Law Affirmative Action Abolished: U.S Supreme Court Outlaws Racial Discrimination In College Admissions.

The intentional dumbing down of America, and also the impoverishment of many youth, taking on insane amounts of debt before they even know they will be employed
 
‘A Huge Blind Spot’: Why New York Asian-Americans Feel Overlooked
By David W. Chen | July 4, 2018

merlin_139107957_f014bf73-36c0-4094-88db-948a8200749e-articleLarge.jpg

City Councilman Peter Koo, center, addressed a rally to protest the city’s plan to revamp admissions to the city’s specialized high schools, which draw many Asian-American children.

When Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a change in the way students are admitted to the city’s most elite public high schools, he was surrounded by dozens of enthusiastic students, union leaders and elected officials, amid signs proclaiming “All Kids Deserve a Chance.”

Noticeably absent were representatives from one group that would be heavily affected by the change: Asian-Americans, whose children dominate those schools.


“This cliché of, ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu’ really felt like it rang true,” said Congresswoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat and graduate of one of the schools, Stuyvesant High School, who was not invited to the event last month. “I don’t think with any other community if there was such a large impact or sweeping change, they would not have been consulted or brought into the discussions.”

Asian-American community leaders say that in New York, far from being the “model minority” — a term many view as disparaging and inaccurate — they are the overlooked minority, taken for granted in the city’s calculus of political power.

It does not seem to matter, Asian-American officeholders and activists say, that all five Asian-American elected officials at the city, state and federal levels are Democrats, like Mr. de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. Nor does it matter that Asian-Americans of all backgrounds, including East and South Asians, now make up almost 15 percent of the city’s population, with the total number up by more than half since 2000. Or that the number of Chinese and Korean registered voters has doubled over the same period, according to the Center for Urban Research at the CUNY Graduate Center.

“It’s not just one thing, and it’s not just one time,” said Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, a Democrat who represents Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. “It shows a huge blind spot for Asian-American communities as a whole.”

merlin_137562510_9c65c491-261a-4d82-9700-72246c8ddf45-superJumbo.jpg

Congresswoman Grace Meng noted that Asian-American leaders were not consulted before the mayor proposed getting rid of the test for the city’s elite schools.
“This cliché of, ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu’ really felt like it rang true,” she said.


The list of grievances is long. When Mr. de Blasio ran for mayor in 2013, he pledged to designate the Lunar New Year a school holiday. But he didn’t deliver until 2015 — after he had already added two Muslim holy days to the calendar and was facing the potential political embarrassment of having the State Legislature make good on his promise.

“We had been pressing him for so long, then all of a sudden he changed his mind, because the state wanted to do something,” said City Councilman Peter Koo, who represents Queens neighborhoods including Flushing and Whitestone.

In 2016, thousands of Asian-Americans protested City Hall’s handling of the case involving Peter Liang, a rookie Chinese-American police officer who was convicted of manslaughter in the death of an unarmed black man, Akai Gurley, who was hit by a ricocheting bullet fired from the officer’s gun. Mr. Liang, they argued, was a scapegoat to placate a black community angered by the death of Eric Garner and other fatalities where the officers involved, most of them white, had gone unpunished.

More recently, Mr. de Blasio targeted electric bicycles, citing safety concerns and the complaints of residents who say they are dangerous. Yet e-bikes are crucial to the livelihood of immigrant delivery workers, many of whom live below the poverty line.

“We’ve been advocating to get these bikes legalized, and suddenly the mayor decided to say, ‘Oh, we’re going to crack down even more?’ ” said City Councilwoman Margaret Chin, who represents Lower Manhattan. “Hey, did you talk to us?”

But it was Mr. de Blasio’s proposal to tackle the vexing issue of segregation at the specialized high schools that galvanized Asian reaction. The eight schools, which have a single test for admissions, have a disproportionate number of Asian students, and few black and Latino ones. Mr. de Blasio has proposed throwing out the test and instead admitting students based on their class rank and state test scores, which would increase the numbers of black and Latino students significantly. Because the number of seats at the schools are limited, that would necessarily mean fewer Asian students would get in. Changing the admissions method would require an act of the Legislature for the three long-established specialized schools, and perhaps for all of them.

But in announcing the plan Mr. de Blasio did not mention the schools’ importance to Asian-Americans. Despite stereotypes about their success, Asian-Americans are the poorest immigrant group in the city, noted Joseph P. Viteritti, a professor of public policy at Hunter College, and many view the schools as a ladder to the middle class, and the test as the fairest way to determine admission. A report released last month by the Asian-American Federation, a network of community service groups, found that nine in 10 Asian households in poverty lack affordable housing, and one-quarter of those eligible to work did not have health insurance.


merlin_104776102_d3849348-d04f-46a5-a561-ea658116c9b2-superJumbo.jpg

“It’s not just one thing, and it’s not just one time,” said Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, a Democrat who represents Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. The mayor’s approach “shows a huge blind spot for Asian-American communities as a whole.”


Richard A. Carranza, the schools chancellor, intensified matters when he said in a television interview, “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admissions to these schools.”

John C. Liu, a former councilman and city comptroller whose mayoral ambitions were derailed by financial improprieties, called Mr. Carranza’s remarks “the most offensive and irritating comments that Asian-Americans have heard in quite some time.”

Mr. Liu, along with Ms. Chin, is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science, another of the elite high schools.

Mr. Carranza, asked whether he could have displayed more empathy to Asian-American families deeply invested in the current system, did not back off his comments.

“If you choose to be offended as an Asian resident of New York City, that’s a choice you make,” he said. “If you choose to not be offended, that’s a choice you make. But the statement is true: No one owns it. The City of New York, taxpayers, own the public school system of New York City.”

Asked about the criticisms, Eric Phillips, Mr. de Blasio’s press secretary, seemed more conciliatory: “When leaders in a community tell us we need to do more to engage them, we take it as a serious sign we have to do more, and do better,” he said in a statement. “While we aren’t going to shy away from doing what we believe is right, every community has a right to be heard and engaged — and it’s our job to make sure this community is a part in that process.”

A central question in the debate is where Asians fall in the worldview of the city’s political establishment. Eric L. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, had initially backed Mr. de Blasio’s proposal. But after facing a backlash from Asian community leaders, and the prospect that some donors would cancel future fund-raisers, Mr. Adams moderated his position and expressed reservations.


merlin_138308718_01463d57-cea3-4b5b-aba1-1a042fce64d1-superJumbo.jpg

City Councilwoman Margaret Chin, center, with constituents on the Lower East Side, said the mayor failed to consult with Asian-American leaders when he moved to ban electric bicycles, used by many deliverymen.


“Some progressives seem to be pushing the narrative that Asians are not minorities, immigrants and people of color,” said Assemblyman Ron Kim, a Democrat from Queens. And that’s “even worse when done in the name of reform and social justice,” he added, and may drive some Asian-Americans to embrace more conservative and Republican candidates.

Harvard University had used intangible measures like personality traits to lower Asian applicants’ ratings, in an effort to limit their numbers at the college.

Lost in the rhetoric, Mr. Kim and other elected leaders said, is the fact that Asian-Americans are hardly monolithic on issues of race and education, as evidenced by their wide range of opinions over affirmative action.

Reshma Saujani, who is of Indian descent, was deputy public advocate under Mr. de Blasio and is the founder of Girls Who Code, which aims to attract girls to tech, including black and Hispanic students. She said she supported the mayor’s initiative. At her own summer programs, “I turn away girls who look like me every single day,” she said.

But Ms. Saujani said that “as a South Asian activist, I know that we as a community have not achieved our political voice in New York, so it doesn’t shock me that people feel that we weren’t considered when they were drafting the policy.”

Jo-Ann Yoo, executive director of the Asian American Federation, said, “As much as we understand and applaud the mayor’s efforts to diversify the specialized high schools, there is tremendous anger among parents around the lack of engagement prior to the announcement.”

In their view, rather than making Asian-Americans part of the solution to the racial imbalance at the specialized schools, Mr. de Blasio targeted them as the problem, making the prospect of selling them on the change that much more difficult.

“He ran for office, in part, by saying he would open the pathways for political engagement and community engagement” in a way that former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg did not, said Basil A. Smikle Jr., a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party. “But sometimes the process is just as important as the outcome, and the process unfortunately tarnished the potential outcome of this policy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/nyregion/asians-overlooked-specialized-schools.html
 
Last edited:
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university."


lol just lol

unbelievable
 
The NY Times has an interesting new article of the status of the Harvard law suit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/us/harvard-admissions-asian-americans.html

In their process, first they subdivide the country in 20 regions where applicants from each region are evaluated by someone familiar with the area.

Then, generally two or three admissions officers, or readers, rate applications in five categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal and “overall.”

This is further expanded by giving sometimes giving "tips" to some applicants that improves their chance of admission. "Tips" are given in 5 categories (but not to everyone in those categories) racial and ethnic minorities; legacies, or the children of Harvard or Radcliffe alumni; relatives of a Harvard donor; the children of staff or faculty members; and recruited athletes. A 1990 analysis showed that Asian Americans did not receive "tips". Although Asian American women and Asian Americans from California did receive some positive bump to their chances.

Additionally there's something called the "dean's list" which is basically a student who the dean takes a special interest in - this seems tied to donations and influence. And a Z-list, which is kids admitted...so long as they agree to take a year off and attend the next year.

There are lengthy paragraphs about the wide range of characteristics that the university looks at when crafting an admissions class that go beyond GPA's and SAT scores. And something I took away from the article is the distinction between doing lots of standard things and doing one or two things at an exceptional level.

All in all, a very informative article. Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, it's very clear that admission to these universities is only partially about academics. I think that's important and I wonder if the people who argue for strict academic meritocracy understand the full range of accomplishments that often fall outside of the classroom?
 
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university."
lol just lol
unbelievable
that's crazy.

keep shat!
 
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university."


lol just lol

unbelievable


Disgusting and incredibly racist...but not surprising.
 
It's really really simple when it comes to colleges particularly Ivy league schools.

I'm not defending these policies so don't freak out at me personally but it's very easily explained.

1) Affirmative Action.

2) Supply and demand.

Many top schools have had disproportionately large Asian student populations compared to population demographics in their state for a few decades now.

For example a school like John's Hopkins that brags about its diversity is ~20% Asian in student body and ~ 42% white. Black students are ~ 7.2% of the student body.

Look at Baltimore city. 63.2% black. 28.1% white. 2.4% Asian.
And yeah, Baltimore is Baltimore and people are coming from all over the world to John's Hopkins.

But the whole point of affirmative action policies is to provide some balance in order to accept more students that were working through systemic disadvantages in k-12.


Without quotas limiting immigrant applicants and applicants from oversupplied demographics they would quickly end up with a school that's half asian and half white with zero minorities.


Face it, whether you're asian american or white if you grew up with parents who both had college degrees and paid for private music lessons and tutors and groomed your college resume from middle school on........... you were privileged as fuck.

So quit crying if a latino student or a black student was able to get accepted into an Ivy League school a bit more easily because their application looked more impressive given a lack of privilege and opportunity in their past.




This argument against affirmative action isn't new. It's the exact same argument angry white people with complaining about circa 1996.
But if a school is 50% Asian and 50% white, what's the issue? If only the best of the best get into John Hopkins, I wouldn't care if the freshman class ends up being 50% Libyan and 50% Eskimo. The race shouldn't be a factor at all.

I am in favor of affirmative action for poorer students, just not for race or gender. As an Indian American who had wealthy parents, I had a shit ton more privilege compared to a poorer Kid. If I have a 3.7 GPA and the poorer kid has a 3.5, I'd rank his as more impressive all things considered.
 
The NY Times has an interesting new article of the status of the Harvard law suit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/us/harvard-admissions-asian-americans.html

In their process, first they subdivide the country in 20 regions where applicants from each region are evaluated by someone familiar with the area.

Then, generally two or three admissions officers, or readers, rate applications in five categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal and “overall.”

This is further expanded by giving sometimes giving "tips" to some applicants that improves their chance of admission. "Tips" are given in 5 categories (but not to everyone in those categories) racial and ethnic minorities; legacies, or the children of Harvard or Radcliffe alumni; relatives of a Harvard donor; the children of staff or faculty members; and recruited athletes. A 1990 analysis showed that Asian Americans did not receive "tips". Although Asian American women and Asian Americans from California did receive some positive bump to their chances.

Additionally there's something called the "dean's list" which is basically a student who the dean takes a special interest in - this seems tied to donations and influence. And a Z-list, which is kids admitted...so long as they agree to take a year off and attend the next year.

There are lengthy paragraphs about the wide range of characteristics that the university looks at when crafting an admissions class that go beyond GPA's and SAT scores. And something I took away from the article is the distinction between doing lots of standard things and doing one or two things at an exceptional level.

All in all, a very informative article. Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, it's very clear that admission to these universities is only partially about academics. I think that's important and I wonder if the people who argue for strict academic meritocracy understand the full range of accomplishments that often fall outside of the classroom?

Harvard records and email communications with other Ivy's were subpoenaed in the case.

It showed Harvard preset lower "personality scores" BEFORE they even interviewed the students. Every other single metric - extracurrculars, grades, scores are higher than every other group.

I believe a lot of the people pushing for these subjective admissions standards and getting pats on the back for being progressive simply do not like Asians.

They use diversity as an excuse for them to exercise discrimination and now they have a politically acceptable reason to do so.

Also, it showed that even as alumni interviewers give high personal ratings to Asian students, the Harvard admissions officers keep giving Asian students lower scores.



This is from Harvard's OWN internal 2013 report.

Differences in personality scores given by alumni interviewers vs Harvard admissions officers.

IeJeUDw


- difference in test scores and ratings for white v Asian applicants
- showing the impact of being an athlete, legacy, low income ... or Asian

From the expert witness in the litigation:

- showing that Asian students consistently have much higher academic scores
- showing that Asian students consistently have higher extracurricular scores as well
 
Last edited:
Harvard records and email communications with other Ivy's were subpoenaed in the case.

It showed Harvard preset lower "personality scores" BEFORE they even interviewed the students.

Also, it showed that even as alumni interviewers give high personal ratings to Asian students, the Harvard admissions officers keep giving Asian students lower scores.



This is from Harvard's OWN internal 2013 report.

Differences in personality scores given by alumni interviewers vs Harvard admissions officers.

IeJeUDw


- difference in test scores and ratings for white v Asian applicants
- showing the impact of being an athlete, legacy, low income ... or Asian

From the expert witness in the litigation:

- showing that Asian students consistently have much higher academic scores
- showing that Asian students consistently have higher extracurricular scores as well
https://imgur.com/V9Tv16u - combining two graphs, this shows test scores vs admit rates by race


You're making the mistake of assuming that the admissions officer and the alumni interviewer are measuring the same thing. The admissions officers are looking at the admissions packet, not an in person interview. The alumni interviewer is looking at the in person interview, not the entire admissions packet. Apples and oranges.

And I linked the three different expert witness reports earlier. I don't really have time for pretending that there was only one report (the plaintiff's response to the defendant's expert witness report). There's another chart out there that shows the difference in extracurriculars selected. I'll try and find it for you. The take away is that when you look at the extracurricular spread, there are differences in where the majority of applicants spend their extracurricular time, especially when you look at the top 6 choices.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting case but I really don't feel like arguing with any- and every- one who only reads half the available information and then pretends that it's all that's out there.
 
I think they should also give people mandatory creativity aptitude tests as well. Asians are smart rationally, but most of them are conformists and can't think outside the box. The're just good at learning things other smart people came up with.
The schools should be looking for people with a combination of high rational intelligence (iq, sat, etc) with high creativity rather than just the candidate with the highest rational intelligence.

Afterall, it's the people who are smart rationally AND creatively who are going to contribute the most to society.

Anyhow these gender, race, diversity quotas do suck. The best qualified people should get in period, but we should change the qualification criteria as I stated.
 
You're making the mistake of assuming that the admissions officer and the alumni interviewer are measuring the same thing. The admissions officers are looking at the admissions packet, not an in person interview. The alumni interviewer is looking at the in person interview, not the entire admissions packet. Apples and oranges.

And I linked the three different expert witness reports earlier. I don't really have time for pretending that there was only one report (the plaintiff's response to the defendant's expert witness report). There's another chart out there that shows the difference in extracurriculars selected. I'll try and find it for you. The take away is that when you look at the extracurricular spread, there are differences in where the majority of applicants spend their extracurricular time, especially when you look at the top 6 choices.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting case but I really don't feel like arguing with any- and every- one who only reads half the available information and then pretends that it's all that's out there.

You're completely ignoring things that counter your narrative that there is no bias or quota.

How about the fact that Asian applicants got a lower base "personality" score BEFORE any interviews. They already started off at a deficit simply for being Asian.

You are not being objective and completely biased. Confirmation bias.
 
I think they should also give people mandatory creativity aptitude tests as well. Asians are smart rationally, but most of them are conformists and can't think outside the box. The're just good at learning things other smart people came up with.
The schools should be looking for people with a combination of high rational intelligence (iq, sat, etc) with high creativity rather than just the candidate with the highest rational intelligence.

Afterall, it's the people who are smart rationally AND creatively who are going to contribute the most to society.

Anyhow these gender, race, diversity quotas do suck. The best qualified people should get in period, but we should change the qualification criteria as I stated.

Yea that is the same argument I see on Stormfront - an excuse white people give for Asian's higher average academic achievement and higher average IQ scores to make themselves feel better. Yet where's the proof?

Ironic, since we are on a mixed martial arts forum where most of the martial arts practiced in MMA originated in Asia.
 
Yea that is the same argument I see on Stormfront - an excuse white people give for Asian's higher average academic achievement and higher average IQ scores to make themselves feel better. Yet where's the proof?

Ironic, since we are on a mixed martial arts forum where most of the martial arts practiced in MMA originated in Asia.
I don't visit stormfront.
I don't need to make excuses to make myself feel better. I've had my intelligence tested and I'm more intelligent than atleast 98% of the population rationally. I'm smarter than all the white people I went to school with and know and all the Asians as well. And I went to school with a lot of asians.

It's hard to prove which race is more creative than others, because while iq testing and results have been rigorously studied creativity tests have not. However considering that most of the people who made the greatest contributions to society in mathematics and the sciences were white, ie Pythagorous, Einstein, Hawking, Newton etc, plus almost all of the great philosophers were white and many of the most innovative artists were white, it seems as though that particular race may have an advantage in creativity, much like Asians do in rational intelligence. But it's hard to prove.

I just proposed a theory, it could be right, it could be wrong. I believe the best people should get in, period, i don't care what color of skin they have. Under the current system it would be mostly asian, under the system I'm proposing I still believe there would be a lot of asians at the top, but probably not as much. Moreover creativity is a rare trait, Most people are just slight variations on each other, ie drones, that goes for whites and asians, but a bit more so even for asians in my opinion.
 
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university."

lol just lol

unbelievable
This has to be the most retard thing i've read today if not this week LOL
 
‘A Huge Blind Spot’: Why New York Asian-Americans Feel Overlooked
By David W. Chen | July 4, 2018

merlin_139107957_f014bf73-36c0-4094-88db-948a8200749e-articleLarge.jpg

City Councilman Peter Koo, center, addressed a rally to protest the city’s plan to revamp admissions to the city’s specialized high schools, which draw many Asian-American children.

When Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a change in the way students are admitted to the city’s most elite public high schools, he was surrounded by dozens of enthusiastic students, union leaders and elected officials, amid signs proclaiming “All Kids Deserve a Chance.”

Noticeably absent were representatives from one group that would be heavily affected by the change: Asian-Americans, whose children dominate those schools.


“This cliché of, ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu’ really felt like it rang true,” said Congresswoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat and graduate of one of the schools, Stuyvesant High School, who was not invited to the event last month. “I don’t think with any other community if there was such a large impact or sweeping change, they would not have been consulted or brought into the discussions.”

Asian-American community leaders say that in New York, far from being the “model minority” — a term many view as disparaging and inaccurate — they are the overlooked minority, taken for granted in the city’s calculus of political power.

It does not seem to matter, Asian-American officeholders and activists say, that all five Asian-American elected officials at the city, state and federal levels are Democrats, like Mr. de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. Nor does it matter that Asian-Americans of all backgrounds, including East and South Asians, now make up almost 15 percent of the city’s population, with the total number up by more than half since 2000. Or that the number of Chinese and Korean registered voters has doubled over the same period, according to the Center for Urban Research at the CUNY Graduate Center.

“It’s not just one thing, and it’s not just one time,” said Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, a Democrat who represents Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. “It shows a huge blind spot for Asian-American communities as a whole.”

merlin_137562510_9c65c491-261a-4d82-9700-72246c8ddf45-superJumbo.jpg

Congresswoman Grace Meng noted that Asian-American leaders were not consulted before the mayor proposed getting rid of the test for the city’s elite schools.
“This cliché of, ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu’ really felt like it rang true,” she said.


The list of grievances is long. When Mr. de Blasio ran for mayor in 2013, he pledged to designate the Lunar New Year a school holiday. But he didn’t deliver until 2015 — after he had already added two Muslim holy days to the calendar and was facing the potential political embarrassment of having the State Legislature make good on his promise.

“We had been pressing him for so long, then all of a sudden he changed his mind, because the state wanted to do something,” said City Councilman Peter Koo, who represents Queens neighborhoods including Flushing and Whitestone.

In 2016, thousands of Asian-Americans protested City Hall’s handling of the case involving Peter Liang, a rookie Chinese-American police officer who was convicted of manslaughter in the death of an unarmed black man, Akai Gurley, who was hit by a ricocheting bullet fired from the officer’s gun. Mr. Liang, they argued, was a scapegoat to placate a black community angered by the death of Eric Garner and other fatalities where the officers involved, most of them white, had gone unpunished.

More recently, Mr. de Blasio targeted electric bicycles, citing safety concerns and the complaints of residents who say they are dangerous. Yet e-bikes are crucial to the livelihood of immigrant delivery workers, many of whom live below the poverty line.

“We’ve been advocating to get these bikes legalized, and suddenly the mayor decided to say, ‘Oh, we’re going to crack down even more?’ ” said City Councilwoman Margaret Chin, who represents Lower Manhattan. “Hey, did you talk to us?”

But it was Mr. de Blasio’s proposal to tackle the vexing issue of segregation at the specialized high schools that galvanized Asian reaction. The eight schools, which have a single test for admissions, have a disproportionate number of Asian students, and few black and Latino ones. Mr. de Blasio has proposed throwing out the test and instead admitting students based on their class rank and state test scores, which would increase the numbers of black and Latino students significantly. Because the number of seats at the schools are limited, that would necessarily mean fewer Asian students would get in. Changing the admissions method would require an act of the Legislature for the three long-established specialized schools, and perhaps for all of them.

But in announcing the plan Mr. de Blasio did not mention the schools’ importance to Asian-Americans. Despite stereotypes about their success, Asian-Americans are the poorest immigrant group in the city, noted Joseph P. Viteritti, a professor of public policy at Hunter College, and many view the schools as a ladder to the middle class, and the test as the fairest way to determine admission. A report released last month by the Asian-American Federation, a network of community service groups, found that nine in 10 Asian households in poverty lack affordable housing, and one-quarter of those eligible to work did not have health insurance.


merlin_104776102_d3849348-d04f-46a5-a561-ea658116c9b2-superJumbo.jpg

“It’s not just one thing, and it’s not just one time,” said Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, a Democrat who represents Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. The mayor’s approach “shows a huge blind spot for Asian-American communities as a whole.”


Richard A. Carranza, the schools chancellor, intensified matters when he said in a television interview, “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admissions to these schools.”

John C. Liu, a former councilman and city comptroller whose mayoral ambitions were derailed by financial improprieties, called Mr. Carranza’s remarks “the most offensive and irritating comments that Asian-Americans have heard in quite some time.”

Mr. Liu, along with Ms. Chin, is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science, another of the elite high schools.

Mr. Carranza, asked whether he could have displayed more empathy to Asian-American families deeply invested in the current system, did not back off his comments.

“If you choose to be offended as an Asian resident of New York City, that’s a choice you make,” he said. “If you choose to not be offended, that’s a choice you make. But the statement is true: No one owns it. The City of New York, taxpayers, own the public school system of New York City.”

Asked about the criticisms, Eric Phillips, Mr. de Blasio’s press secretary, seemed more conciliatory: “When leaders in a community tell us we need to do more to engage them, we take it as a serious sign we have to do more, and do better,” he said in a statement. “While we aren’t going to shy away from doing what we believe is right, every community has a right to be heard and engaged — and it’s our job to make sure this community is a part in that process.”

A central question in the debate is where Asians fall in the worldview of the city’s political establishment. Eric L. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, had initially backed Mr. de Blasio’s proposal. But after facing a backlash from Asian community leaders, and the prospect that some donors would cancel future fund-raisers, Mr. Adams moderated his position and expressed reservations.


merlin_138308718_01463d57-cea3-4b5b-aba1-1a042fce64d1-superJumbo.jpg

City Councilwoman Margaret Chin, center, with constituents on the Lower East Side, said the mayor failed to consult with Asian-American leaders when he moved to ban electric bicycles, used by many deliverymen.


“Some progressives seem to be pushing the narrative that Asians are not minorities, immigrants and people of color,” said Assemblyman Ron Kim, a Democrat from Queens. And that’s “even worse when done in the name of reform and social justice,” he added, and may drive some Asian-Americans to embrace more conservative and Republican candidates.

Harvard University had used intangible measures like personality traits to lower Asian applicants’ ratings, in an effort to limit their numbers at the college.

Lost in the rhetoric, Mr. Kim and other elected leaders said, is the fact that Asian-Americans are hardly monolithic on issues of race and education, as evidenced by their wide range of opinions over affirmative action.

Reshma Saujani, who is of Indian descent, was deputy public advocate under Mr. de Blasio and is the founder of Girls Who Code, which aims to attract girls to tech, including black and Hispanic students. She said she supported the mayor’s initiative. At her own summer programs, “I turn away girls who look like me every single day,” she said.

But Ms. Saujani said that “as a South Asian activist, I know that we as a community have not achieved our political voice in New York, so it doesn’t shock me that people feel that we weren’t considered when they were drafting the policy.”

Jo-Ann Yoo, executive director of the Asian American Federation, said, “As much as we understand and applaud the mayor’s efforts to diversify the specialized high schools, there is tremendous anger among parents around the lack of engagement prior to the announcement.”

In their view, rather than making Asian-Americans part of the solution to the racial imbalance at the specialized schools, Mr. de Blasio targeted them as the problem, making the prospect of selling them on the change that much more difficult.

“He ran for office, in part, by saying he would open the pathways for political engagement and community engagement” in a way that former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg did not, said Basil A. Smikle Jr., a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party. “But sometimes the process is just as important as the outcome, and the process unfortunately tarnished the potential outcome of this policy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/nyregion/asians-overlooked-specialized-schools.html


So basically Asians are rustled that a black kid or two may get into thier high schools?
 
The NY Times has an interesting new article of the status of the Harvard law suit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/us/harvard-admissions-asian-americans.html

In their process, first they subdivide the country in 20 regions where applicants from each region are evaluated by someone familiar with the area.

Then, generally two or three admissions officers, or readers, rate applications in five categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal and “overall.”

This is further expanded by giving sometimes giving "tips" to some applicants that improves their chance of admission. "Tips" are given in 5 categories (but not to everyone in those categories) racial and ethnic minorities; legacies, or the children of Harvard or Radcliffe alumni; relatives of a Harvard donor; the children of staff or faculty members; and recruited athletes. A 1990 analysis showed that Asian Americans did not receive "tips". Although Asian American women and Asian Americans from California did receive some positive bump to their chances.

Additionally there's something called the "dean's list" which is basically a student who the dean takes a special interest in - this seems tied to donations and influence. And a Z-list, which is kids admitted...so long as they agree to take a year off and attend the next year.

There are lengthy paragraphs about the wide range of characteristics that the university looks at when crafting an admissions class that go beyond GPA's and SAT scores. And something I took away from the article is the distinction between doing lots of standard things and doing one or two things at an exceptional level.

All in all, a very informative article. Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, it's very clear that admission to these universities is only partially about academics. I think that's important and I wonder if the people who argue for strict academic meritocracy understand the full range of accomplishments that often fall outside of the classroom?
The whole story shows a disconnect between what people feel the Ivy League should be and what it actually is and is seen as by its administrators. Its not about accepting the highest performing students, its about increasing the resources of the University through legacies admissions and admissions for students related to donors as well as reproducing the ruling elite by taking the children of said elite, with some academic high achievers, and exposing them to the elite networks that facilitate their rise to the top. When selecting students who aren't legacy or donor related, they still want students who fit a certain mold of what they feel the ruling elite should be and unfortunately Asian students do not fit that mold.
But if a school is 50% Asian and 50% white, what's the issue? If only the best of the best get into John Hopkins, I wouldn't care if the freshman class ends up being 50% Libyan and 50% Eskimo. The race shouldn't be a factor at all.

I am in favor of affirmative action for poorer students, just not for race or gender. As an Indian American who had wealthy parents, I had a shit ton more privilege compared to a poorer Kid. If I have a 3.7 GPA and the poorer kid has a 3.5, I'd rank his as more impressive all things considered.
The issue is these schools wants well connected kids attending their classes as that's better for them. Notice how in the Harvard admissions a space if carved out for kids related to donors in addition to legacies.

Its also the case that these schools want a diverse population for its own sake which is the same reason its harder for girls to enter than men. Girls out-compete boys for these spots pretty hard and if the system was meritocratic we'd be seeing Unis where the ratio of girls to boys would be like 2:1. But Unis don't want to turn into de facto girls college's or Asian college's because that would make them less attractive for admissions. Most young women want there to be men on the campuses they attend and most non-Asian students don't want to feel like they are in Beijing or Seoul when they go to campus.

In the case of the Ivy League they were never meant to be meritocratic institutions, they were always designed as institutions for reproducing the ruling class which is why they take their legacies admissions and the admissions related to donors so seriously. If Asian students and women want to attend an elite University that is meritocratic there already is one out there, its called MIT. They give zero fucks about legacy admissions or donors, they want the best.
 
I just proposed a theory, it could be right, it could be wrong.

Given the tech industry, where some of the biggest breakthroughs and creative shit has come out in the last decade as well as medical industry are basically dominated by Asians/East Indians...

You're fucking wrong.

Welcome back whoever recently banned member you are
 
If Asian students and women want to attend an elite University that is meritocratic there already is one out there, its called MIT. They give zero fucks about legacy admissions or donors, they want the best.

I think you meant to say Caltech, where all the shady Racial and Legacy preferential treatments were banned by Californian voters in 1996.

Considerations for skin colors in college admission and job hiring is still very much alive and well in Massachusetts.


Why does MIT have so few Asian Americans compared to Caltech? Study blames ‘holistic’ admissions
The center’s study looked at admissions trends from the California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard since the 1980s.

The first has no race preferences, the second uses race preferences, and the third gives preference by race, legacy and “celebrity” status.

 
Last edited:
I've had my intelligence tested and I'm more intelligent than atleast 98% of the population rationally. I'm smarter than all the white people I went to school with and know and all the Asians as well.
I'd say you're more delusional than at least 98% of the population. Rationally, of course.
 
Given the tech industry, where some of the biggest breakthroughs and creative shit has come out in the last decade as well as medical industry are basically dominated by Asians/East Indians...

You're fucking wrong.

It seems like you're mistaking refinements and alterations for actual inventions.

Who invented the computer, who created basic AI? http://techland.time.com/2011/11/10/who-really-invented-the-computer/ Either Turing or Babbage and both were white, and most of the most prolific refiners in the field were white, Wozniack, Gates, etc.

Your point about india brings up a larger issue, they are a low iq country, but because there are so many of them they are represented highly in the tech industry, same with china, although there are even more chinese and they are a higher iq nation.

There's a difference between creating alternating current, calculus, or computers like Tesla, Newton or Turing/Babbage did and refining a processor to have a higher clockspeed than existing models. A big difference.

You're just proving my point,m with the tech thing, whites seem to come up with most of the biggest breakthroughs and inventions. I don't care that much though, asians can be creative too. But in aggregate they just seem to be less so. It's not surprising they are collectivist culutures and collective cultures place high value in the trait of conformity. Andf in order to be creative a person needs to be higher in individualism and lower in conformity. It is what is.

But still there are asians out there who are more creative, than 99.9% of whites, it's just not the norm.

'Welcome back whoever recently banned member you are"
Nope.
 
Back
Top