Anonymous wrote:Who’s in charge of deciding if your face has enough “minority” features to qualify ?

if people can identify as a different gender, why can't people identify as a different race? Who's to say what race I am?

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: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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

Again you compare the policy to a completely different one that was designed to keep a particular group out.

This policy has not been designed to do that, even though you keep asserting the opposite. The fact that you haven't done any research on the topic makes your position difficult to appreciate. You have no evidence to prove your claim it was designed to keep Asians out of Ivies. And if you did any research, sincerely, you'd understand that it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Read a book. Start with The Shape Of The River. Then come back and comment.

Your post = “read only my sources and agree with me!” That’s not how it works. See, many educated people agree that current AA isn’t working, hence it being taken up by the Supreme Court. If it was a meritless argument, it would have been dismissed long ago. You can continue to assert your intellectually weak argument that everyone who disagrees with you “doesn’t know what they are talking about and haven’t done their research” even though a admissions professional called you out for this earlier in the thread; it just makes you look unserious.

Here are some people that disagree with you who are way more educated on the issues than you.

PS Professor Sander mentions The Shape Of the River. Amazing he READ your book (!!!) and still doesn’t agree with you!
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20137/Richard%20Sander%20on%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Law%20Schools.pdf


https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/04/affirmative-action-should-be-based-on-class-not-race?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gclid=Cj0KCQiAkMGcBhCSARIsAIW6d0A7o0hR8ts9RIIGmKLRIwOvjl0bl4bD8iVMHwTJm7pX_lJGg0mpDhoaAl4CEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

You don't know what my position is. You haven't asked. I have only posted that your assertions were incorrect as to what the policy was, why it existed, and historical events you unfairly compare it to.

But even though you did not ask, I will answer:

My position is the colleges should be allowed to decide for themselves as long as they don't break the law. I am fine if they keep the current policy or if they change it. I fully support CA's rights to change it for state colleges.

I want the colleges to run the colleges so we continue to have the greatest higher education system which is the envy of the world.

This will be my last post in this thread. You are welcome to the last word. Assuming you are the same poster, please don't use any more pejoratives. It's unbecoming.

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: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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

Again you compare the policy to a completely different one that was designed to keep a particular group out.

This policy has not been designed to do that, even though you keep asserting the opposite. The fact that you haven't done any research on the topic makes your position difficult to appreciate. You have no evidence to prove your claim it was designed to keep Asians out of Ivies. And if you did any research, sincerely, you'd understand that it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Read a book. Start with The Shape Of The River. Then come back and comment.

Your post = “read only my sources and agree with me!” That’s not how it works. See, many educated people agree that current AA isn’t working, hence it being taken up by the Supreme Court. If it was a meritless argument, it would have been dismissed long ago. You can continue to assert your intellectually weak argument that everyone who disagrees with you “doesn’t know what they are talking about and haven’t done their research” even though a admissions professional called you out for this earlier in the thread; it just makes you look unserious.

Here are some people that disagree with you who are way more educated on the issues than you.

PS Professor Sander mentions The Shape Of the River. Amazing he READ your book (!!!) and still doesn’t agree with you!
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20137/Richard%20Sander%20on%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Law%20Schools.pdf


https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/04/affirmative-action-should-be-based-on-class-not-race?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gclid=Cj0KCQiAkMGcBhCSARIsAIW6d0A7o0hR8ts9RIIGmKLRIwOvjl0bl4bD8iVMHwTJm7pX_lJGg0mpDhoaAl4CEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

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: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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

Again you compare the policy to a completely different one that was designed to keep a particular group out.

This policy has not been designed to do that, even though you keep asserting the opposite. The fact that you haven't done any research on the topic makes your position difficult to appreciate. You have no evidence to prove your claim it was designed to keep Asians out of Ivies. And if you did any research, sincerely, you'd understand that it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Read a book. Start with The Shape Of The River. Then come back and comment.

It’s a zero-sum game. Ensuring a minimum size for one group is precisely the same thing as ensuring a maximum size for another. Ignoring math doesn’t make it go away. And it’s not a question of the design intent of the program. Individual Asian applicants are treated worse (I.e. are less likely to get admitted) than similarly situated members of other racial groups. That’s not a disparate impact argument, it’s an intentional discrimination argument, which is wrong even the people who are implementing the program think there are good reasons for it.

It’s a zero-sum game. Ensuring a minimum size for one group is precisely the same thing as ensuring a maximum size for another

This is nonsense. The first sentence of yours proves it. It is the zero sum aspect - a finite number of seats - that ensures a maximum size exists.

Individual Asian applicants are treated worse (I.e. are less likely to get admitted) than similarly situated members of other racial groups.

At colleges where they are ORM, yes. At colleges where they are URM, no. Which is why it is not inherently racist, or illegal.

That assumes racial balancing is legal. It isn’t, and there is no real dispute on the point, racial balance was expressly rejected as a permissible basis for discriminating against particular applicants literally decades ago. The Supreme Court did allow “holistic” admissions to attain the goal of “diversity” and the colleges have essentially used that to implement a scheme of unacknowledged but relatively precise racial quotas. That’s what the current litigation is all about, and if you aren’t informed on the basics, I guess there isn’t much point in debating it.

Any admission criteria that favors a race or excludes a race is illegal

I wonder if Asians who live in Potomac, Chevy Chase, and McLean support affirmative action.

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: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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

Again you compare the policy to a completely different one that was designed to keep a particular group out.

This policy has not been designed to do that, even though you keep asserting the opposite. The fact that you haven't done any research on the topic makes your position difficult to appreciate. You have no evidence to prove your claim it was designed to keep Asians out of Ivies. And if you did any research, sincerely, you'd understand that it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Read a book. Start with The Shape Of The River. Then come back and comment.

It’s a zero-sum game. Ensuring a minimum size for one group is precisely the same thing as ensuring a maximum size for another. Ignoring math doesn’t make it go away. And it’s not a question of the design intent of the program. Individual Asian applicants are treated worse (I.e. are less likely to get admitted) than similarly situated members of other racial groups. That’s not a disparate impact argument, it’s an intentional discrimination argument, which is wrong even the people who are implementing the program think there are good reasons for it.

It’s a zero-sum game. Ensuring a minimum size for one group is precisely the same thing as ensuring a maximum size for another

This is nonsense. The first sentence of yours proves it. It is the zero sum aspect - a finite number of seats - that ensures a maximum size exists.

Individual Asian applicants are treated worse (I.e. are less likely to get admitted) than similarly situated members of other racial groups.

At colleges where they are ORM, yes. At colleges where they are URM, no. Which is why it is not inherently racist, or illegal.

That assumes racial balancing is legal. It isn’t, and there is no real dispute on the point, racial balance was expressly rejected as a permissible basis for discriminating against particular applicants literally decades ago. The Supreme Court did allow “holistic” admissions to attain the goal of “diversity” and the colleges have essentially used that to implement a scheme of unacknowledged but relatively precise racial quotas. That’s what the current litigation is all about, and if you aren’t informed on the basics, I guess there isn’t much point in debating it.

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: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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

Again you compare the policy to a completely different one that was designed to keep a particular group out.

This policy has not been designed to do that, even though you keep asserting the opposite. The fact that you haven't done any research on the topic makes your position difficult to appreciate. You have no evidence to prove your claim it was designed to keep Asians out of Ivies. And if you did any research, sincerely, you'd understand that it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Read a book. Start with The Shape Of The River. Then come back and comment.

It’s a zero-sum game. Ensuring a minimum size for one group is precisely the same thing as ensuring a maximum size for another. Ignoring math doesn’t make it go away. And it’s not a question of the design intent of the program. Individual Asian applicants are treated worse (I.e. are less likely to get admitted) than similarly situated members of other racial groups. That’s not a disparate impact argument, it’s an intentional discrimination argument, which is wrong even the people who are implementing the program think there are good reasons for it.

It’s a zero-sum game. Ensuring a minimum size for one group is precisely the same thing as ensuring a maximum size for another

This is nonsense. The first sentence of yours proves it. It is the zero sum aspect - a finite number of seats - that ensures a maximum size exists.

Individual Asian applicants are treated worse (I.e. are less likely to get admitted) than similarly situated members of other racial groups.

At colleges where they are ORM, yes. At colleges where they are URM, no. Which is why it is not inherently racist, or illegal.

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: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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

Again you compare the policy to a completely different one that was designed to keep a particular group out.

This policy has not been designed to do that, even though you keep asserting the opposite. The fact that you haven't done any research on the topic makes your position difficult to appreciate. You have no evidence to prove your claim it was designed to keep Asians out of Ivies. And if you did any research, sincerely, you'd understand that it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Read a book. Start with The Shape Of The River. Then come back and comment.

It’s a zero-sum game. Ensuring a minimum size for one group is precisely the same thing as ensuring a maximum size for another. Ignoring math doesn’t make it go away. And it’s not a question of the design intent of the program. Individual Asian applicants are treated worse (I.e. are less likely to get admitted) than similarly situated members of other racial groups. That’s not a disparate impact argument, it’s an intentional discrimination argument, which is wrong even the people who are implementing the program think there are good reasons for it.

Who’s in charge of deciding if your face has enough “minority” features to qualify ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

Again you compare the policy to a completely different one that was designed to keep a particular group out.

This policy has not been designed to do that, even though you keep asserting the opposite. The fact that you haven't done any research on the topic makes your position difficult to appreciate. You have no evidence to prove your claim it was designed to keep Asians out of Ivies. And if you did any research, sincerely, you'd understand that it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Read a book. Start with The Shape Of The River. Then come back and comment.

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.

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.

Clearly, you are missing the point of the ^post with respect to the thread title. You must be a legacy admit.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.

What you call “pretzel logic” the rest of us call “arithmetic,” which doesn’t really require a book-length treatment to understand. Nor do the rest of us find the self-serving justifications of “college professionals” particularly persuasive. Most of us have encountered the same tired justifications in many contexts. One could have made exactly the same argument in favor of Jewish quotas decades ago: a more diverse environment is better for everyone, Jews included, so we need to be mindful of the racial balance of the admitted class. Wrong then, wrong now.

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.

Nothing you said "defeats the narrative" of college admissions policies being racist. But you're too stupid to understand that.

Is this the thread where the guy who admits he's never read a book on a subject or spoken to a professional on the topic calls someone who disagrees with him "stupid"?

Cool.

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.

Nothing you said "defeats the narrative" of college admissions policies being racist. But you're too stupid to understand that.

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.

That's some real pretzel logic there.

But before I address that, I will point out that it does not change the fact that you are ignorant about why colleges have the policy that that have, and "the reality" remains you haven't read a single book on the subject nor spoken to a college professional about it, which is the entire point of the post you respond to with your nonsense non-sequitur.

Also "the reality" is that if the policy is not designed to hurt any one specific race but exists to benefit all of them then it is, by definition, not racist and not illegal. If suddenly nearly no Asians applied to Princeton, their acceptance rate would shoot up to near 100%.