Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.
It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.
Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.
I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be
academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.
They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination.
Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?
Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.
It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:
"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints.
We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "
It was never legal to discriminate like that.
I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.
Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.
I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?
So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?
OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.
Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.
If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.
In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.
I can certainly understand the possible good intention of boosting minority applicants in a pool to encourage underrepresented groups as well as low income groups, which is not the same as malice towards Asian people or white people or Jewish people. Just like trying to balance gender ratio at liberal arts colleges is not the same as being anti-female, or trying to balance gender ratio at Caltech is not the same as being anti-male. You can disagree with practice, but instead of just campaigning for admissions reform, you're content to see the best research institutions razed to the ground, and willing to see a whole lot of Asian scientists lose their funding. I also hope you realize that a significant portion of his stakeholders want to stop the "Asian invasion" of tech, medicine, and higher ed.
Politics make strange bedfellows. I don't think trump is my friend over the long run any more than FDR thought Stalin was his friend over the long run, but Hitler presented the greater threat. Trump will get defanged in 2 years when democrats take the house and then in 2 more years democrats will take the presidency and possibly the senate as well. But as long as democrats adhere to race identity politics and create a racial hierarchy where it is not only acceptable to discriminate against asians, it is virtuous to do so, it is hard to see them as a long term ally.
Harvard wasn't merely boosting minority applicants, they were discriminating against asians. White applicants with the same application profile were getting in at significantly higher rates than asians. You are downplaying their racism to make the reaction to that racism seem too severe, if this happened to blacks or hispanics, there would be protests and democratic lawmakers would be lining up to cosponsor a bill to end it. And it wasn't some tie breaker boost to URM, the difference between accepted asian applicants and accepted black applicants was enormous.
I don't think caltech serves the nation well by engaging in social engineering when so much our national defense technology comes out of those labs. Unless the absence of female colleagues is reducing the quality of the applicant pool generally (e.g. stuyvesant high school used to be ranked lower than bronx science when it was an all boys school and quickly became the top ranked school after girls started attending, it wasn't just because stuyvesant now had access to smart girls it was also because it had access to smart boys that wanted female classmates).
I am willing to see harvard destroyed to serve as a cautionary tale against racism, why aren't you? I'd like to see their tax exempt status revoked and all federal funding withdrawn and reallocated to flagship state schools. There is nothing unique about harvard's labs (or any of the ivy league labs) that the research cannot be done elsewhere. If the grants move to UNC, UVA and U of Florida, so will the researchers. I am not happy that they are using a wrecking ball but just like people thought for decades that a little asian discrimination was a small price to pay for racial justice, this temporary disruption in research is a small price to pay for eliminating left wing racial discrimination.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}