Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a school wanted their student body to be reflective of demographics in the United States, would that be discriminatory?

If you discriminated individuals based on their race, that's discriminatory.

Hopefully their student body would have a strong international group too. US schools will continue to become more popular abroad, especially in China and India where populations and wealth have been growing. The current discussion has been focused on American groups but that will only be part of the future admissions wise.

That seems like a problem that can be solved by visa restrictions

Are they looking for attention to stay relevant? I don't get apologizing for something that happened 70 years ago and I'm Jewish. Most schools still have quota's, many government and private industry jobs also still have it so how is it any different. When I worked for county government many years ago it was clear not to hire whites if possible and hire minorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Umm, No it's not. Correlation is not causation. It may be something else.  You need to point out what part of policy is biased rather than being vague.  
If there is bias, fixt that problem rather than discriminating. 

Sorry to do this, but umm yes it is. The result indicates there is a problem. Unless you think certain races are just naturally less able then others. Go ahead, go there if you want.

Then fix the process rather than discriminating. How are tests biased to give Asians advantage?  by valuing Math? Again don't be vague.

Sure, fix the test. Or discount it. Guess which one is easier for the colleges, and is happening.

It's the method. If you discriminate against individuals because of their race, that's racism and against the law.

Yes, correct, and that's why there is no "don't admit Asians" policy at any college.

It does discriminate against individuals in the name of diversity or racial balance/quota.  

Really? So Asians are discriminated against when they apply to, say, Washington & Lee? Or Howard? Or BYU?

LMAO big failure.
The difference is only in your head and you seem delusional  
They are exactly the same shit. Where are you trying to go with this nonsense? Affirmative action is not ok but artificail racial balance is good???

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented, such as education and employment.

No they are not the same thing, they are done differently and for different reasons. Again, if you can't understand that difference, you either are choosing not to or are incapable of it. I guess the former.

1. The result doesn't indicate the source of the problem. Maybe certain minority groups value success more in the sports and entertainment industry. 
Asians are underrepresented in sports.  Do we need racial balancing in the sports industry?
Do you think that's because Asians are physically inferior?  Go ahead, go there if you want.

2. Tests were introduced actually to help socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
According to MIT, "Our research shows standardized tests help us better assess the academic preparedness of all applicants, and also help us identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students who lack access to advanced coursework or other enrichment opportunities that would otherwise demonstrate their readiness for MIT. We believe a requirement is more equitable and transparent than a test-optional policy -- our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT is significantly improved by considering standardized testing — especially in mathematics — alongside other factors" 

If there was a bias, it needs to be fixed.  It's far from perfect, it can always improve.
Schools begin to reinstate tests required and more students are submitting Test scores than last two years. 

3. You can still discriminate against Asians without a "don't admit Asians" policy like Harvard automatically giving 0 points in personality labelling them robots just because they are Asian.

4. If W&L, Howard, Or BYU are not practicing racial discrimination, that's good. Other schools should follow them. 

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
"Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented, such as education and employment."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a school wanted their student body to be reflective of demographics in the United States, would that be discriminatory?

If you discriminated individuals based on their race, that's discriminatory.

I am not the PP but I would like you to answer the question.

Anonymous wrote:What percent of the US is Asian American? 7%?

The U.S. makes it difficult for many to immigrate here.. Unlike 100-400 years ago when we accepted boats full of illiterate white people.

Anonymous wrote:If a school wanted their student body to be reflective of demographics in the United States, would that be discriminatory?

Well, for elite schools, that would involve sharp limits on the number of Jewish students. After Stanford instituted discriminatory measures, there was still an overrepresentation of Jewish students, it just wasn't as large. This was, of course, the worst thing ever, because Jews have charming, quirky personalities whereas Asians are robots programmed by tiger moms. Or so Stanford admissions would argue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so woke. Why are they apologizing for something that occurred 70 years ago?

what is the right time to apologize for something so egregious?

The US apologized formerly to Japanese Americans who were placed in interment camps almost 40 years later.
East Germany apologized to Jews in 1990 - 45 years after the end of WWII.

The Japanese government have never officially apologized for their war mongering, enslaving and forced prostitution of women across Asia. A lot of Asians still harbor deep resentment of the Japanese over the fact that the Japanese government still refuses to acknowledge what they did in the early 1900s to the end of WWII.

It is never too late to apologize for systemic racism.

None of the administrators at Stanford now were in charge when this occurred. They probably were still kids themselves. What’s the point of apologizing? They didn’t do it. Are they enrolling these now 80 year olds at Stanford? This is just performative wokeism.

Apologies matter. If your kid does something wrong, I hope you teach them to apologize. Even if there is no remedy. Sometimes the act of taking responsibility is enough. Apologies are not “woke”. Or if they are what you call “woke”, we should all be more woke.

My kids apologize for things they do. They don’t apologize for things they didn’t do.

Stanford apologized for what it did.

Administrators at Stanford apologized for what previous administrators did seventy years ago. So according to your logic that’s sufficient? The people who actually did it never apologized. And nothing else is being done.

As I said - performative wokeism.

Oh you didn't see this
"Countries, corporations, institutions are legal entities like people.
Every cell in your body is completely renewed in 7 years, but you are still you after 7 years."

So Stanford is Stanford regardless the administrators.
Harvard got sued not the individual administrators.

Harvard is sued because its current administrators are actively practicing discrimination in college admission.

again Harvard is sued not the current administrators.
If all the current administrators resigned, and we had whole new administrators, the lawsuit agains Harvard continues.

which is still irrelevant. Harvard isn't going to apologize in either situation. This is not about legal liability, it's about the necessity/use of apologizing for it.

The point is administrators are not what defines the entity whether Standford or Harvard, or whether apologized or sued.

What percent of the US is Asian American? 7%?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so woke. Why are they apologizing for something that occurred 70 years ago?

what is the right time to apologize for something so egregious?

The US apologized formerly to Japanese Americans who were placed in interment camps almost 40 years later.
East Germany apologized to Jews in 1990 - 45 years after the end of WWII.

The Japanese government have never officially apologized for their war mongering, enslaving and forced prostitution of women across Asia. A lot of Asians still harbor deep resentment of the Japanese over the fact that the Japanese government still refuses to acknowledge what they did in the early 1900s to the end of WWII.

It is never too late to apologize for systemic racism.

None of the administrators at Stanford now were in charge when this occurred. They probably were still kids themselves. What’s the point of apologizing? They didn’t do it. Are they enrolling these now 80 year olds at Stanford? This is just performative wokeism.

Apologies matter. If your kid does something wrong, I hope you teach them to apologize. Even if there is no remedy. Sometimes the act of taking responsibility is enough. Apologies are not “woke”. Or if they are what you call “woke”, we should all be more woke.

My kids apologize for things they do. They don’t apologize for things they didn’t do.

Stanford apologized for what it did.

Administrators at Stanford apologized for what previous administrators did seventy years ago. So according to your logic that’s sufficient? The people who actually did it never apologized. And nothing else is being done.

As I said - performative wokeism.

Oh you didn't see this
"Countries, corporations, institutions are legal entities like people.
Every cell in your body is completely renewed in 7 years, but you are still you after 7 years."

So Stanford is Stanford regardless the administrators.
Harvard got sued not the individual administrators.

Harvard is sued because its current administrators are actively practicing discrimination in college admission.

again Harvard is sued not the current administrators.
If all the current administrators resigned, and we had whole new administrators, the lawsuit agains Harvard continues.

which is still irrelevant. Harvard isn't going to apologize in either situation. This is not about legal liability, it's about the necessity/use of apologizing for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a school wanted their student body to be reflective of demographics in the United States, would that be discriminatory?

If you discriminated individuals based on their race, that's discriminatory.

Hopefully their student body would have a strong international group too. US schools will continue to become more popular abroad, especially in China and India where populations and wealth have been growing. The current discussion has been focused on American groups but that will only be part of the future admissions wise.

You can easily create law to limit % of international students for US colleges recveiving any sort of benefit from State or Federal governments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/education-stanford-university-bce7f81c2d8f953ac18f034401546f2e

Schools are still limiting Asian sutdents today.

Apology to Asian Americans coming in 2090.

Some Jewish people will have to do some apologizing too, hopefully before then.

LOL I clicked to say exactly that. When is the apology to asians coming

For what? For not having 100% Asian population because they could if they just looked at stats?

Their academic excellence is a direct result of immigration discrimination against them. So the answer is not more discrimination, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a school wanted their student body to be reflective of demographics in the United States, would that be discriminatory?

If you discriminated individuals based on their race, that's discriminatory.

Hopefully their student body would have a strong international group too. US schools will continue to become more popular abroad, especially in China and India where populations and wealth have been growing. The current discussion has been focused on American groups but that will only be part of the future admissions wise.

When do Jews get their reparations? I assume after the African Americans?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so woke. Why are they apologizing for something that occurred 70 years ago?

what is the right time to apologize for something so egregious?

The US apologized formerly to Japanese Americans who were placed in interment camps almost 40 years later.
East Germany apologized to Jews in 1990 - 45 years after the end of WWII.

The Japanese government have never officially apologized for their war mongering, enslaving and forced prostitution of women across Asia. A lot of Asians still harbor deep resentment of the Japanese over the fact that the Japanese government still refuses to acknowledge what they did in the early 1900s to the end of WWII.

It is never too late to apologize for systemic racism.

None of the administrators at Stanford now were in charge when this occurred. They probably were still kids themselves. What’s the point of apologizing? They didn’t do it. Are they enrolling these now 80 year olds at Stanford? This is just performative wokeism.

Apologies matter. If your kid does something wrong, I hope you teach them to apologize. Even if there is no remedy. Sometimes the act of taking responsibility is enough. Apologies are not “woke”. Or if they are what you call “woke”, we should all be more woke.

My kids apologize for things they do. They don’t apologize for things they didn’t do.

Stanford apologized for what it did.

Administrators at Stanford apologized for what previous administrators did seventy years ago. So according to your logic that’s sufficient? The people who actually did it never apologized. And nothing else is being done.

As I said - performative wokeism.

Oh you didn't see this
"Countries, corporations, institutions are legal entities like people.
Every cell in your body is completely renewed in 7 years, but you are still you after 7 years."

So Stanford is Stanford regardless the administrators.
Harvard got sued not the individual administrators.

Harvard is sued because its current administrators are actively practicing discrimination in college admission.

again Harvard is sued not the current administrators.
If all the current administrators resigned, and we had whole new administrators, the lawsuit agains Harvard continues.

Anonymous wrote:If a school wanted their student body to be reflective of demographics in the United States, would that be discriminatory?

If you discriminated individuals based on their race, that's discriminatory.