Anonymous wrote:Harvard argues race is a plus factor that is rarely outcome determinative, but later concedes that race was in fact the decisive factor in the admission of over half of the blacks at the school. Wealthy blacks with no vestiges of the hood have an advantage over poor Asians simply bc of skin color. Ridiculous.

As a PP said, they Asian American student would also receive a leg up based on their unique circumstances (first generation to attend college? learned English as a child?)

But moreover, I would be remiss if I let the comment about "no vestiges of the hood" slide. Not all poor Black Americans live in urban areas. Not all poor Black Americans who live in urban areas are in "the hood." But most importantly, Black Americans face systemic discrimination even when they are middle class or wealthy. A Black college grad is just about as likely to be hired as a white high school grad. A Black man with no criminal record has equal employment prospects to a white man with one.

Wealth is no insulator against systemic racism.

Corporate (as well as the previously cited military) leaders filed an amicus brief in the Fisher case arguing that their experience leads them to believe that there is a compelling state interest in diversity that is sufficient to justify a race-conscious college admissions process like UT Austin’s. They stated:

“This Court should reaffirm its holdings in Grutter and Fisher I that the conscious pursuit of diversity in the admissions decisions of institutions of higher education — including diversity based upon race, religion, culture, economic background, and other factors — is a compelling state interest. The principles established in Grutter and Fisher I are more important today than ever. For amici to succeed in their businesses, they must be able to hire highly trained employees of all races, religions, cultures, and economic backgrounds. It also is critical to amici that all of their university-trained employees have had the opportunity to share ideas, experiences, viewpoints, and approaches
with a broadly diverse student body. To amici, this is a business and economic imperative.

Today even more than when Grutter was decided, amici operate in country and world economies that are increasingly diverse. Amici have found through practical experience that a workforce trained in a diverse environment is critical to their business success. Amici are dedicated to promoting diversity as an integral part of their business, culture, and planning. But amici cannot reach that goal on their own. The only means of obtaining a properly qualified group of employees is through diversity in institutions of higher education, which must be allowed to recruit and instruct the best qualified minority candidates and create an environment in which all students can meaningfully expand their horizons.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-981-bsac-Fortune-100-and-Other-Leading-Businesses-In-Support-of-Respo....pdf

And the Supreme Court upheld UT’s use of race in admissions on this basis just two years ago.

Anonymous wrote:
Then make Affirmative Action tailored and specific to multigenerational groups that have suffered discrimination. Why the heck should a Columbian's kid who migrated here 30 years ago, get a leg up for admission. His family probably effed over the native Americans in Columbia and now they come here and get to enjoy special preferences? Why the hell should a conquistador's descendent be allowed to migrate from Mexico to the US and get preferential treatment in college admissions? They were the privileged a*holes in their country, but the minute they step on this side of the fence they become oppressed. BS

Because racial balance in college admissions is not done to make reparations; it is done because colleges feel they are better if they have a representative racial balance. The background of the student's ancestors is irrelevant to that mission. Why is that so hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard argues race is a plus factor that is rarely outcome determinative, but later concedes that race was in fact the decisive factor in the admission of over half of the blacks at the school. Wealthy blacks with no vestiges of the hood have an advantage over poor Asians simply bc of skin color. Ridiculous.

There’s never a Harvard undergraduate admissions decision that pits a wealthy black candidate against a poor Asian candidate. As described, each applicant furthers different institutional objectives and contributes to a different kind of diversity. And, of course, your description barely scratches the surface of the attributes an admissions committee is taking into account. In general, the tradeoffs are between candidates that share some attributes. And the weight of various attributes varies from year to year depending on, among other things, what constellations of attributes are rare or common in that class’s applicant pool.

That’s before we get to the question of whether even a wealthy African American experiences disadvantages that a poor Asian American does not. Or why you don’t seem equally outraged that a rich Asian American has an advantage over a poor Asian American. Honestly, you (like SFFA) seem more concerned with decreasing the number of African Americans in elite universities than with increasing the number of Asian Americans from first gen or low SES backgrounds.

Total BS. The dirty little secret is most of those so called black and Hispanic diversity cases are immigrants or kids of immigrants who should get no advantage in college admissions period. They experienced none of the discrimination multi generational blacks faced. Harvard is a despicable institution. I hope they lose big, but not sure that will happen because our courts don't seem to have the courage to outlaw racial animus against Asian and White Americans at these Universities

I take it back. You are not simply trying to get African Americans out of elite universities — you want Hispanics out as well. Less convenient for you to admit because it undercuts your specious representation of yourself as an advocate for Asian Americans, many of whose families, like Hispanic families, arrived in the US after the most egregious examples of American racism directed toward others seen to be like them. BTW, Chicanos, for example, have suffered multigenerational discrimination in/by the US. “Hispanic” — like “Asian” — encompasses a wide range of histories in the US. Also interesting to see “racial animus toward White Americans” crop up here after previous posts (perhaps not yours) attribute Harvard’s alleged discrimination against Asians to white privilege.

Then make Affirmative Action tailored and specific to multigenerational groups that have suffered discrimination. Why the heck should a Columbian's kid who migrated here 30 years ago, get a leg up for admission. His family probably effed over the native Americans in Columbia and now they come here and get to enjoy special preferences? Why the hell should a conquistador's descendent be allowed to migrate from Mexico to the US and get preferential treatment in college admissions? They were the privileged a*holes in their country, but the minute they step on this side of the fence they become oppressed. BS

How is Harvard different from any other business. Lets say I run a large department. I cant hire all Chinese people, all Indian, All Spanish. Diversity is good it brings out new ideas and fosters collaborations. And if Harvard was all Chinese what would be point of going?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Total BS. The dirty little secret is most of those so called black and Hispanic diversity cases are immigrants or kids of immigrants who should get no advantage in college admissions period. They experienced none of the discrimination multi generational blacks faced. Harvard is a despicable institution. I hope they lose big, but not sure that will happen because our courts don't seem to have the courage to outlaw racial animus against Asian and White Americans at these Universities

You clearly don't understand why colleges have racial preferences. Read a book on the subject, like "The Shape Of The River". It is not to make up for "the discrimination multi generational blacks faced". It is because they believe their charter is better served for the institution and all students if the racial makeup of the college somewhat reflects that of society, regardless of the race itself.

I'm not saying they should-- I'm not sure actually. But if you keep making your point based on that incorrect fact, you will continue to be wrong.

The amicus brief submitted by military leaders in Fisher v. UT Austin is also interesting reading on this topic:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/11-345-bsac-Brief-of-Lt-Gen-Julius-W-Becton-Jr-et-al-REPRINT_23713807_1.pdf
A similar one was filed (and quoted) in Grutter v. Bollinger (an earlier case that upheld UMichigan Law School’s race-conscious admissions process).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard argues race is a plus factor that is rarely outcome determinative, but later concedes that race was in fact the decisive factor in the admission of over half of the blacks at the school. Wealthy blacks with no vestiges of the hood have an advantage over poor Asians simply bc of skin color. Ridiculous.

There’s never a Harvard undergraduate admissions decision that pits a wealthy black candidate against a poor Asian candidate. As described, each applicant furthers different institutional objectives and contributes to a different kind of diversity. And, of course, your description barely scratches the surface of the attributes an admissions committee is taking into account. In general, the tradeoffs are between candidates that share some attributes. And the weight of various attributes varies from year to year depending on, among other things, what constellations of attributes are rare or common in that class’s applicant pool.

That’s before we get to the question of whether even a wealthy African American experiences disadvantages that a poor Asian American does not. Or why you don’t seem equally outraged that a rich Asian American has an advantage over a poor Asian American. Honestly, you (like SFFA) seem more concerned with decreasing the number of African Americans in elite universities than with increasing the number of Asian Americans from first gen or low SES backgrounds.

Total BS. The dirty little secret is most of those so called black and Hispanic diversity cases are immigrants or kids of immigrants who should get no advantage in college admissions period. They experienced none of the discrimination multi generational blacks faced. Harvard is a despicable institution. I hope they lose big, but not sure that will happen because our courts don't seem to have the courage to outlaw racial animus against Asian and White Americans at these Universities

I take it back. You are not simply trying to get African Americans out of elite universities — you want Hispanics out as well. Less convenient for you to admit because it undercuts your specious representation of yourself as an advocate for Asian Americans, many of whose families, like Hispanic families, arrived in the US after the most egregious examples of American racism directed toward others seen to be like them. BTW, Chicanos, for example, have suffered multigenerational discrimination in/by the US. “Hispanic” — like “Asian” — encompasses a wide range of histories in the US. Also interesting to see “racial animus toward White Americans” crop up here after previous posts (perhaps not yours) attribute Harvard’s alleged discrimination against Asians to white privilege.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard argues race is a plus factor that is rarely outcome determinative, but later concedes that race was in fact the decisive factor in the admission of over half of the blacks at the school. Wealthy blacks with no vestiges of the hood have an advantage over poor Asians simply bc of skin color. Ridiculous.

Harvard moved mountains (and relaxed standards) to get a class that had proportional representation of blacks and that feat was widely lauded. Don’t kid yourself, the quotas are real.

Anonymous wrote:
Total BS. The dirty little secret is most of those so called black and Hispanic diversity cases are immigrants or kids of immigrants who should get no advantage in college admissions period. They experienced none of the discrimination multi generational blacks faced. Harvard is a despicable institution. I hope they lose big, but not sure that will happen because our courts don't seem to have the courage to outlaw racial animus against Asian and White Americans at these Universities

You clearly don't understand why colleges have racial preferences. Read a book on the subject, like "The Shape Of The River". It is not to make up for "the discrimination multi generational blacks faced". It is because they believe their charter is better served for the institution and all students if the racial makeup of the college somewhat reflects that of society, regardless of the race itself.

I'm not saying they should-- I'm not sure actually. But if you keep making your point based on that incorrect fact, you will continue to be wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard argues race is a plus factor that is rarely outcome determinative, but later concedes that race was in fact the decisive factor in the admission of over half of the blacks at the school. Wealthy blacks with no vestiges of the hood have an advantage over poor Asians simply bc of skin color. Ridiculous.

There’s never a Harvard undergraduate admissions decision that pits a wealthy black candidate against a poor Asian candidate. As described, each applicant furthers different institutional objectives and contributes to a different kind of diversity. And, of course, your description barely scratches the surface of the attributes an admissions committee is taking into account. In general, the tradeoffs are between candidates that share some attributes. And the weight of various attributes varies from year to year depending on, among other things, what constellations of attributes are rare or common in that class’s applicant pool.

That’s before we get to the question of whether even a wealthy African American experiences disadvantages that a poor Asian American does not. Or why you don’t seem equally outraged that a rich Asian American has an advantage over a poor Asian American. Honestly, you (like SFFA) seem more concerned with decreasing the number of African Americans in elite universities than with increasing the number of Asian Americans from first gen or low SES backgrounds.

Total BS. The dirty little secret is most of those so called black and Hispanic diversity cases are immigrants or kids of immigrants who should get no advantage in college admissions period. They experienced none of the discrimination multi generational blacks faced. Harvard is a despicable institution. I hope they lose big, but not sure that will happen because our courts don't seem to have the courage to outlaw racial animus against Asian and White Americans at these Universities

Anonymous wrote:Harvard argues race is a plus factor that is rarely outcome determinative, but later concedes that race was in fact the decisive factor in the admission of over half of the blacks at the school. Wealthy blacks with no vestiges of the hood have an advantage over poor Asians simply bc of skin color. Ridiculous.

There’s never a Harvard undergraduate admissions decision that pits a wealthy black candidate against a poor Asian candidate. As described, each applicant furthers different institutional objectives and contributes to a different kind of diversity. And, of course, your description barely scratches the surface of the attributes an admissions committee is taking into account. In general, the tradeoffs are between candidates that share some attributes. And the weight of various attributes varies from year to year depending on, among other things, what constellations of attributes are rare or common in that class’s applicant pool.

That’s before we get to the question of whether even a wealthy African American experiences disadvantages that a poor Asian American does not. Or why you don’t seem equally outraged that a rich Asian American has an advantage over a poor Asian American. Honestly, you (like SFFA) seem more concerned with decreasing the number of African Americans in elite universities than with increasing the number of Asian Americans from first gen or low SES backgrounds.

Harvard argues race is a plus factor that is rarely outcome determinative, but later concedes that race was in fact the decisive factor in the admission of over half of the blacks at the school. Wealthy blacks with no vestiges of the hood have an advantage over poor Asians simply bc of skin color. Ridiculous.

It’s not my 40% — I’m paraphrasing the Alice in Wonderland like “logic” of the argument being made.

I agree that GPA/scores aren’t what gets anyone into Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:So any percentage is a form of proportional representation and any form of proportional representation is a quota... and it’s still a quota if the respective percentages of each racial group in the class vary from year to year. Unless Asians represent over 40% of the class, in which case it’s a meritocracy...

Not necessarily. Depends on the criteria. If it’s test scores, yes. Not necessarily with other criteria. Harvard is clearly said they care about more than test scores and gpa. Essays? Recommendation? Harvard cares about those. Your 40% is a red herring.

So any percentage is a form of proportional representation and any form of proportional representation is a quota... and it’s still a quota if the respective percentages of each racial group in the class vary from year to year. Unless Asians represent over 40% of the class, in which case it’s a meritocracy...