Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mean to sound rude but who cares? I will be perfectly honest that in my view, the goal of affirmative action is to fix the systemic injustices created by slavery (and other racial injustices) where those injustices still exist for minority groups. If one particular minority group is no longer impacted by the past injustices perpetrated against them, then that is not a reason to scrap a policy that helps other minority groups. No longer benefiting from a particular policy aimed to increase social justice and right the past errors that created those injustices is not a reason to throw out the policy as a whole.

yeah but you can't fix one injustice with another injustice. as one of SCOTUS said, when is it enough? how do you know when to stop?

What’s the injustice? That Asian Americans get into a particular school at rates well above their representation in the general population but may lose a few spots to other minorities? I don’t see that as an injustice.

Supreme Court is full of conservative hacks, so I am really not looking to them to provide a good insight into undoing systemic social injustices.

Why should a poor Asian child who is the most qualified lose their spot to a rich URM or a rich African immigrant? That isn’t righting ANY wrongs.

You have absolutely no knowledge that this is occurring.

Actually, it is a well known fact. “Seventy-one percent of Black, Latino, and Native American students at Harvard come from college-educated homes with incomes above the national median; such students are in roughly the most advantaged fifth of families of their own race.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/supreme-court-harvard-affirmative-action-legacy-admissions-equity/671869/

Many of the URM in the Ivy league are 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America. So these immigrant families have never experience the racism or injustice in the U.S. but they are taking advantage of the AA. Colleges only care about if you are a URM (not where your ancestral lineage is from) so they can check the boxes that they have certain % of URM in their class for diversity purpose.

Why do you say that the 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America are “taking advantage of the AA?”

I think your anger is misplaced. The kids cannot do anything about their race. It is up to the colleges to accept the right URMs — the ones whose ancestors were slaves.

This AGAIN shows how people don't understand why colleges seek racial balance in admissions. It is not a form of reparations or guilt.

The main reason they do it because if they are devoid of a certain race it is very difficult to get other students they want of that race to attend.

Many of you don't know this because you never read a book on the subject, or have spoken to a college administrator or admissions professional. If you did, you'd get it. But you won't because that will defeat your narrative.

The reality is that there are a limited number of spots, so deciding you need a critical mass of one racial group necessarily means making you you don’t have “too many” of another. That’s flatly illegal, and for good reasons.

Correction, Making sure you don’t have too many.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mean to sound rude but who cares? I will be perfectly honest that in my view, the goal of affirmative action is to fix the systemic injustices created by slavery (and other racial injustices) where those injustices still exist for minority groups. If one particular minority group is no longer impacted by the past injustices perpetrated against them, then that is not a reason to scrap a policy that helps other minority groups. No longer benefiting from a particular policy aimed to increase social justice and right the past errors that created those injustices is not a reason to throw out the policy as a whole.

yeah but you can't fix one injustice with another injustice. as one of SCOTUS said, when is it enough? how do you know when to stop?

What’s the injustice? That Asian Americans get into a particular school at rates well above their representation in the general population but may lose a few spots to other minorities? I don’t see that as an injustice.

Supreme Court is full of conservative hacks, so I am really not looking to them to provide a good insight into undoing systemic social injustices.

Why should a poor Asian child who is the most qualified lose their spot to a rich URM or a rich African immigrant? That isn’t righting ANY wrongs.

You have absolutely no knowledge that this is occurring.

Actually, it is a well known fact. “Seventy-one percent of Black, Latino, and Native American students at Harvard come from college-educated homes with incomes above the national median; such students are in roughly the most advantaged fifth of families of their own race.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/supreme-court-harvard-affirmative-action-legacy-admissions-equity/671869/

Many of the URM in the Ivy league are 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America. So these immigrant families have never experience the racism or injustice in the U.S. but they are taking advantage of the AA. Colleges only care about if you are a URM (not where your ancestral lineage is from) so they can check the boxes that they have certain % of URM in their class for diversity purpose.

Why do you say that the 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America are “taking advantage of the AA?”

I think your anger is misplaced. The kids cannot do anything about their race. It is up to the colleges to accept the right URMs — the ones whose ancestors were slaves.

This AGAIN shows how people don't understand why colleges seek racial balance in admissions. It is not a form of reparations or guilt.

The main reason they do it because if they are devoid of a certain race it is very difficult to get other students they want of that race to attend.

Many of you don't know this because you never read a book on the subject, or have spoken to a college administrator or admissions professional. If you did, you'd get it. But you won't because that will defeat your narrative.

The reality is that there are a limited number of spots, so deciding you need a critical mass of one racial group necessarily means making you you don’t have “too many” of another. That’s flatly illegal, and for good reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mean to sound rude but who cares? I will be perfectly honest that in my view, the goal of affirmative action is to fix the systemic injustices created by slavery (and other racial injustices) where those injustices still exist for minority groups. If one particular minority group is no longer impacted by the past injustices perpetrated against them, then that is not a reason to scrap a policy that helps other minority groups. No longer benefiting from a particular policy aimed to increase social justice and right the past errors that created those injustices is not a reason to throw out the policy as a whole.

yeah but you can't fix one injustice with another injustice. as one of SCOTUS said, when is it enough? how do you know when to stop?

What’s the injustice? That Asian Americans get into a particular school at rates well above their representation in the general population but may lose a few spots to other minorities? I don’t see that as an injustice.

Supreme Court is full of conservative hacks, so I am really not looking to them to provide a good insight into undoing systemic social injustices.

Why should a poor Asian child who is the most qualified lose their spot to a rich URM or a rich African immigrant? That isn’t righting ANY wrongs.

You have absolutely no knowledge that this is occurring.

Actually, it is a well known fact. “Seventy-one percent of Black, Latino, and Native American students at Harvard come from college-educated homes with incomes above the national median; such students are in roughly the most advantaged fifth of families of their own race.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/supreme-court-harvard-affirmative-action-legacy-admissions-equity/671869/

Many of the URM in the Ivy league are 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America. So these immigrant families have never experience the racism or injustice in the U.S. but they are taking advantage of the AA. Colleges only care about if you are a URM (not where your ancestral lineage is from) so they can check the boxes that they have certain % of URM in their class for diversity purpose.

Why do you say that the 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America are “taking advantage of the AA?”

I think your anger is misplaced. The kids cannot do anything about their race. It is up to the colleges to accept the right URMs — the ones whose ancestors were slaves.

This AGAIN shows how people don't understand why colleges seek racial balance in admissions. It is not a form of reparations or guilt.

The main reason they do it because if they are devoid of a certain race it is very difficult to get other students they want of that race to attend.

Many of you don't know this because you never read a book on the subject, or have spoken to a college administrator or admissions professional. If you did, you'd get it. But you won't because that will defeat your narrative.

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting how fervently people are against AA but not athletic recruiting and legacy admissions. So if rich white legacies and athletes are stealing you kid's spot its ok, but if the person is Black or Hispanic, that's a no go?

Is it so strange that some people perceive racial discrimination as a worse evil than garden-variety favoritism on other grounds? I would expect that to be a relatively common point of view. And no one would suggest it was not racial discrimination if Black applicants were being held to higher objective criteria, such as grades and test scores, to have a reasonable chance of admissions relative to other racial groups. Particularly if some sort of subjective “personality factor” was driving that outcome.

It all comes down to $$$$$. Legacy admission is about $ and donation from alumni. Ability for a kid to get into Ivy is many times base on the privilege of the family. If the family has $$, it doesn't matter what color they are, they will have a better chance with private schools, private tutors, and private counselor........ Asians tend to have a higher representation in elite schools due to a cultural emphasis on academics AND that Asians have the highest average income among all groups BUT that is all just stereotyping the group. The same can be said for other groups that raise their kids with high academic goals and the $ to fulfill those goals. Colleges should base the decision on the "family privilege" rather than skin color. This would allow poor whites (yes, there are more whites below the poverty line than other races) as well as other poor minorities to be judged on their achievement with limited $ privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mean to sound rude but who cares? I will be perfectly honest that in my view, the goal of affirmative action is to fix the systemic injustices created by slavery (and other racial injustices) where those injustices still exist for minority groups. If one particular minority group is no longer impacted by the past injustices perpetrated against them, then that is not a reason to scrap a policy that helps other minority groups. No longer benefiting from a particular policy aimed to increase social justice and right the past errors that created those injustices is not a reason to throw out the policy as a whole.

yeah but you can't fix one injustice with another injustice. as one of SCOTUS said, when is it enough? how do you know when to stop?

What’s the injustice? That Asian Americans get into a particular school at rates well above their representation in the general population but may lose a few spots to other minorities? I don’t see that as an injustice.

Supreme Court is full of conservative hacks, so I am really not looking to them to provide a good insight into undoing systemic social injustices.

Why should a poor Asian child who is the most qualified lose their spot to a rich URM or a rich African immigrant? That isn’t righting ANY wrongs.

You have absolutely no knowledge that this is occurring.

Actually, it is a well known fact. “Seventy-one percent of Black, Latino, and Native American students at Harvard come from college-educated homes with incomes above the national median; such students are in roughly the most advantaged fifth of families of their own race.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/supreme-court-harvard-affirmative-action-legacy-admissions-equity/671869/

Many of the URM in the Ivy league are 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America. So these immigrant families have never experience the racism or injustice in the U.S. but they are taking advantage of the AA. Colleges only care about if you are a URM (not where your ancestral lineage is from) so they can check the boxes that they have certain % of URM in their class for diversity purpose.

Why do you say that the 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America are “taking advantage of the AA?”

I think your anger is misplaced. The kids cannot do anything about their race. It is up to the colleges to accept the right URMs — the ones whose ancestors were slaves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mean to sound rude but who cares? I will be perfectly honest that in my view, the goal of affirmative action is to fix the systemic injustices created by slavery (and other racial injustices) where those injustices still exist for minority groups. If one particular minority group is no longer impacted by the past injustices perpetrated against them, then that is not a reason to scrap a policy that helps other minority groups. No longer benefiting from a particular policy aimed to increase social justice and right the past errors that created those injustices is not a reason to throw out the policy as a whole.

yeah but you can't fix one injustice with another injustice. as one of SCOTUS said, when is it enough? how do you know when to stop?

What’s the injustice? That Asian Americans get into a particular school at rates well above their representation in the general population but may lose a few spots to other minorities? I don’t see that as an injustice.

Supreme Court is full of conservative hacks, so I am really not looking to them to provide a good insight into undoing systemic social injustices.

Why should a poor Asian child who is the most qualified lose their spot to a rich URM or a rich African immigrant? That isn’t righting ANY wrongs.

You have absolutely no knowledge that this is occurring.

Actually, it is a well known fact. “Seventy-one percent of Black, Latino, and Native American students at Harvard come from college-educated homes with incomes above the national median; such students are in roughly the most advantaged fifth of families of their own race.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/supreme-court-harvard-affirmative-action-legacy-admissions-equity/671869/

Many of the URM in the Ivy league are 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants from Africa or Central/South America. So these immigrant families have never experience the racism or injustice in the U.S. but they are taking advantage of the AA. Colleges only care about if you are a URM (not where your ancestral lineage is from) so they can check the boxes that they have certain % of URM in their class for diversity purpose.

It's interesting how fervently people are against AA but not athletic recruiting and legacy admissions. So if rich white legacies and athletes are stealing you kid's spot its ok, but if the person is Black or Hispanic, that's a no go?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

The colleges where Asians are under-represented are usually mediocre schools that Asians don't want want to go.

So no benefit.

That’s not an answer to the question. Can you answer the question? Do they benefit when they apply to schools they are under represented?

PP have you left the thread? Would like a response please.

DP. Answering your original question, I don't know and I don't care. Even if it does, you are doing me a "favor" I don't want nor asked for.

At least you admit your ignorance. And also that your ignorance is purposeful. Because you prob⁶ably know the answer is “yes” and that contradicts your argument that the policy is racism.

Th policy doesn't help Asians and used to discriminate Asians.
Asians don't beg for benefits. Just asking fair and equal opportunity for college admissions without discrimination.

Assuming you are a new poster who didn't read the entire exchange, please answer:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

I'm and Asian and I don't want any hard working White kids discriminated and treated unfairly in favor of Asians.

I didn't ask what you wanted. I asked: Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

Can you answer, and please include a yes or no?

DP. How many times have you posted your stupid question? Can you answer your own damn question? With proof?

Yes I can answer the question. Of course. And so can you.

Yes, under current policies any race benefits at any college where they are under-represented. At every college which has anything other than open admissions. Which means it is NOT, by design, prejudiced against any one race.

The only colleges where Asians (and whites) are under represented are historically black colleges. In 2016, the total college enrollment rate was higher for Asian young adults (58 percent) than for young adults who were of Two or more races (42 percent), White (42 percent), Hispanic (39 percent), Black (36 percent), Pacific Islander (21 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent).”

Your first sentence is not proved by what follows, and is in fact is non-sequitur. It is also completely false.

Here are a few examples proving you are wrong:

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/washington-and-lee-university/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/hamilton-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/bates-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/middlebury-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

Those are all highly selective colleges where Asians are URMs. I could keep going but the point is made, yours is proved false.

even two of these are like about 7% and 7+% lol
that's not under represented. The good LACs have plenty Asians.

It's not a question of whether colleges have Asians or not - it is whether they benefit from colleges where they are not ORM. Only Middlebury from that list is equal to the USA in enrolled students. Which means they are not discriminated against at a minimum, and likely benefit from the policy because they are not ORM.

And I built that list at random, and those were the first four I searched.

Again, you fail.

“You fail?” Persistent badgering about your question? You sure are taking this personally. It’s amusing. I can’t wait till SCOTUS hands down their decision. Your head will likely explode.

Listen Trumpster, no one here is going to be shocked when SCOTUS does away with affirmative action. We figured out a long time ago they are political hacks. My sincere hope, though, is that colleges find away around their ruling and are still able to reject your white, overly privileged kid.

Harvard is like 40% ALDC and you people are rooting for college doing whatever they w
ant to do

What is ALDC?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

I have been saying for a while now that legacies is the worst form of hording privilege and elitism, and that colleges like Harvard throw a bone at "diversity" with their "holistic" admissions all while they continue to "keep it in the family" with legacies.

The biggest irony is that the people in favor of affirmative action say colleges should be allowed to do whatever they want to do

Wait until they start discriminating against blacks and Jews again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mean to sound rude but who cares? I will be perfectly honest that in my view, the goal of affirmative action is to fix the systemic injustices created by slavery (and other racial injustices) where those injustices still exist for minority groups. If one particular minority group is no longer impacted by the past injustices perpetrated against them, then that is not a reason to scrap a policy that helps other minority groups. No longer benefiting from a particular policy aimed to increase social justice and right the past errors that created those injustices is not a reason to throw out the policy as a whole.

yeah but you can't fix one injustice with another injustice. as one of SCOTUS said, when is it enough? how do you know when to stop?

What’s the injustice? That Asian Americans get into a particular school at rates well above their representation in the general population but may lose a few spots to other minorities? I don’t see that as an injustice.

Supreme Court is full of conservative hacks, so I am really not looking to them to provide a good insight into undoing systemic social injustices.

Why should a poor Asian child who is the most qualified lose their spot to a rich URM or a rich African immigrant? That isn’t righting ANY wrongs.

You have absolutely no knowledge that this is occurring.

Actually, it is a well known fact. “Seventy-one percent of Black, Latino, and Native American students at Harvard come from college-educated homes with incomes above the national median; such students are in roughly the most advantaged fifth of families of their own race.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/supreme-court-harvard-affirmative-action-legacy-admissions-equity/671869/

People like to pretend otherwise. At the level of Harvard, the kids who benefit from URM preferences are already privileged

Not all the URMs at Harvard are privileged though! My daughter is a freshman at Harvard and has met many URMs who are FGLI. She is in awe of everything they have accomplished and says she enjoys the diverse perspectives they bring to campus.

BUT she knows one legacy URM from a very privileged background there. The less we say about him, the better for all!

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

The colleges where Asians are under-represented are usually mediocre schools that Asians don't want want to go.

So no benefit.

That’s not an answer to the question. Can you answer the question? Do they benefit when they apply to schools they are under represented?

PP have you left the thread? Would like a response please.

DP. Answering your original question, I don't know and I don't care. Even if it does, you are doing me a "favor" I don't want nor asked for.

At least you admit your ignorance. And also that your ignorance is purposeful. Because you prob⁶ably know the answer is “yes” and that contradicts your argument that the policy is racism.

Th policy doesn't help Asians and used to discriminate Asians.
Asians don't beg for benefits. Just asking fair and equal opportunity for college admissions without discrimination.

Assuming you are a new poster who didn't read the entire exchange, please answer:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

I'm and Asian and I don't want any hard working White kids discriminated and treated unfairly in favor of Asians.

I didn't ask what you wanted. I asked: Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

Can you answer, and please include a yes or no?

DP. How many times have you posted your stupid question? Can you answer your own damn question? With proof?

Yes I can answer the question. Of course. And so can you.

Yes, under current policies any race benefits at any college where they are under-represented. At every college which has anything other than open admissions. Which means it is NOT, by design, prejudiced against any one race.

The only colleges where Asians (and whites) are under represented are historically black colleges. In 2016, the total college enrollment rate was higher for Asian young adults (58 percent) than for young adults who were of Two or more races (42 percent), White (42 percent), Hispanic (39 percent), Black (36 percent), Pacific Islander (21 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent).”

Your first sentence is not proved by what follows, and is in fact is non-sequitur. It is also completely false.

Here are a few examples proving you are wrong:

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/washington-and-lee-university/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/hamilton-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/bates-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/middlebury-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

Those are all highly selective colleges where Asians are URMs. I could keep going but the point is made, yours is proved false.

even two of these are like about 7% and 7+% lol
that's not under represented. The good LACs have plenty Asians.

It's not a question of whether colleges have Asians or not - it is whether they benefit from colleges where they are not ORM. Only Middlebury from that list is equal to the USA in enrolled students. Which means they are not discriminated against at a minimum, and likely benefit from the policy because they are not ORM.

And I built that list at random, and those were the first four I searched.

Again, you fail.

“You fail?” Persistent badgering about your question? You sure are taking this personally. It’s amusing. I can’t wait till SCOTUS hands down their decision. Your head will likely explode.

Listen Trumpster, no one here is going to be shocked when SCOTUS does away with affirmative action. We figured out a long time ago they are political hacks. My sincere hope, though, is that colleges find away around their ruling and are still able to reject your white, overly privileged kid.

Harvard is like 40% ALDC and you people are rooting for college doing whatever they w
ant to do

What is ALDC?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

I have been saying for a while now that legacies is the worst form of hording privilege and elitism, and that colleges like Harvard throw a bone at "diversity" with their "holistic" admissions all while they continue to "keep it in the family" with legacies.

The biggest irony is that the people in favor of affirmative action say colleges should be allowed to do whatever they want to do

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

The colleges where Asians are under-represented are usually mediocre schools that Asians don't want want to go.

So no benefit.

That’s not an answer to the question. Can you answer the question? Do they benefit when they apply to schools they are under represented?

PP have you left the thread? Would like a response please.

DP. Answering your original question, I don't know and I don't care. Even if it does, you are doing me a "favor" I don't want nor asked for.

At least you admit your ignorance. And also that your ignorance is purposeful. Because you prob⁶ably know the answer is “yes” and that contradicts your argument that the policy is racism.

Th policy doesn't help Asians and used to discriminate Asians.
Asians don't beg for benefits. Just asking fair and equal opportunity for college admissions without discrimination.

Assuming you are a new poster who didn't read the entire exchange, please answer:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

I'm and Asian and I don't want any hard working White kids discriminated and treated unfairly in favor of Asians.

I didn't ask what you wanted. I asked: Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

Can you answer, and please include a yes or no?

DP. How many times have you posted your stupid question? Can you answer your own damn question? With proof?

Yes I can answer the question. Of course. And so can you.

Yes, under current policies any race benefits at any college where they are under-represented. At every college which has anything other than open admissions. Which means it is NOT, by design, prejudiced against any one race.

The only colleges where Asians (and whites) are under represented are historically black colleges. In 2016, the total college enrollment rate was higher for Asian young adults (58 percent) than for young adults who were of Two or more races (42 percent), White (42 percent), Hispanic (39 percent), Black (36 percent), Pacific Islander (21 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent).”

Your first sentence is not proved by what follows, and is in fact is non-sequitur. It is also completely false.

Here are a few examples proving you are wrong:

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/washington-and-lee-university/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/hamilton-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/bates-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/middlebury-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

Those are all highly selective colleges where Asians are URMs. I could keep going but the point is made, yours is proved false.

even two of these are like about 7% and 7+% lol
that's not under represented. The good LACs have plenty Asians.

It's not a question of whether colleges have Asians or not - it is whether they benefit from colleges where they are not ORM. Only Middlebury from that list is equal to the USA in enrolled students. Which means they are not discriminated against at a minimum, and likely benefit from the policy because they are not ORM.

And I built that list at random, and those were the first four I searched.

Again, you fail.

“You fail?” Persistent badgering about your question? You sure are taking this personally. It’s amusing. I can’t wait till SCOTUS hands down their decision. Your head will likely explode.

Listen Trumpster, no one here is going to be shocked when SCOTUS does away with affirmative action. We figured out a long time ago they are political hacks. My sincere hope, though, is that colleges find away around their ruling and are still able to reject your white, overly privileged kid.

Harvard is like 40% ALDC and you people are rooting for college doing whatever they w
ant to do

What is ALDC?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

I have been saying for a while now that legacies is the worst form of hording privilege and elitism, and that colleges like Harvard throw a bone at "diversity" with their "holistic" admissions all while they continue to "keep it in the family" with legacies.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to as long as they don't break the law? Do you know how nepotism works in general, as in business? You don't have to like it - no one does - but they do what is right for them in a capitalist system.

And before you scream "but they pay no taxes and get fed $$$" remember so do churches and all non-profits so opening that door means women priests in the catholic church and open enrollment at all country clubs and many other things, so be prepared to commit to it all if you take that position.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

The colleges where Asians are under-represented are usually mediocre schools that Asians don't want want to go.

So no benefit.

That’s not an answer to the question. Can you answer the question? Do they benefit when they apply to schools they are under represented?

PP have you left the thread? Would like a response please.

DP. Answering your original question, I don't know and I don't care. Even if it does, you are doing me a "favor" I don't want nor asked for.

At least you admit your ignorance. And also that your ignorance is purposeful. Because you prob⁶ably know the answer is “yes” and that contradicts your argument that the policy is racism.

Th policy doesn't help Asians and used to discriminate Asians.
Asians don't beg for benefits. Just asking fair and equal opportunity for college admissions without discrimination.

Assuming you are a new poster who didn't read the entire exchange, please answer:

Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

I'm and Asian and I don't want any hard working White kids discriminated and treated unfairly in favor of Asians.

I didn't ask what you wanted. I asked: Does racial balance in admissions benefit Asians at colleges where they are under-represented?

Can you answer, and please include a yes or no?

DP. How many times have you posted your stupid question? Can you answer your own damn question? With proof?

Yes I can answer the question. Of course. And so can you.

Yes, under current policies any race benefits at any college where they are under-represented. At every college which has anything other than open admissions. Which means it is NOT, by design, prejudiced against any one race.

The only colleges where Asians (and whites) are under represented are historically black colleges. In 2016, the total college enrollment rate was higher for Asian young adults (58 percent) than for young adults who were of Two or more races (42 percent), White (42 percent), Hispanic (39 percent), Black (36 percent), Pacific Islander (21 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent).”

Your first sentence is not proved by what follows, and is in fact is non-sequitur. It is also completely false.

Here are a few examples proving you are wrong:

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/washington-and-lee-university/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/hamilton-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/bates-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/middlebury-college/student-life/diversity/chart-undergraduate-racial-ethnic-diversity.html

Those are all highly selective colleges where Asians are URMs. I could keep going but the point is made, yours is proved false.

even two of these are like about 7% and 7+% lol
that's not under represented. The good LACs have plenty Asians.

It's not a question of whether colleges have Asians or not - it is whether they benefit from colleges where they are not ORM. Only Middlebury from that list is equal to the USA in enrolled students. Which means they are not discriminated against at a minimum, and likely benefit from the policy because they are not ORM.

And I built that list at random, and those were the first four I searched.

Again, you fail.

“You fail?” Persistent badgering about your question? You sure are taking this personally. It’s amusing. I can’t wait till SCOTUS hands down their decision. Your head will likely explode.

Listen Trumpster, no one here is going to be shocked when SCOTUS does away with affirmative action. We figured out a long time ago they are political hacks. My sincere hope, though, is that colleges find away around their ruling and are still able to reject your white, overly privileged kid.

Harvard is like 40% ALDC and you people are rooting for college doing whatever they w
ant to do

What is ALDC?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

I have been saying for a while now that legacies is the worst form of hording privilege and elitism, and that colleges like Harvard throw a bone at "diversity" with their "holistic" admissions all while they continue to "keep it in the family" with legacies.

Duh.

It’s totally racist

Anything that makes official decisions based on different combinations of skin color/type of hair/ facial features is totally illegal

When are we expecting a verdict/resolution for the Supreme Court decision?