Reply to Harvard’s loss was Boston College’s gain

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Harvard’s loss was Boston College’s gain"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This should not come as a surprise to anyone.  The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life.  If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent[/quote]

So you were cool with overt racial discrimination directed at your kids?

What is it that makes him anti-brown, other than being against pro-brown racism?
Ed Blum is at it again, this time he is going after legacy admissions.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be[/quote]

If you are genuinely asking, I am pro affirmative action, yes.  Having a diverse student population makes the learning environment richer for all of our kids.

Ed Blum's racist/white supremacist views are well-known - before he pursued the SFFA case with Asian American plaintiffs, he tried to bring cases against universities on behalf of white students on a "reverse discrimination" argument and lost those cases.

For everyone here who is saying that Asian Americans are overrepresented at top colleges compared to the U.S. population, you are not considering how the acceptances compare to the number of applications received from various racial groups at these schools. [b] The Harvard evidence shows that they receive so many applicants from Asian Americans, the schools need to engage in subtle racism - e.g., giving Asian Americans a lower score on personality, character, etc. - in order to justify keeping out a lot of very qualified students.[/b][/quote]

The Harvard evidence shows no such thing. Harvard was found not to have discriminated against Asians, the finding was held up on appeal, and it wasn't argued as part of the Supreme Court review.[/quote]

DP
Harvard admitted to discriminating it was part of their holistic process, the trial court found that their discrimination was within constitutionally permitted bounds of Gratz and Grutter.
The question before the court was whether it was constitutionally permissible discrimination, not whether or not there was any discrimination.[/quote]

They did not. They actually argued that the seeming discrimination shown by Arcidiacono's model didn't exist because the model didn't adequately cover all of the admissions factors. [b]The rebuttal by Card was a far better analysis and demonstrated convincingly that there was no discrimination.[/b] You are correct in that they also argued that if there was any inadvertent discrimination it was within the bounds of Grutter. The finding was for Harvard on every single point.

The question before the court was that any preference involving race violated the equal protection clause.  SFFA didn't care about Asians at all, they actually first tried to find white plaintiffs but couldn't. They didn't care about winning against Harvard either. The entire point was to create a vehicle which would survive long enough to get the equal protection argument in front of the Supreme Court.[/quote]

I'm not sure professor Card even believed his own argument.  
He certainly hasn't been willing to defend them publicly despite being invited to discuss his conclusions.
Arcidiacono on the other hand seems to be willing to answer questions about his analysis.

It was not a difficult analysis, the discrimination was extremely obvious.[/quote]

Card is a Titan in the field, he wouldn’t have done the work if he wasn’t confident in the results. He has both the John Bates Clark and the Nobel prize, the two highest awards in his field. Arcidiacono is an excellent economist but he is also much more of an ideologue. I like the focus of much of his work but his SFFA work wasn’t particularly compelling. Arcidiacono had to make some contorted arguments and exclusions to make his numbers work and it wasn’t hard for Card to build a more complex model which disproved Arcidiacono’s efforts. This shouldn’t be surprising since he had access to far more data, just like the Harvard AO did.

SFFA didn’t win on the merits, they won because they had the right bench. Once the court composition changes a vehicle will be found to get back in front of the court and SFFA v Harvard will be overturned.

[/quote]

DP.

[b]“Once the court composition changes”? You mean decades from now?[/b]

Not to mention the fact that even with a more moderate composition, SCOTUS had begun choking on affirmative action. Sandra Day barely eked out 5 votes in Grutter in 2003.

Race-based admission/hiring is not coming back any time soon, if ever.
[/quote]

Yea, it could be a decade or even longer but I do not think that it is decided. I'm also not saying that I agree but rather that we haven't seen the end of it. Could also happen sooner due to the behavior of the current administration making an even larger segment of the population question the legitamacy of the court. I don't think that the democrats will hesitate on packing the court if they get all three branches again.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics