How Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in college admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.

That's nonsense. MAKING SURE THAT A CERTAIN RACE IS [b]proportionally represented is the very definition of a quota[/b]. You cannot racially balance unless you have a quota in mind. Otherwise what does it mean to racially balance? And quotas are illegal. That is very clear. So when you say hey "2% blacks" is too less but "10 percent is ok" and I will shape my class based on that, you are enforcing a quota and the Supreme court has said that is illegal.

If you were not racially balancing your class, one year you would get 2% blacks, one year you would get 10%. Your number would depend on the applicant pool.

No. A quota is what was at issue in Bakke. The school set aside a specific number of spots for minorities.
And read what I said: making sure all races (not certain races) are MORE proportionally represented is not a quota.
This is not a case involving quotas

Don't be disingenuous. More Proportional representation is not possible without quotas and Bakke ruled that quotas are illegal. More representation is possible which is affirmative action and is allowed under Bakke under some circumstances specially for diversity. The second you bring proportional into the picture you need quotas, because the very act of measuring proportional cannot be done unless you have a number to compare it with, which is a quota.

Fine. You're obviously quite worked up over this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Princeton?

https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics

In 2015, the Education Department cleared Princeton University of bias against Asian applicants -- after a nine-year investigation in which it reviewed such data.

The reason Asian-American applicants have such a tough time getting into Princeton, OCR concluded, was that everyone has a tough time getting into Princeton.

The OCR report found that there are so many highly qualified applicants to Princeton that the university rejects many with stellar if not perfect academic records. And OCR found that Asians could also be found among some of the less than perfect applicants, as well....

Princeton also told OCR (and the agency confirmed), “that less than stellar grades or test scores do not mean that an applicant is automatically foreclosed from admission. OCR in its file review found examples of applicants who did not have the highest quantifiable qualifications, such as grades and test scores, who were nonetheless admitted by the university based on other qualities and the overall strength of their applications. Some of these applicants were Asian.

“The university reported to OCR that the university ‘frequently accepted to the Class of 2010 applicants from Asian backgrounds with grades and test scores lower than rejected non-Asian applicants.’

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07/look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-americans-and-admissions-elite

Hahaha. Imagine the Obama Office of Civil rights, finding against Racial Balancing. Please. Its just like the Trump Administration finding against Harvard. These are all politically motivated and then justified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.

That's nonsense. MAKING SURE THAT A CERTAIN RACE IS [b]proportionally represented is the very definition of a quota[/b]. You cannot racially balance unless you have a quota in mind. Otherwise what does it mean to racially balance? And quotas are illegal. That is very clear. So when you say hey "2% blacks" is too less but "10 percent is ok" and I will shape my class based on that, you are enforcing a quota and the Supreme court has said that is illegal.

If you were not racially balancing your class, one year you would get 2% blacks, one year you would get 10%. Your number would depend on the applicant pool.

No. A quota is what was at issue in Bakke. The school set aside a specific number of spots for minorities.
And read what I said: making sure all races (not certain races) are MORE proportionally represented is not a quota.
This is not a case involving quotas

Don't be disingenuous. More Proportional representation is not possible without quotas and Bakke ruled that quotas are illegal. More representation is possible which is affirmative action and is allowed under Bakke under some circumstances specially for diversity. The second you bring proportional into the picture you need quotas, because the very act of measuring proportional cannot be done unless you have a number to compare it with, which is a quota.

Fine. You're obviously quite worked up over this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Aww. The favorite tactic of a low IQ liberal. When all things fail, fall back on an ad hominem attack. So cute. Next you will be calling me a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.

That's nonsense. MAKING SURE THAT A CERTAIN RACE IS [b]proportionally represented is the very definition of a quota[/b]. You cannot racially balance unless you have a quota in mind. Otherwise what does it mean to racially balance? And quotas are illegal. That is very clear. So when you say hey "2% blacks" is too less but "10 percent is ok" and I will shape my class based on that, you are enforcing a quota and the Supreme court has said that is illegal.

If you were not racially balancing your class, one year you would get 2% blacks, one year you would get 10%. Your number would depend on the applicant pool.

No. A quota is what was at issue in Bakke. The school set aside a specific number of spots for minorities.
And read what I said: making sure all races (not certain races) are MORE proportionally represented is not a quota.
This is not a case involving quotas

Don't be disingenuous. More Proportional representation is not possible without quotas and Bakke ruled that quotas are illegal. More representation is possible which is affirmative action and is allowed under Bakke under some circumstances specially for diversity. The second you bring proportional into the picture you need quotas, because the very act of measuring proportional cannot be done unless you have a number to compare it with, which is a quota.

Fine. You're obviously quite worked up over this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Aww. The favorite tactic of a low IQ liberal. When all things fail, fall back on an ad hominem attack. So cute. Next you will be calling me a racist.

no. I can't say it any more simply: the colleges' attempt to make their classes more proportionally representative using race as one factor is not the same as a quota. We can go round and round on this, but it would serve no further purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.

That's nonsense. MAKING SURE THAT A CERTAIN RACE IS [b]proportionally represented is the very definition of a quota[/b]. You cannot racially balance unless you have a quota in mind. Otherwise what does it mean to racially balance? And quotas are illegal. That is very clear. So when you say hey "2% blacks" is too less but "10 percent is ok" and I will shape my class based on that, you are enforcing a quota and the Supreme court has said that is illegal.

If you were not racially balancing your class, one year you would get 2% blacks, one year you would get 10%. Your number would depend on the applicant pool.

No. A quota is what was at issue in Bakke. The school set aside a specific number of spots for minorities.
And read what I said: making sure all races (not certain races) are MORE proportionally represented is not a quota.
This is not a case involving quotas

Don't be disingenuous. More Proportional representation is not possible without quotas and Bakke ruled that quotas are illegal. More representation is possible which is affirmative action and is allowed under Bakke under some circumstances specially for diversity. The second you bring proportional into the picture you need quotas, because the very act of measuring proportional cannot be done unless you have a number to compare it with, which is a quota.

Fine. You're obviously quite worked up over this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Aww. The favorite tactic of a low IQ liberal. When all things fail, fall back on an ad hominem attack. So cute. Next you will be calling me a racist.

no. I can't say it any more simply: the colleges' attempt to make their classes more proportionally representative using race as one factor is not the same as a quota. We can go round and round on this, but it would serve no further purpose.

DP.. it's just a euphemism. It doesn't matter that the intent is "diversity". If the intent is to have a more representation from one group over another, how is that not affirmative action and quota based? Let's say at some point there are "too many" Black students at Harvard, and they want more Hispanics. They would have a cut off at some point and say, "we have enough Black students. Let's allow in some more Hispanics for diversity." That's a quota. It may not be hard line quota, but it's a quota just the same. The target just may move around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.

That's nonsense. MAKING SURE THAT A CERTAIN RACE IS [b]proportionally represented is the very definition of a quota[/b]. You cannot racially balance unless you have a quota in mind. Otherwise what does it mean to racially balance? And quotas are illegal. That is very clear. So when you say hey "2% blacks" is too less but "10 percent is ok" and I will shape my class based on that, you are enforcing a quota and the Supreme court has said that is illegal.

If you were not racially balancing your class, one year you would get 2% blacks, one year you would get 10%. Your number would depend on the applicant pool.

No. A quota is what was at issue in Bakke. The school set aside a specific number of spots for minorities.
And read what I said: making sure all races (not certain races) are MORE proportionally represented is not a quota.
This is not a case involving quotas

Don't be disingenuous. More Proportional representation is not possible without quotas and Bakke ruled that quotas are illegal. More representation is possible which is affirmative action and is allowed under Bakke under some circumstances specially for diversity. The second you bring proportional into the picture you need quotas, because the very act of measuring proportional cannot be done unless you have a number to compare it with, which is a quota.

Fine. You're obviously quite worked up over this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Aww. The favorite tactic of a low IQ liberal. When all things fail, fall back on an ad hominem attack. So cute. Next you will be calling me a racist.

no. I can't say it any more simply: the colleges' attempt to make their classes more proportionally representative using race as one factor is not the same as a quota. We can go round and round on this, but it would serve no further purpose.

DP.. it's just a euphemism. It doesn't matter that the intent is "diversity". If the intent is to have a more representation from one group over another, how is that not affirmative action and quota based? Let's say at some point there are "too many" Black students at Harvard, and they want more Hispanics. They would have a cut off at some point and say, "we have enough Black students. Let's allow in some more Hispanics for diversity." That's a quota. It may not be hard line quota, but it's a quota just the same. The target just may move around.

This. Just because you call a Rose a Lily, doesn't make it so. Proportional representation college admission is quota based college admission

[Anonymous]

Is 2% blacks in class proportional? No
Is 4% proportional? No
6%? No
8% - You are getting close
10% - Smiling now

13% - Sweet. I love you.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. QUOTA!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is 2% blacks in class proportional? No
Is 4% proportional? No
6%? No
8% - You are getting close
10% - Smiling now

13% - Sweet. I love you.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. QUOTA!!!!

Corollary

40% Asian? - Eff that
30%? Ooh Donors won't like that
25%? - Better, can you apply more affirmative action?

22%? - I guess I can live with that

This was fun. Let's do this for ten more years

Quota!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is 2% blacks in class proportional? No
Is 4% proportional? No
6%? No
8% - You are getting close
10% - Smiling now

13% - Sweet. I love you.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. QUOTA!!!!

but the percent if Asians has increased every year over the last 1o years. Obviously there is no quota. Then after they loose this lawsuit I doubt the 22% figure will budge much either.

[Anonymous]

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/harvardsummaryjudgment

Is Harvard’s Memorandum in defense of its motion for summary judgment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/harvardsummaryjudgment

Is Harvard’s Memorandum in defense of its motion for summary judgment

Thanks. That was very educational.

[Anonymous]

And here’s Harvard’s expert report:

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf

[Anonymous]

https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/tsinghua-university

Are the top universities in China 22 percent white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/tsinghua-university

Are the top universities in China 22 percent white?

Asian Americans are Americans you racist pig

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is 2% blacks in class proportional? No
Is 4% proportional? No
6%? No
8% - You are getting close
10% - Smiling now

13% - Sweet. I love you.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. QUOTA!!!!

but the percent if Asians has increased every year over the last 1o years. Obviously there is no quota. Then after they loose this lawsuit I doubt the 22% figure will budge much either.

quotas can change. Over the years, the overall Asian American population has changed as well.

Again, just because there is no set hard and fast number doesn't mean it's not a form of quota. That 22% just happens to be the quota for that year.