Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

In a sense, yes. If you're asking schools that have been around for over 300 years which grew up in one specific cultural and historical context to now remake their systems so that they more closely resemble the admissions procedures in Chinese universities, etc. then you're asking too much. And you're not entitled to ask for it just because it's what you want.

A historical context of discrimination. 100+ years ago, they put in procedures to hold down the number of Jews. Now they seek to hold down the number of Asians.
China doesn't have issue of racial discrimination in their university admissions.

How many ethnic minorities are getting into the top universities in China?

Actually quite a lot. China practices affirmative action internally to an astonishing degree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China

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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

What a bizarre post. Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asians - they clearly prefer the applications of non Asians. The question is whether this preference is legal. A previous SC ruling said it was.

In what tangible way do they discriminate? If they take an Asian student with a lower GPA or fewer APs than another is it discriminatory? What if it’s a white athlete? Is it your position that the X highest GPAS get in and if they don’t it’s discriminatory?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the justice, Black kids who can get in on their own would be the biggest winners.

They'll get the proper respect they reserve.

You’re an ass. They’re all smarter than you and deserve respect now.

43% of White kids at Harvard is ALDC.
When I see a White kid, there's almost 50% the kid got in backdoor.

Same with Black kids, Majority of them have significantly lower stats, but got in with big bonus points.

I can't respect these.

If you see an Asian kid, he/she got in despite the discrimination.
Huge respect.

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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

What a bizarre post. Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asians - they clearly prefer the applications of non Asians. The question is whether this preference is legal. A previous SC ruling said it was.

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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

What a bizarre post. Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asians - they clearly prefer the applications of non Asians. The question is whether this preference is legal. A previous SC ruling said it was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

In a sense, yes. If you're asking schools that have been around for over 300 years which grew up in one specific cultural and historical context to now remake their systems so that they more closely resemble the admissions procedures in Chinese universities, etc. then you're asking too much. And you're not entitled to ask for it just because it's what you want.

A historical context of discrimination. 100+ years ago, they put in procedures to hold down the number of Jews. Now they seek to hold down the number of Asians.
China doesn't have issue of racial discrimination in their university admissions.

How many ethnic minorities are getting into the top universities in China?

Actually quite a lot. China practices affirmative action internally to an astonishing degree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China

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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

Not everyone agrees with you that "Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants". The court that gets to make the decision may, but they currently lean heavily toward bias against believing that there remains any need to help those who were oppressed for 3.5 centuries and have had only half a century to take advantage of opportunities afforded by affirmative action. Almost all of those of Asian descent who live in this country knew the history when they came here, and most understand and respect the laws that have been put into place to try to mitigate the long-term effects. Those who are not admitted to Harvard and other elite colleges are doing a great job of showing that they can still find the success they seek regardless of the college they attend.

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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

In a sense, yes. If you're asking schools that have been around for over 300 years which grew up in one specific cultural and historical context to now remake their systems so that they more closely resemble the admissions procedures in Chinese universities, etc. then you're asking too much. And you're not entitled to ask for it just because it's what you want.

A historical context of discrimination. 100+ years ago, they put in procedures to hold down the number of Jews. Now they seek to hold down the number of Asians.
China doesn't have issue of racial discrimination in their university admissions.

How many ethnic minorities are getting into the top universities in China?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the justice, Black kids who can get in on their own would be the biggest winners.

They'll get the proper respect they reserve.

You’re an ass. They’re all smarter than you and deserve respect now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

In a sense, yes. If you're asking schools that have been around for over 300 years which grew up in one specific cultural and historical context to now remake their systems so that they more closely resemble the admissions procedures in Chinese universities, etc. then you're asking too much. And you're not entitled to ask for it just because it's what you want.

A historical context of discrimination. 100+ years ago, they put in procedures to hold down the number of Jews. Now they seek to hold down the number of Asians.
China doesn't have issue of racial discrimination in their university admissions.

Anonymous wrote:After the justice, Black kids who can get in on their own would be the biggest winners.

They'll get the proper respect they reserve.

Anonymous wrote:Please don't feed the race baiting troll.

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:Asians want clear transparent rules, no discrimination, and fair competition. Is that too much to ask?

Elite schools don’t care about test scores, they care about leadership qualities, grit & sociability. Part-time jobs in high school are important, too.

my DC has all those qualities, PT job, leader, social, quite well spoken (debate team), and near perfect SAT scores and high GPA from a magnet, but Asian.

So did my Asian kid and they were admitted to multiple schools. And guess what? Their classmates are mostly white and Asian.

do you understand proportionality?

The classmates are mostly white/Asian because they are the largest group that applies.

So what’s the problem?

? In the US, it is illegal to look at race for employment and education. That's the problem. Are you daft?

So you won’t be happy until you’ve driven all of the nonwhite and Asian students out of university. These numbers are relatively small and at Harvard at least getting smaller the last few years. and contrary to your prejudice, they are all perfectly academically qualified to succeed. No one ever said college admissions is quest to find the 2000 “best” applicants.

And if it’s illegal to look at race unemployment then why are boards of major corporations so white and male that diversity requirements are literally being written into the law in some states? I don’t see you crusading against the lack of representation in corporate offices. But I’d guess it’s probably because it favors white people

You are all over the place.

It is illegal to look at race for education and employment, but progressives have decided that it is ok to look at it as long as you are trying to be diverse. If it was ok to do so, then I guess it would be ok for colleges or businesses to not want anymore black people because they feel that the number of them that they have is enough?

I only see you caring about “discrimination” when it affects white folks.

? why would you think that?

I don't support *any* type of discrimination. Why do you support discrimination when it impacts Asian Americans?

I don’t think colleges discriminate against Asian Americans or whites anymore than colleges down south that are 80% white discriminate against anyone else. I do think workplaces discriminate significantly, especially at the upper levels, against anyone who isn’t a white male. You want to crusade against discrimination fine but your choice of field is curious.

Harvard and the other elite colleges apply a much higher standard to Asian applications, and even white applicants versus black or Latino applicants. As long as standards are different, a racial bias exists because it's based on factors the individual cannot control for - their race. So, yes, Harvard absolutely discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard, and the revelations from the various investigation also showed that Harvard rigged the admissions criteria to make it easier to reject Asian applicants (aka the personality factor).

Your allegation about workplace is both meaningless and without substance. Unlike your claim, in this case we have clear evidence Harvard absolutely does discriminate against Asian applicants.

This is a separate argument from whether it is desirable for Harvard to "positively" discriminate in order to have a more "representative" student body in accordance to some sort of ideal. The irony with the latter is that Harvard still doesn't have a representative student body, and even white students are now underrepresented. But while Harvard is a private institution, it is the beneficiary of substantial federal funding and as such, Constitutional clauses do apply.

The SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action in the past, but it is worthwhile to read the arguments justifying affirmative action. The SCOTUS tacitly admitted it was against the spirit of the Constitution but thought it was important for a societal need to rectify past injustices, which is why the justices at the time talked about a time limit for affirmative action. But that was 60 years ago and we also live in a hugely more diverse America, which reopens all sorts of questions over how race should be handled and viewed by Federal laws and in light of key Constitutional amendments that ban discrimination on the grounds of race.

60 years does not erase 400 years of chattel slavery, jim crow, redlining, lynching, war on drugs, stop & frisk, etc.

Do Black people wish slavery didn't happen and so they are in Africa now?

Black people built this country from the ground up. There would be no United States without Black people.

That is ridiculous. Of course it would exist. It would just be different. Countries like Canada, Australia and NZ all managed to develop without slavery.

Also makes you wonder why black people did such a poorer job of building up their own continent in Africa. It's almost as if the statement that black people built the USA may be... false