SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the ruling. The open racism
against Asian students boggled my mind. There has also been a large anti white male issue happening and now less white males even go to college than before.The differences in criteria have been unfair. You even see this in kids who grew up on same street and parents make same money but are various ethnicities. Like many things people push things until enough people say no. I do think the SAT will be gone soon because schools will look to find away around this. FWIW I always thought the SAT was also unfair because you need to spend so much money in tutoring and for every genius that doesn’t need it you have thousands more kids who need the tutoring to get over these crazy scores.

Many people don't want to admit that Asians, as a group, are very smart. Their intelligence shows up at a very ypung age in preschool and elementary school settings, long before private tutoring or SAT prep.

It’s not even all intelligence related. 99% of your child’s success is due to PARENTING and taking personal responsibility. Asians just have better familial structure, value education more, and respect laws and norms a lot more than most other groups. People don’t want to admit it but it’s true. Go travel to Asian countries where societies are rigid but crime is very low and they push their kids’ educations hard. You don’t see many a Asian parents letting their kids roam like wild animals in the streets at 10 pm on a school night then whine later they need special treatment for getting into college after they get poor grades due to ‘lack of opportunities’. No, maybe you had piss poor grades because your parents suck, let you roam the streets at 10 pm, and skipped school 40% of the time. Parents need to do better rather than ask for handicaps.

Funny you say that because I live in a 50 percent Indian community, and this single black lady went nuts because an Indian lady asked her kids not to play in her yard at 11 pm. The kids were being loud and bringing their dogs into the yard. The lady lashed out online saying no one can even speak to her kids and they need to come directly to her. This is a new community, and no one knows each other. Poor manners on the black ladies' part. Way to laminate yourself from the neighborhood. Another black family just got busted for drug dealing. I've never seen that with Indians.

Yes, she must have behaved that way because of the color of her skin and not some other reason. But hey, you know all single black women and their kids so you must have an insight into why she acted that way. I say, publish that insightful data of yours so we can all be similarly enlightened. And shout out to the Indian motherland for being a drug-free country because Indians don't sell or consume drugs.

lol... yea it's the skin color that caused the "black ladies' poor manners". God help these mindless bigots.

Skin color of culture, whatever it is, people here are making the same racial stereotypes about Asian kids and personality, so....if you want to reject one, you better reject the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

lol. you must not live in reality. sure we sent out emails and had town hall discussions. we offered sensitivity training and people complained. What happened is that many of the talented staff that felt like they should have been picked, left. when so much turnover happens, sometimes you get toxic leaders that won't do anything. I'm a senior manager, not a VP or partner. A few of my peers who pushed a little too hard are no longer here. I'm 3 years from retiring. so I'm not trying to go anywhere else and start over. so I do for my division and it stops there.

If people are in uproar because people with less tenure and less qualifications were promoted ahead of them, that is understandable uproar. If people are in uproar for no other reason other than the skin color of those promoted ahead of them, that is bigotry and no one should hesitate to call that out.

Lol. Don’t assume the folks that got promoted were less qualified. I’m here to tell you, they were not. And yes, sometimes bad promotion decisions are made. I notice that when it’s a person of color, people are so pissed. I’m a white manager and I can tell you a number of white people f up too! But people seem extend more grace. There is a limit to that. But they get more than people of color. I also see that people at my firm think hitting sales goals is the only qualification for promotion. Of course, we want you to bring in business. But if they leave because you suck at client relations…And of course we tell people this all the time.

For example, one of my white male consultants got upset because I promoted an Indian woman to senior. He thought because he exceeded sales targets for 3 consecutive years he was set. That is a big deal. BUT, he treated junior staff like crap. I had to counsel him a couple times. He got better, but still struggles. Also, he’s gotten us into a few pickles with the client. The Indian woman I promoted, met, but did not significantly exceeded her sales targets. Yet, she is FANTASTIC with the client and junior staff and contributes to internal stewardship activities So while I’d love to promote the white guy because he’s consistently exceeds sales targets by 10+ percent, he’s not ready. I assigned him a coach. His coach refused to work with him after 2 months because “he’s a mister know it all.” Yet, he complains about all the women and other minorities that get promoted over him. Yeah if you only look at sales goals, then it may seem that way. But we have 4 metrics. And some years the metrics are not always equal. Businesses are dynamic. Needs change because clients have different demands. One year sales may be the top qualifier and the next year it can be less important. We have career workshops to explain this to people. But when you feel that everyone is inferior then it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:getting rid of affirmative action is not going to stop white people from thinking people of color are taking their spots. As a black person, I got a 168 on my LSAT. had a 3.8 GPA, worked 4 campus jobs, worked an internship EVERY summer and I still got shady comments from white students how they would be screwed compared to me because they were not minority. As if my qualifications were less. some of the folks saying this didn't even crack 160 or have a 3.5 GPA and barely did 1 internship.

In law school I was in top 8% of my class. but folks swore I was at the bottom taking job offers from y'all. 14 years into my career I'm a partner at a big law firm. Y'all would assume it is only for diversity reasons and overlook all the cases I won, big business I brought in and top billing. It's funny how folks use to clutch their pearls in disbelief that I was in the top 3 producing associates 7 consecutive years. Like it wasn't possible for a black person to do this. no matter what the merits are, white people love to ASSUME that no one else could ever possibly achieve more than them. So even without AA folks will still find a way to complain about people of color taking their jobs or getting into top universities.

You did this under an affirmative action regime, both at schools and law firms and other companies. We don't know what would happen if affirmative action were gone, but I would expect there would be less of this assuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

+100. Is the supreme court going to try to undermine women’s progress next in relation to college admission and employment?

Women do better and get better grades now in school, so if there is to be sex based affirmative action, it would be for the boys.

Not every woman does. Just in the same way a minority could be the most qualified on merit alone. Stop the bs people.

[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.

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?

You say that Asian students are not a monolith but you assume every Asian student was discrinated against because they were rejected by Harvard? Make it make sense.

PP is not saying they were discriminated against. And, pp is not saying ALL Asian students are discriminated against.
The reason the law was changed was because the Supreme Court found that Asian students were discriminated against. Based on the evidence presented to the court. And, they were. Just as they are at other schools. And, not only universities.

Oh please. The SC wanted to get rid of affirmative action and put a target on the backs of Asian kids. Why is it that most Asian students at Harvard did not agree with this case, nor did any of the Asian civil rights groups. They knew that Asians were being used.

+1. South Asian here. Expect to see the right-wing now turn against the Asians and claim that they make universities "too competitive". One only needs to look at the Real Estate Forum and see how people are uncomfortable with the growing Indian communities in eastern Loudoun County.

This is exactly what's going to happen. A few Asians decided to be used by the right wing and then will be discarded by the right wing. They got what they wanted and used Asians to get it. They only cared about getting rid of affirmative action. They would have used anyone to do it. The SC could care less about Asian students.

Will the left wing go after their votes by not discriminating against Asians? Republicans in the Senate had an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminate against Asians. Every Democrat voted no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the ruling. The open racism
against Asian students boggled my mind. There has also been a large anti white male issue happening and now less white males even go to college than before.The differences in criteria have been unfair. You even see this in kids who grew up on same street and parents make same money but are various ethnicities. Like many things people push things until enough people say no. I do think the SAT will be gone soon because schools will look to find away around this. FWIW I always thought the SAT was also unfair because you need to spend so much money in tutoring and for every genius that doesn’t need it you have thousands more kids who need the tutoring to get over these crazy scores.

Many people don't want to admit that Asians, as a group, are very smart. Their intelligence shows up at a very ypung age in preschool and elementary school settings, long before private tutoring or SAT prep.

It’s not even all intelligence related. 99% of your child’s success is due to PARENTING and taking personal responsibility. Asians just have better familial structure, value education more, and respect laws and norms a lot more than most other groups. People don’t want to admit it but it’s true. Go travel to Asian countries where societies are rigid but crime is very low and they push their kids’ educations hard. You don’t see many a Asian parents letting their kids roam like wild animals in the streets at 10 pm on a school night then whine later they need special treatment for getting into college after they get poor grades due to ‘lack of opportunities’. No, maybe you had piss poor grades because your parents suck, let you roam the streets at 10 pm, and skipped school 40% of the time. Parents need to do better rather than ask for handicaps.

Funny you say that because I live in a 50 percent Indian community, and this single black lady went nuts because an Indian lady asked her kids not to play in her yard at 11 pm. The kids were being loud and bringing their dogs into the yard. The lady lashed out online saying no one can even speak to her kids and they need to come directly to her. This is a new community, and no one knows each other. Poor manners on the black ladies' part. Way to laminate yourself from the neighborhood. Another black family just got busted for drug dealing. I've never seen that with Indians.

Yes, she must have behaved that way because of the color of her skin and not some other reason. But hey, you know all single black women and their kids so you must have an insight into why she acted that way. I say, publish that insightful data of yours so we can all be similarly enlightened. And shout out to the Indian motherland for being a drug-free country because Indians don't sell or consume drugs.

lol... yea it's the skin color that caused the "black ladies' poor manners". God help these mindless bigots.

Skin color of culture, whatever it is, people here are making the same racial stereotypes about Asian kids and personality, so....if you want to reject one, you better reject the other.

How 'bout we love and accept all? It's ok to be different.

[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?

You say that Asian students are not a monolith but you assume every Asian student was discrinated against because they were rejected by Harvard? Make it make sense.

PP is not saying they were discriminated against. And, pp is not saying ALL Asian students are discriminated against.
The reason the law was changed was because the Supreme Court found that Asian students were discriminated against. Based on the evidence presented to the court. And, they were. Just as they are at other schools. And, not only universities.

Oh please. The SC wanted to get rid of affirmative action and put a target on the backs of Asian kids. Why is it that most Asian students at Harvard did not agree with this case, nor did any of the Asian civil rights groups. They knew that Asians were being used.

+1. South Asian here. Expect to see the right-wing now turn against the Asians and claim that they make universities "too competitive". One only needs to look at the Real Estate Forum and see how people are uncomfortable with the growing Indian communities in eastern Loudoun County.

This is exactly what's going to happen. A few Asians decided to be used by the right wing and then will be discarded by the right wing. They got what they wanted and used Asians to get it. They only cared about getting rid of affirmative action. They would have used anyone to do it. The SC could care less about Asian students.

This is exactly right. Anyone who thinks that this case sprang up organically from a group of aggrieved Asian students who were denied admission to Harvard or elsewhere is mistaken. That was my assumption too until I read the backstory on Edward Blum and his group, Students for Fair Admissions, which is the entity that brought forward the case. Before he took on the issue of affirmative action and Asians, he tried it with a white female student (Fisher vs. University of Texas) and lost. Lest you think he only cares about what he perceives as the injustice of AA, he has also gone after voting rights laws across the country, including a suit contesting parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which he won. Even if you agree with the SC's ruling, it's always interesting to know what is behind SC cases. So, in summary, this wasn't really about Asians.

Except for the part where colleges held down the number of Asian admits, with Harvard boosting its percentage from below 20 to close to 30 with this lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

lol. you must not live in reality. sure we sent out emails and had town hall discussions. we offered sensitivity training and people complained. What happened is that many of the talented staff that felt like they should have been picked, left. when so much turnover happens, sometimes you get toxic leaders that won't do anything. I'm a senior manager, not a VP or partner. A few of my peers who pushed a little too hard are no longer here. I'm 3 years from retiring. so I'm not trying to go anywhere else and start over. so I do for my division and it stops there.

If people are in uproar because people with less tenure and less qualifications were promoted ahead of them, that is understandable uproar. If people are in uproar for no other reason other than the skin color of those promoted ahead of them, that is bigotry and no one should hesitate to call that out.

People get angry because you never know when someone was hired under affirmative action or a diversity quota. No one comes out and says "thanks for applying, but we needed 2 POC and 3 women." Now that affirmative action is gone, it will be blatantly racist to claim a black person got into Harvard due to their skin color.

I can't wait to see what the racial composition will be for Harvard's 2024 incoming freshman class.

[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.

Design me a quota without using the word quota.

At certain points in the admission process they would review the number for each race, and if a race was too low they reevaluated applications from that race.
They would have a final group that they would then have to lop off about 20%, and race was one of four factors highlighted for each applicant, alongside legacy, financial aid, athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:getting rid of affirmative action is not going to stop white people from thinking people of color are taking their spots. As a black person, I got a 168 on my LSAT. had a 3.8 GPA, worked 4 campus jobs, worked an internship EVERY summer and I still got shady comments from white students how they would be screwed compared to me because they were not minority. As if my qualifications were less. some of the folks saying this didn't even crack 160 or have a 3.5 GPA and barely did 1 internship.

In law school I was in top 8% of my class. but folks swore I was at the bottom taking job offers from y'all. 14 years into my career I'm a partner at a big law firm. Y'all would assume it is only for diversity reasons and overlook all the cases I won, big business I brought in and top billing. It's funny how folks use to clutch their pearls in disbelief that I was in the top 3 producing associates 7 consecutive years. Like it wasn't possible for a black person to do this. no matter what the merits are, white people love to ASSUME that no one else could ever possibly achieve more than them. So even without AA folks will still find a way to complain about people of color taking their jobs or getting into top universities.

I can identify with your story. 20 years ago, I interned for a federal agency in D.C. At the end of the internship, each intern had to present their project to the senior leadership, management and other analyst in the division--about 200 people. I put a lot of thought and prep work into my presentation--as I did throughout my internship. On a Monday morning I was chatting with a colleague (new analyst) that sat in the cubicle across from me. She was a white woman and always pleasant to me. We had our normal "what did you do this weekend" conversation at 8am. I told her I spent the weekend in the office preparing for my presentation and was nervous etc. She said "you'll do fine. besides, it doesn't matter. the federal government needs minorities anyway. you've got the right skin color. so you can fail the presentation. you'll still get a job offer." What a horrible thing to say. She completely ignored my work ethic and the great job I was doing. and it was in that moment that I realized it doesn't matter how hard I work. everyone will assume my success is because of affirmative action. And it was also at that moment I had to learn to let it go because that's heavy mental crap to carry forward. So like the other poster said--I now don't care what people think. anyone who cares can read my stats and know you can't get that by just having a dark skin tone.

That was what Clarence Thomas has been saying in his decisions for years, that affirmative action itself gives a stigma to minorities.

[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?

You say that Asian students are not a monolith but you assume every Asian student was discrinated against because they were rejected by Harvard? Make it make sense.

PP is not saying they were discriminated against. And, pp is not saying ALL Asian students are discriminated against.
The reason the law was changed was because the Supreme Court found that Asian students were discriminated against. Based on the evidence presented to the court. And, they were. Just as they are at other schools. And, not only universities.

Oh please. The SC wanted to get rid of affirmative action and put a target on the backs of Asian kids. Why is it that most Asian students at Harvard did not agree with this case, nor did any of the Asian civil rights groups. They knew that Asians were being used.

+1. South Asian here. Expect to see the right-wing now turn against the Asians and claim that they make universities "too competitive". One only needs to look at the Real Estate Forum and see how people are uncomfortable with the growing Indian communities in eastern Loudoun County.

This is exactly what's going to happen. A few Asians decided to be used by the right wing and then will be discarded by the right wing. They got what they wanted and used Asians to get it. They only cared about getting rid of affirmative action. They would have used anyone to do it. The SC could care less about Asian students.

Will the left wing go after their votes by not discriminating against Asians? Republicans in the Senate had an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminate against Asians. Every Democrat voted no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

No one ever said Obama's kids should get preferential treatment or anyone else should get preferential treatment because of skin color. At least I hope they didn't! If they did, the racists are coming out of the closet.

That's what the case was about. There are a few people arguing that Harvard wasn't discriminating by race, but the court record established that it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:getting rid of affirmative action is not going to stop white people from thinking people of color are taking their spots. As a black person, I got a 168 on my LSAT. had a 3.8 GPA, worked 4 campus jobs, worked an internship EVERY summer and I still got shady comments from white students how they would be screwed compared to me because they were not minority. As if my qualifications were less. some of the folks saying this didn't even crack 160 or have a 3.5 GPA and barely did 1 internship.

In law school I was in top 8% of my class. but folks swore I was at the bottom taking job offers from y'all. 14 years into my career I'm a partner at a big law firm. Y'all would assume it is only for diversity reasons and overlook all the cases I won, big business I brought in and top billing. It's funny how folks use to clutch their pearls in disbelief that I was in the top 3 producing associates 7 consecutive years. Like it wasn't possible for a black person to do this. no matter what the merits are, white people love to ASSUME that no one else could ever possibly achieve more than them. So even without AA folks will still find a way to complain about people of color taking their jobs or getting into top universities.

You did this under an affirmative action regime, both at schools and law firms and other companies. We don't know what would happen if affirmative action were gone, but I would expect there would be less of this assuming.

It’s easier to point the finger than to look in the mirror and face the fact that you may not be the best in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

lol. you must not live in reality. sure we sent out emails and had town hall discussions. we offered sensitivity training and people complained. What happened is that many of the talented staff that felt like they should have been picked, left. when so much turnover happens, sometimes you get toxic leaders that won't do anything. I'm a senior manager, not a VP or partner. A few of my peers who pushed a little too hard are no longer here. I'm 3 years from retiring. so I'm not trying to go anywhere else and start over. so I do for my division and it stops there.

If people are in uproar because people with less tenure and less qualifications were promoted ahead of them, that is understandable uproar. If people are in uproar for no other reason other than the skin color of those promoted ahead of them, that is bigotry and no one should hesitate to call that out.

Lol. Don’t assume the folks that got promoted were less qualified. I’m here to tell you, they were not. And yes, sometimes bad promotion decisions are made. I notice that when it’s a person of color, people are so pissed. I’m a white manager and I can tell you a number of white people f up too! But people seem extend more grace. There is a limit to that. But they get more than people of color. I also see that people at my firm think hitting sales goals is the only qualification for promotion. Of course, we want you to bring in business. But if they leave because you suck at client relations…And of course we tell people this all the time.

For example, one of my white male consultants got upset because I promoted an Indian woman to senior. He thought because he exceeded sales targets for 3 consecutive years he was set. That is a big deal. BUT, he treated junior staff like crap. I had to counsel him a couple times. He got better, but still struggles. Also, he’s gotten us into a few pickles with the client. The Indian woman I promoted, met, but did not significantly exceeded her sales targets. Yet, she is FANTASTIC with the client and junior staff and contributes to internal stewardship activities So while I’d love to promote the white guy because he’s consistently exceeds sales targets by 10+ percent, he’s not ready. I assigned him a coach. His coach refused to work with him after 2 months because “he’s a mister know it all.” Yet, he complains about all the women and other minorities that get promoted over him. Yeah if you only look at sales goals, then it may seem that way. But we have 4 metrics. And some years the metrics are not always equal. Businesses are dynamic. Needs change because clients have different demands. One year sales may be the top qualifier and the next year it can be less important. We have career workshops to explain this to people. But when you feel that everyone is inferior then it doesn’t matter.

The point is that it is plausible that someone is hired over you to satisfy affirmative action or diversity because those programs exist but no one announces such and such is simply a diversity hire. When those programs are gone then assuming numerous different people of varying backgrounds being hired over you due to affirmative action will be a racist conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:getting rid of affirmative action is not going to stop white people from thinking people of color are taking their spots. As a black person, I got a 168 on my LSAT. had a 3.8 GPA, worked 4 campus jobs, worked an internship EVERY summer and I still got shady comments from white students how they would be screwed compared to me because they were not minority. As if my qualifications were less. some of the folks saying this didn't even crack 160 or have a 3.5 GPA and barely did 1 internship.

In law school I was in top 8% of my class. but folks swore I was at the bottom taking job offers from y'all. 14 years into my career I'm a partner at a big law firm. Y'all would assume it is only for diversity reasons and overlook all the cases I won, big business I brought in and top billing. It's funny how folks use to clutch their pearls in disbelief that I was in the top 3 producing associates 7 consecutive years. Like it wasn't possible for a black person to do this. no matter what the merits are, white people love to ASSUME that no one else could ever possibly achieve more than them. So even without AA folks will still find a way to complain about people of color taking their jobs or getting into top universities.

I can identify with your story. 20 years ago, I interned for a federal agency in D.C. At the end of the internship, each intern had to present their project to the senior leadership, management and other analyst in the division--about 200 people. I put a lot of thought and prep work into my presentation--as I did throughout my internship. On a Monday morning I was chatting with a colleague (new analyst) that sat in the cubicle across from me. She was a white woman and always pleasant to me. We had our normal "what did you do this weekend" conversation at 8am. I told her I spent the weekend in the office preparing for my presentation and was nervous etc. She said "you'll do fine. besides, it doesn't matter. the federal government needs minorities anyway. you've got the right skin color. so you can fail the presentation. you'll still get a job offer." What a horrible thing to say. She completely ignored my work ethic and the great job I was doing. and it was in that moment that I realized it doesn't matter how hard I work. everyone will assume my success is because of affirmative action. And it was also at that moment I had to learn to let it go because that's heavy mental crap to carry forward. So like the other poster said--I now don't care what people think. anyone who cares can read my stats and know you can't get that by just having a dark skin tone.

That was what Clarence Thomas has been saying in his decisions for years, that affirmative action itself gives a stigma to minorities.

Only a man suffering from a massive I ferioe complex would make this statement. It's mainly white people, and now Asians, who are stigmatizing minorities. Don't blame the victims of the stigma, blame the perpetrator.