SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS: let’s just ignore racism. This has worked out so well in the past. I also don’t understand how taking affirmative action points away from Blacks and Latinos makes Asians score higher on personality?

They won't have racial quotas. The "personality" thing was just their beaurocratic excuse for limiting the number of Asians, but now discrimination based on race in college admissions is illegal.

They don’t have racial quotas. The way admissions work is based on points. Affirmative Action candidates were given points. Other candidates gets points for being legacies, volunteer work, extra curriculars, employment, all get points based on SATs, grades, essay, interview, area of the country, and then they must group by major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frankly think this is better for under represented minorities. You spend your whole life trying to prove you were not an affirmative action and really earned your spot.

In my workplace, the people who are incompetent are people of color, however not every person of color is incompetent, if that makes sense. It does make me assume many of these people are only there for "diversity" purposes. [/quote

Hi racist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

No. What has been explained in this thread is that Asian Americans want to be evaluated on their personal merits, and not based on their race. Harvard is free and welcome to prefer whatever they want over academics and free to reject anyone they seem to be gunners with no personality. They can give bonus points for socioeconomic status or hardships applicants had to overcome. What they can't do and shouldn't do is reject someone based on race.

Please actually explain why this is a problem. For those harping on how schools will be overrun with rat racers who have no personality and own interests/brain, you are basically saying you don't think Asians are capable of being well rounded human beings. That is not only racist but goes against the findings in the Harvard case, which was that the Asian applicants scored higher across all categories, including extracurriculars and personality. The admissions office simply overrode the true personality scores by people who actually met the applicants and made up their own.

There are important factors to admission in addition to scores. Harvard wants diversity of thought and experience. If it looks like every Asian student is the same, how does that add to the student body?

If Harvard wants diversity of thought, then they will seek to admit students who think differently. Why is that hard to do without discriminating by race?

They don't want diversity of thought. They don't consider that "diversity."
Diversity is defined by skin color, according to liberals.
Not thought. Not socioeconomic status. Not anything but skin color.

BS! The whole reason Biden was asking for loan forgiveness is because many lower income and middle class students are being crush by student loan debt because they went to college. Liberals are trying for socioeconomic diversity! But who will pay for that socioeconomic diversity… the poor students?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

No. What has been explained in this thread is that Asian Americans want to be evaluated on their personal merits, and not based on their race. Harvard is free and welcome to prefer whatever they want over academics and free to reject anyone they seem to be gunners with no personality. They can give bonus points for socioeconomic status or hardships applicants had to overcome. What they can't do and shouldn't do is reject someone based on race.

Please actually explain why this is a problem. For those harping on how schools will be overrun with rat racers who have no personality and own interests/brain, you are basically saying you don't think Asians are capable of being well rounded human beings. That is not only racist but goes against the findings in the Harvard case, which was that the Asian applicants scored higher across all categories, including extracurriculars and personality. The admissions office simply overrode the true personality scores by people who actually met the applicants and made up their own.

There are important factors to admission in addition to scores. Harvard wants diversity of thought and experience. If it looks like every Asian student is the same, how does that add to the student body?

If Harvard wants diversity of thought, then they will seek to admit students who think differently. Why is that hard to do without discriminating by race?

They don't want diversity of thought. They don't consider that "diversity."
Diversity is defined by skin color, according to liberals.
Not thought. Not socioeconomic status. Not anything but skin color.

BS! The whole reason Biden was asking for loan forgiveness is because many lower income and middle class students are being crush by student loan debt because they went to college. Liberals are trying for socioeconomic diversity! But who will pay for that socioeconomic diversity… the poor students?!?!

Harvard, which is what this subthread was referring to, has a $53 billion endowment, so start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

No. What has been explained in this thread is that Asian Americans want to be evaluated on their personal merits, and not based on their race. Harvard is free and welcome to prefer whatever they want over academics and free to reject anyone they seem to be gunners with no personality. They can give bonus points for socioeconomic status or hardships applicants had to overcome. What they can't do and shouldn't do is reject someone based on race.

Please actually explain why this is a problem. For those harping on how schools will be overrun with rat racers who have no personality and own interests/brain, you are basically saying you don't think Asians are capable of being well rounded human beings. That is not only racist but goes against the findings in the Harvard case, which was that the Asian applicants scored higher across all categories, including extracurriculars and personality. The admissions office simply overrode the true personality scores by people who actually met the applicants and made up their own.

There are important factors to admission in addition to scores. Harvard wants diversity of thought and experience. If it looks like every Asian student is the same, how does that add to the student body?

If Harvard wants diversity of thought, then they will seek to admit students who think differently. Why is that hard to do without discriminating by race?

They don't want diversity of thought. They don't consider that "diversity."
Diversity is defined by skin color, according to liberals.
Not thought. Not socioeconomic status. Not anything but skin color.

That’s nonsense. You obviously have never been on an Ivy campus. In student life, there is much more interest and engagement in their diverse interests and intellectual pursuits than in their racial or ethnic backgrounds. Only the parents and political demagogues fixate on race. Not the schools or the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

DP
It seems that "statistically," Asians achieve at a higher rate than others. Does this mean that they can be discriminated against?

DP. No but it is interesting to contemplate what the tipping point would be if the most selective colleges admit an unlimited number of Asian that far outstrips their percentage of the population. Wealthy whites may start feeling that they are being discriminated against--not by "undeserving" Blacks and Hispanics but by Asians.

Jewish folks and Asian folks are over represented. But also value studying and education. Hopefully ethical as well.

Others don’t? So these two groups are the only smart and studious kids?

Comparatively, yes. Look and the average # hours spent doing homework. It correlates with academic success. Unless you want to argue that spending more time studying isn't causal to academic success?

Can we talk about the high suicide ideation and rates among Asian students in the US and in their homeland? Could it be the "# hours spent doing homework" or is it something else? Parents so driven by clout and a need for an old age sugar daddy, they'll sacrifice their kids mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

DP
It seems that "statistically," Asians achieve at a higher rate than others. Does this mean that they can be discriminated against?

DP. No but it is interesting to contemplate what the tipping point would be if the most selective colleges admit an unlimited number of Asian that far outstrips their percentage of the population. Wealthy whites may start feeling that they are being discriminated against--not by "undeserving" Blacks and Hispanics but by Asians.

Jewish folks and Asian folks are over represented. But also value studying and education. Hopefully ethical as well.

Others don’t? So these two groups are the only smart and studious kids?

Comparatively, yes. Look and the average # hours spent doing homework. It correlates with academic success. Unless you want to argue that spending more time studying isn't causal to academic success?

Can we talk about the high suicide ideation and rates among Asian students in the US and in their homeland? Could it be the "# hours spent doing homework" or is it something else? Parents so driven by clout and a need for an old age sugar daddy, they'll sacrifice their kids mental health.

This thread has stopped being relevant with this post. PP is out of line and I have supported affirmative action through this thread. But come on, PP?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS: let’s just ignore racism. This has worked out so well in the past. I also don’t understand how taking affirmative action points away from Blacks and Latinos makes Asians score higher on personality?

They won't have racial quotas. The "personality" thing was just their beaurocratic excuse for limiting the number of Asians, but now discrimination based on race in college admissions is illegal.

They don’t have racial quotas. The way admissions work is based on points. Affirmative Action candidates were given points. Other candidates gets points for being legacies, volunteer work, extra curriculars, employment, all get points based on SATs, grades, essay, interview, area of the country, and then they must group by major.

If they don't have racial quotas, then why the concern for low/high percentages of different groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

No. What has been explained in this thread is that Asian Americans want to be evaluated on their personal merits, and not based on their race. Harvard is free and welcome to prefer whatever they want over academics and free to reject anyone they seem to be gunners with no personality. They can give bonus points for socioeconomic status or hardships applicants had to overcome. What they can't do and shouldn't do is reject someone based on race.

Please actually explain why this is a problem. For those harping on how schools will be overrun with rat racers who have no personality and own interests/brain, you are basically saying you don't think Asians are capable of being well rounded human beings. That is not only racist but goes against the findings in the Harvard case, which was that the Asian applicants scored higher across all categories, including extracurriculars and personality. The admissions office simply overrode the true personality scores by people who actually met the applicants and made up their own.

There are important factors to admission in addition to scores. Harvard wants diversity of thought and experience. If it looks like every Asian student is the same, how does that add to the student body?

If Harvard wants diversity of thought, then they will seek to admit students who think differently. Why is that hard to do without discriminating by race?

They don't want diversity of thought. They don't consider that "diversity."
Diversity is defined by skin color, according to liberals.
Not thought. Not socioeconomic status. Not anything but skin color.

That’s nonsense. You obviously have never been on an Ivy campus. In student life, there is much more interest and engagement in their diverse interests and intellectual pursuits than in their racial or ethnic backgrounds. Only the parents and political demagogues fixate on race. Not the schools or the students.

Then why have race boxes to check?

[Anonymous]

The Democrats since the 1960's ran on race, class and gender. Now that America has 99% embraced it, they got nothing. Liberty is embraced by 80% of Americans and they see the reach and damaged these Marxist are pushing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

No. What has been explained in this thread is that Asian Americans want to be evaluated on their personal merits, and not based on their race. Harvard is free and welcome to prefer whatever they want over academics and free to reject anyone they seem to be gunners with no personality. They can give bonus points for socioeconomic status or hardships applicants had to overcome. What they can't do and shouldn't do is reject someone based on race.

Please actually explain why this is a problem. For those harping on how schools will be overrun with rat racers who have no personality and own interests/brain, you are basically saying you don't think Asians are capable of being well rounded human beings. That is not only racist but goes against the findings in the Harvard case, which was that the Asian applicants scored higher across all categories, including extracurriculars and personality. The admissions office simply overrode the true personality scores by people who actually met the applicants and made up their own.

There are important factors to admission in addition to scores. Harvard wants diversity of thought and experience. If it looks like every Asian student is the same, how does that add to the student body?

If Harvard wants diversity of thought, then they will seek to admit students who think differently. Why is that hard to do without discriminating by race?

They don't want diversity of thought. They don't consider that "diversity."
Diversity is defined by skin color, according to liberals.
Not thought. Not socioeconomic status. Not anything but skin color.

That’s nonsense. You obviously have never been on an Ivy campus. In student life, there is much more interest and engagement in their diverse interests and intellectual pursuits than in their racial or ethnic backgrounds. Only the parents and political demagogues fixate on race. Not the schools or the students.

Wrong. The Admission Officers are the ones who are fixated on race. This is exactly why we are where we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

DP
It seems that "statistically," Asians achieve at a higher rate than others. Does this mean that they can be discriminated against?

No but why do you think the other kids accepted aren’t worthy and those spots should go to only Asian kids? I don’t think any race has cornered the market on exceptionalism. Seems Asians do though.

If you look at their achievements individually and also their highly developed civilizations and cultures in Cjina, Japan, Korea, etc, they have a right to be proud.

South Korea and Japan can thank the USA for heavily investing funding and intellectual assistance after those countries devastation at the end of WW2 and Korean wars. China can thank Nixon and Kissinger for opening up trade channels that lifted that country out of a feudal economy. Highly developed indeed only because of USA help. Otherwise those countries would be on the level of North Korea and Cambodia.

PP here. I'm referring to their cultural heritage and achievements in art, science, technology, writings, etc going way further back than what you mentioned--as in hundreds of years.

Tell me more.

Try reading history books.

[Anonymous]

You can’t ever achieve racial equality when you have affirmative action policies. You’re basically saying that if you have dark skin then you are incapable of being held to the same standard as someone who is white. 30-40 years ago more people were willing to go along with this because they likely thought AAs were incompetent.

We have hopefully made a little progress racially and policies that are based on the color of your skin seem very wrong in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

No. What has been explained in this thread is that Asian Americans want to be evaluated on their personal merits, and not based on their race. Harvard is free and welcome to prefer whatever they want over academics and free to reject anyone they seem to be gunners with no personality. They can give bonus points for socioeconomic status or hardships applicants had to overcome. What they can't do and shouldn't do is reject someone based on race.

Please actually explain why this is a problem. For those harping on how schools will be overrun with rat racers who have no personality and own interests/brain, you are basically saying you don't think Asians are capable of being well rounded human beings. That is not only racist but goes against the findings in the Harvard case, which was that the Asian applicants scored higher across all categories, including extracurriculars and personality. The admissions office simply overrode the true personality scores by people who actually met the applicants and made up their own.

There are important factors to admission in addition to scores. Harvard wants diversity of thought and experience. If it looks like every Asian student is the same, how does that add to the student body?

If Harvard wants diversity of thought, then they will seek to admit students who think differently. Why is that hard to do without discriminating by race?

They don't want diversity of thought. They don't consider that "diversity."
Diversity is defined by skin color, according to liberals.
Not thought. Not socioeconomic status. Not anything but skin color.

That’s nonsense. You obviously have never been on an Ivy campus. In student life, there is much more interest and engagement in their diverse interests and intellectual pursuits than in their racial or ethnic backgrounds. Only the parents and political demagogues fixate on race. Not the schools or the students.

Wrong. The Admission Officers are the ones who are fixated on race. This is exactly why we are where we are.

That is not true. Some look for a women's college, Christian college, African American college, jesush college, etc. But many students look for a diverse community for college and want to study in that environment.

[Anonymous]

Jewish* college