to SCOTUS?

Yes I think they are lying. They claim no quotas, but they are doing quotas by other means.

So you think those testifying before SCOTUS are willing to put their freedom on the line in order to protect a secret effort to reduce the number of Asians admitted, and that they believe all of their colleagues will back them up in lying to the highest court in the land, as will all of the hundreds of people who have retired from the Harvard or UNC admissions office or higher up administration? And the same, of course is true for the thousands of other admission offices that practice affirmative action, so we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands of admissions personnel all conspiring against Asian applicants. And all the courts that have let affirmative action stand in the past are in on it, too? That's another group of tens of thousands who are all working together. And none of them have the integrity or the fear of jail time that would lead them to tell the truth?

That takes as big an appetite for conspiracy theories as MAGA followers believing all the courts in the land were conspiring to keep Trump from being elected in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Except that that was a different time and it was being done deliberately, while there is no deliberate effort to keep Asians out. If there were, these days some if not all of the dozens of people on the admission committee would have gone public with the blatant racism. Do you really think they're lying to SCOTUS?

Yes I think they are lying. They claim no quotas, but they are doing quotas by other means.

So you think those testifying before SCOTUS are willing to put their freedom on the line in order to protect a secret effort to reduce the number of Asians admitted, and that they believe all of their colleagues will back them up in lying to the highest court in the land, as will all of the hundreds of people who have retired from the Harvard or UNC admissions office or higher up administration? And the same, of course is true for the thousands of other admission offices that practice affirmative action, so we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands of admissions personnel all conspiring against Asian applicants. And all the courts that have let affirmative action stand in the past are in on it, too? That's another group of tens of thousands who are all working together. And none of them have the integrity or the fear of jail time that would lead them to tell the truth?

That takes as big an appetite for conspiracy theories as MAGA followers believing all the courts in the land were conspiring to keep Trump from being elected in 2020.

You mean Stacy Abrams? She didn't lose. She was robbed.