Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

- Asian American parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\

Racial preferences are discrimination.

Your conspiracy theories aside, the notion that asians should silently suffer discrimination because fighting it is what the racists want is pretty silly.,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

- Asian American parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-read the holding more carefully, as you clearly failed to understand it the first time. The S.Ct found the university's use of race as a factor in admissions negatively affected Asian American applicants by engaging in racial balancing and stereotyping, rather than narrowly tailoring the use of race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

When a school turns into just one type of student and diversity is gone, I seriously doubt it will be bearable for them either....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

The issue is entitlement with a Hint of racial superiority complex. they don’t believe it possible that another person from another race could be successful academically in a legitimate matter.

I think the problem is that we keep these statistically improbable distributions of race and SAT scores at these highly selective schools without any good explanation for the disparity except that the admissions committees seem to not like our personality.

Asians are literally 40% of the students at these top schools. I don’t know how they keep complaining

How do you benefit if some unrelated member of your race gets into your dream school? How are you harmed if your your dream school imposes higher standards on you than anyone else because of the color of your skin?

After Jackie Robinson broke the color line, the black talent started to overwhelm the white league and many teams started to get "too many" black players. So there was an uinofficial rule that you could only have 5 black players on the field. So if a black pitcher went in, a black outfielder would have to come out. The best black player not in the majors was better than the worst white players by a fair margin.

There was a time when there were almost no black quarterbacks and people were justifiably salty about it despite the fact that most nfl players were black. The argument was that black players lacked leadership and other personal qualities that were important to being a quarterback. Nowadays this sounds crazy and one day your position will too.

So you are saying, you will be okay if top colleges are 80%+ Asian? Or 100% if that’s possible.

Can you see the difference between NFL and a college’s mission?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

- Asian American parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Harvard's Asian admits go up to 41% last year?

When you add international Asians, that number sounds right.

Domestic was what…28%?

I had been capped by all the Ivies at 20% a decade ago. So I would say things are becoming more meritocratic.

It started rising after the lawsuits started.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

The issue is entitlement with a Hint of racial superiority complex. they don’t believe it possible that another person from another race could be successful academically in a legitimate matter.

I think the problem is that we keep these statistically improbable distributions of race and SAT scores at these highly selective schools without any good explanation for the disparity except that the admissions committees seem to not like our personality.

Asians are literally 40% of the students at these top schools. I don’t know how they keep complaining

How do you benefit if some unrelated member of your race gets into your dream school? How are you harmed if your your dream school imposes higher standards on you than anyone else because of the color of your skin?

After Jackie Robinson broke the color line, the black talent started to overwhelm the white league and many teams started to get "too many" black players. So there was an uinofficial rule that you could only have 5 black players on the field. So if a black pitcher went in, a black outfielder would have to come out. The best black player not in the majors was better than the worst white players by a fair margin.

There was a time when there were almost no black quarterbacks and people were justifiably salty about it despite the fact that most nfl players were black. The argument was that black players lacked leadership and other personal qualities that were important to being a quarterback. Nowadays this sounds crazy and one day your position will too.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Harvard's Asian admits go up to 41% last year?

When you add international Asians, that number sounds right.

Domestic was what…28%?

I had been capped by all the Ivies at 20% a decade ago. So I would say things are becoming more meritocratic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

- Asian American parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

The issue is entitlement with a Hint of racial superiority complex. they don’t believe it possible that another person from another race could be successful academically in a legitimate matter.

I think the problem is that we keep these statistically improbable distributions of race and SAT scores at these highly selective schools without any good explanation for the disparity except that the admissions committees seem to not like our personality.

Asians are literally 40% of the students at these top schools. I don’t know how they keep complaining

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

- Asian American parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not subtle. It's overt.
Some asian kids try to make their application look less asian, that is pretty horrible.
Is racial diversity enough of a compelling state interest to justify government sanctioned racial discrimination?
Most colleges in the world manage to provide good educations while being extremely racially homogenous. If for no other reason than because most countries are racially homogenous.

Why would you condone racism, subtle or otherwise, against asians?
Would you condone subtle racism against other races?

As for Ed Blum, I am not tracking how the fact that he was behind the Fischer challenges to affirmative action in Texas make him a white supremacist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

- Asian American parent

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

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

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

Ed Blum's racist/white supremacist views are well-known - before he pursued the SFFA case with Asian American plaintiffs

Ed Blum is Jewish, you stupid fhuc! He is the opposite of the white supremacist nazi you keep trying to make him out to be.

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

Not Notre Dame. Seems Asian Americans, as a group, are less Catholic (or just less interested in Catholic schools), than other groups of Americans.

Asian Americans are still underrepresented there. Good to keep in mind for those T20 or bust!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://archive.ph/9tHjW

Did Asians benefit from Affirmative Action Ban?

This article says no.

Increasingly lost in all this ... is Asian-American students. The thrust of the lawsuit that overturned race in admissions was that Harvard was discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Yet since the ruling, their numbers have barely budged.

Only 10 of the 39 colleges in the New England sample saw the number of Asian-American students increase over the last two years.

“The bottom line is that this lawsuit at Harvard claimed to be about supposed anti-Asian discrimination,”
“And if that were actually the case, then you would expect to see increases in Asian-American students. There are some at super-selective institutions, but what we mainly see are big changes in other underrepresented minorities.”

That would be because Asians were not and are not being discriminated against.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yes all the middling changes in demographics really serve as strong evidence of discrimination.

This is evidence, not necessarily incontrovertible proof:

Demographic evidence:
Asian population went from about 3% in 1990 to about 7% in 2010
The Asian population at Harvard went from 19% in 1990 to 17% in 2010 (it had hovered between 15-20% the entire time with few exceptions.
The Asian population didn't see a significant rise to current levels until the lawsuits started.

Admissions Office evidence:
Asian students were scored better than every other group for every category except athletics which went to white students and personality where the racial ordering was an inverse of the academic ratings.
The alumni interviewers gave pretty much the same proportion of top scores in this category to applicants of every race (this is the item that most frequently convinces alumni that the Harvard black box is actually a bit racist).

Test scores:
There is a significant test score gap at pretty much every selective school.

None of this is absolute proof of intent but it is certainly evidence of discrimination, intentional or otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

- Asian American parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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