Update on Harvard Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Burroughs surprisingly isn’t being easy on H.

So far the way this trial is going, the best outcome for AA supporters is probably for H to lose and Burroughs to narrowly rule against H.

Thereby slapping down H but not changing anything for other schools and stopping the case from going to scotus where it would get widened in scope

[Anonymous]

Progressive education policy dude on the stand today making H look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Blum’s a minority to be honest - he’s Jewish.

[Anonymous]

Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

I suspect the answer to this question is that Asians are not statically underrepresented in Harvard's applicant pool. A recruiting letter is not an offer of admission, and I suspect you'd find Harvard using different metrics for kids from Broken Wagonwheel, Idaho and kids from Darien, Connecticut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

That's ridiculous; of course race is a factor -- and a completely legal one I might add.

Asians are overrepresented at Harvard already. Apparently the P's argument is they aren't grossly overrepresented enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

That's ridiculous; of course race is a factor -- and a completely legal one I might add.

Asians are overrepresented at Harvard already. Apparently the P's argument is they aren't grossly overrepresented enough.

The “overrepresented” argument is disingenuous. While there is a higher percentage of Asians at Harvard compared to the overall population, this suit is showing that they are actually underrepresented when considering that but for the subjective personality/leadership factor, their admissions to Harvard should be even higher.

Regardless, it’s really dejecting that people just seem to be so willing to accept racial stereotypes of Asian-Americans (e.g. robot test takers, not leaders, no personality), where if we replaced “Asian” with “black” or “Hispanic” in any of those statements, those same people would likely be rightfully appalled at the not-so-veiled racism. Racism is racism and just because there is a noble societal goal (more representation of blacks and Hispanics at elite schools) doesn’t mean that such racism is justifiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

Because they are comparing apples and oranges, just like the white applicant that was the janitor at her own school every am before school started had lower SAT scores, but who cares about 200pts on her SAT once you hear her story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

That's ridiculous; of course race is a factor -- and a completely legal one I might add.

Asians are overrepresented at Harvard already. Apparently the P's argument is they aren't grossly overrepresented enough.

The “overrepresented” argument is disingenuous. While there is a higher percentage of Asians at Harvard compared to the overall population, this suit is showing that they are actually underrepresented when considering that but for the subjective personality/leadership factor, their admissions to Harvard should be even higher.

Regardless, it’s really dejecting that people just seem to be so willing to accept racial stereotypes of Asian-Americans (e.g. robot test takers, not leaders, no personality), where if we replaced “Asian” with “black” or “Hispanic” in any of those statements, those same people would likely be rightfully appalled at the not-so-veiled racism. Racism is racism and just because there is a noble societal goal (more representation of blacks and Hispanics at elite schools) doesn’t mean that such racism is justifiable.

You're not going to litigate the case on DCUM.
I'm well aware of what the Plaintiff is alleging.
It's called holistic admissions and it is not illegal
The court isn't going to tell Harvard what criteria it must use to choose its incoming class.

Why don't we wait and see how the court rules?

[Anonymous]

The evidence of the recent NMS semifinalist lists seems the most conclusive of all, given the huge statistical sample sizes involved. As discussed earlier, these students constitute roughly the highest 0.5 percent in academic ability, the top 16,000 high school seniors who should be enrolling at the Ivy League and America’s other most elite academic universities. In California, white Gentile names outnumber Jewish ones by over 8-to-1; in Texas, over 20-to-1; in Florida and Illinois, around 9-to-1. Even in New York, America’s most heavily Jewish state, there are more than two high-ability white Gentile students for every Jewish one. Based on the overall distribution of America’s population, it appears that approximately 65–70 percent of America’s highest ability students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times the Jewish total of under 6 percent.

Needless to say, these proportions are considerably different from what we actually find among the admitted students at Harvard and its elite peers, which today serve as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, and finance. Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores.

When examining statistical evidence, the proper aggregation of data is critical. Consider the ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian students at Harvard relative to their estimated share of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and compare this result to the corresponding figure for whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures being considerably below parity due to the substantial presence of under-represented racial minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment, legacy admissions, and geographical diversity.

However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of even the Asian figure. As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students.

Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate current numbers have been the longer enrollment trends. In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews.

I’m looking forward to someone trying to defend the current fraudulent admission practices of the Ivy’s. That way I know who is FOS on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

They answered the #1 question very directly. The “personal” rating comes directly from the applicants’ teacher and counselor recommendations and alumni interviews. Unless you think all the teachers and Harvard alums in America are in on the conspiracy, I don’t see how that’s Harvard’s fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

They answered the #1 question very directly. The “personal” rating comes directly from the applicants’ teacher and counselor recommendations and alumni interviews. Unless you think all the teachers and Harvard alums in America are in on the conspiracy, I don’t see how that’s Harvard’s fault.

Harvard admissions officers are actually lowering the personality ratings given to Asian American students by the people who have actually met the students. Teachers, counselors, and alumni interviewers are giving the AsAm applicants higher personality ratings than what the admissions officers are giving. So what justifies this lowering of personality scores? It seems that the finger is pointing to racist views of AsAm students as robotic overachievers with no personality. There is no substantive justification for this, except to find some way to reduce the number of AsAm acceptances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many seem to be glossing over what Harvard is accused of. At its heart there are two key issues.

1). Why does Harvard rate Asian kids consistently and persistently low to very low on likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected? Imagine if Harvard had been rating blacks and Latinos similarly over the years?

2). How/why does Harvard send recruitment letters to many black applicants with SAT scores of around 1100 but the same threshold applies to Asian men @1380 SAT? We are not talking 10 or 20 pts. Many may not understand that the SAT scores range is not linear...........280 pts. is a massive difference.

Harvard admissions claims that race is never a positive or negative factor but its process says otherwise. The question is does its rigged process rise to the level of actionable legal malfeasance.

They answered the #1 question very directly. The “personal” rating comes directly from the applicants’ teacher and counselor recommendations and alumni interviews. Unless you think all the teachers and Harvard alums in America are in on the conspiracy, I don’t see how that’s Harvard’s fault.

Harvard admissions officers are actually lowering the personality ratings given to Asian American students by the people who have actually met the students. Teachers, counselors, and alumni interviewers are giving the AsAm applicants higher personality ratings than what the admissions officers are giving. So what justifies this lowering of personality scores? It seems that the finger is pointing to racist views of AsAm students as robotic overachievers with no personality. There is no substantive justification for this, except to find some way to reduce the number of AsAm acceptances.

Can you share articles where it says they are actually lowering the personal score? According to this WSJ article it looks like the scores come right from recommendations and interviews: https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-cites-weaker-teacher-recommendations-for-asian-american-applicants-1539721051

[Anonymous]

“Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them, according to Professor Arcidiacono.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.amp.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The evidence of the recent NMS semifinalist lists seems the most conclusive of all, given the huge statistical sample sizes involved. As discussed earlier, these students constitute roughly the highest 0.5 percent in academic ability, the top 16,000 high school seniors who should be enrolling at the Ivy League and America’s other most elite academic universities. In California, white Gentile names outnumber Jewish ones by over 8-to-1; in Texas, over 20-to-1; in Florida and Illinois, around 9-to-1. Even in New York, America’s most heavily Jewish state, there are more than two high-ability white Gentile students for every Jewish one. Based on the overall distribution of America’s population, it appears that approximately 65–70 percent of America’s highest ability students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times the Jewish total of under 6 percent.

Needless to say, these proportions are considerably different from what we actually find among the admitted students at Harvard and its elite peers, which today serve as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, and finance. Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores.

When examining statistical evidence, the proper aggregation of data is critical. Consider the ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian students at Harvard relative to their estimated share of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and compare this result to the corresponding figure for whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures being considerably below parity due to the substantial presence of under-represented racial minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment, legacy admissions, and geographical diversity.

However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of even the Asian figure. As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students.

Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate current numbers have been the longer enrollment trends. In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews.

I’m looking forward to someone trying to defend the current fraudulent admission practices of the Ivy’s. That way I know who is FOS on this board.

Hillel International always reported the number of Jewish students at Harvard around 25-27%. This year they have mysteriously changed that number to around 12%.