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

^^^ Cognitive dissonance.

I just told you Harvard was shown to have already penalized Asian students with a lower personality/likability score BEFORE they were interviewed or not even interviewed at all. This was shown in the recently subpoenaed internal documents. How can you assess personality and other soft factors without even an interview?

But keep ignoring inconvenient facts that counters your narrative.
 
Last edited:
The only thing this thread has taught me is that dumping all your character points in INT will not put you in a good college. Even the most basic nerd knows that you dont stack heavy on one stat. Harvard still has a basketball team and those low DEX and STR scores will jack you up. Obvious lack of WIS in any case.
 
Interview with Indian Harvard student (actress Mindy Kaling's brother) who got into Harvard with a 3.1 GPA, but posing as a black student.

 
The only thing this thread has taught me is that dumping all your character points in INT will not put you in a good college.

Ivy schools are vastly overrated. Plenty of good schools and alternative paths to an excellent education outside of that short (and expensive) list.
 
Trump administration backs Asian-Americans in Harvard case
AP News said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Thursday sided with Asian-American students suing Harvard University over the Ivy League school’s consideration of race in its admissions policy, the latest step in the Trump administration’s effort to encourage race-neutral admissions practices.

The Justice Department said in a court filing Thursday that the school has failed to demonstrate that it does not discriminate on the basis of race.

The department’s “statement of interest” was in a case filed in 2014 by Students For Fair Admission, which argues that one of the world’s most prestigious universities discriminates against academically strong Asian-American applicants.

Harvard didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, but the school has disputed the claims in previous filings.

The Supreme Court permits colleges and universities to consider race in admissions decisions, but says it must be done in a narrowly tailored way to promote diversity and should be limited in time. Universities also bear the burden of showing why their consideration of race is appropriate.

But in Harvard’s case, Justice Department officials said, the university hasn’t explained how it uses race in admissions and has not adopted meaningful criteria to limit the use of race.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “No American should be denied admission to school because of their race.”

Sessions argued the school’s use of a “personal rating,” which includes highly subjective factors such as being a “good person” or “likeability,” may be biased against Asian-Americans. Sessions said the school admits that it scores Asian-American applicants lower on personal rating than other students. Sessions also argued that Harvard admissions officers monitor and manipulate the racial makeup of incoming classes.

“The Supreme Court has called such attempts to ‘racially balance’ the makeup of a student body ‘patently unconstitutional,’” Sessions said in a statement.

Edward Blum, president of SFFA, hailed the administration’s action. “We look forward to having the gravely troubling evidence that Harvard continues to keep redacted disclosed to the American public in the near future,” he said.

The Justice Department’s court filing opposes Harvard’s request to dismiss the lawsuit before trial. The department is separately investigating Harvard’s admissions policies, a probe that could also result in a lawsuit.

The filing follows a July decision by the Justice and Education departments to abandon Obama-era guidelines that instructed universities to consider race in their admissions process to make the student body more diverse. Democrats criticized the decision, saying that the Trump administration was taking away protections for minorities.
Beat you to it, @Arkain2K.
 
wayyyyyyyyy too many Asians here in the UC system... I wonder how all these companies will even hire them. Expect to see Asians outside of California in the next decade in high numbers.
 
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.

anime isn't creative?!? selling art work on cards isnt an ingenious business idea(so well received that even forgeign markets went crazy for that shit)?!? Picking up things with a pair of sticks centuries before the first fork was invented isn't creative?! Have you ever seen Japanese carpentry/joinery?!? They can join wood with no glue and make it look amazing. How are fingercuffs not creative? Extra creative when you consider those shits were made like thousands of years ago?!? The concept of fireworks is super creative.. maybe the lack of creativity you're witnessing is a culture shock/insecurity of the immigrant living in an unfriendly environment... how can one be creative when your not free to be yourself?
 
We need everything in this country to be merit based. If blacks and Hispanics falter(which they will) that's their own problem. They could fix their culture and maybe they could succeed too.

We need to quit openly discriminating against whites and asians
 
Race-based school criteria roils Asian-Americans – again
By Janie Har Associated Press | Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2018

AR-180829543.jpg

Chinese-American lawyer Lee Cheng sued the San Francisco Unified School Disctrict in 1994 to overturn its cap on Chinese students

Time and again, Chinese-American students consistently delivered top academic scores, only to be denied admission to their dream school. Parents bemoaned what they saw as an unfair racial advantage given to black and Latino children while their own children were overlooked.

“Every year hundreds of Chinese-American parents would be in anguish,” said Lee Cheng, a 46-year-old intellectual property attorney, who sought to end the practice. “I remember the disappointment in some of my friends who were the kids of immigrants, of very, very poor people who worked in Chinatown.”

This may sound like the fights going on today over testing in elite public schools in New York City or lawsuits against prestigious universities such as Harvard over affirmative action.

But the scenario played out more than three decades ago on the other side of the country over a public high school, demonstrating the enduring nature of a controversy in which Asian-Americans have played a key role despite some feeling shut out of the broader conversation.

In the 1980s, San Francisco’s prestigious Lowell High School required Chinese applicants to score higher on an admissions index than whites, blacks and even other Asians as part of a legal mandate to diversify its schools.

Cheng, a Lowell graduate, couldn’t believe that was fair or even legal. But when he turned to Asian-American civil rights groups, they were of no help.

“These organizations, which all came of age largely as the ‘yellow’ affiliates of the NAACP and civil rights establishment, they said, ‘Hey there’s nothing to see here,’ “ Cheng said.

So he helped form a legal foundation and sued.

Race-based affirmative action has long polarized Asian-Americans, with critics feeling demonized and advocates chagrined by the attention to what they call minority-within-minority views.

Now, critics of the policy sense an opening for change, led by a White House hostile to the idea of considering race in admissions.

The U.S. Department of Justice is backing a 2014 lawsuit against Harvard University by Asian-American applicants, who say the Ivy League college unlawfully suppresses the number of Asians admitted. The DOJ also said last year it would investigate a May 2015 complaint filed against Harvard by a coalition of Asian-American groups.

The 2014 lawsuit, led by conservative strategist Ed Blum, is being closely watched as it goes to trial in October. It could wind up before a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court that only narrowly affirmed the use of race in school admissions in a case that Blum lost two years ago.

Other cases have raised the ire of Asian-Americans, even ones who consider themselves progressive allies. In 2009, the University of California plowed ahead with new admissions criteria that analysts said would boost white enrollment at the cost of Asian students.

More recently, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed to get more blacks and Latinos into specialized public high schools where Asians make up the bulk of students. Asian-American politicians said they were blindsided by the June announcement.

New York Assemblyman Ron Kim, a Democrat, said conservatives pigeonhole Asians as the “model minority,” but progressives on the left, such as de Blasio, vilify Asian-Americans instead of seeing them as partners.

“They rank us at the bottom of what it means to be a minority. They don’t consider us as minorities,” Kim said. “They’re shunning us from right and left, and we’re stuck in this dreadful space where we’re always questioning ourselves: Where do we belong?”

Advocates of affirmative action say bias against Asians doesn’t make it OK to abandon policies meant to counter longstanding systemic disparities. The agitation also sidesteps the legacy of privilege given whites, they say.

“No one is entitled to put other communities down,” says Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action in San Francisco. “Of course we are entitled to be free of discrimination, but we are not entitled to perpetuate discrimination against others.”

Surveys have shown broad Asian support for affirmative action policies, says Karthick Ramakrishnan, a public policy professor at the University of California, Irvine and founder of AAPI Data, which provides data on Asian-Americans.

But overall support dropped to below two-thirds in 2016, he said, driven by changing attitudes of one demographic in particular: Asian America’s largest ethnic group, Chinese-Americans.

In 2012, 78 percent of Chinese-Americans said they supported race-based affirmative action; in 2016, the figure was 41 percent.

Ramakrishnan says the newer immigrants moving public opinion are active on Chinese-language social media. They are wealthier and better educated than previous generations.

“They look down upon prior waves of Chinese immigration as well as other Asian immigration,” he said. “They somehow believe that the most significant racial discrimination that exists is not getting into Harvard.”

The Asian American Coalition for Education, the nonpartisan organization that filed the complaint against Harvard, disputes the surveys as vague.

Swan Lee, a founder of the organization, said she got involved after the brother of her daughter’s friend was rejected by what she described as basic four-year colleges despite his high test scores and grades.

He ended up employed as a waiter at the Chinese restaurant where his father worked, a victim of the “Asian tax,” she said.

“I said, ‘This cannot be right.’ We came here for opportunities, but this young man, our society is not doing him justice,” says Lee, who moved to the United States in 1996 for graduate school. “What happened to his American dream?”

After Cheng graduated from Harvard, he helped found the Asian American Legal Foundation and sued San Francisco schools in 1994.

At issue was a 1983 consent decree aimed at desegregating San Francisco schools, the result of a lawsuit filed by the local NAACP. The parties agreed to settle in 1999, and the quota system was eventually dropped.

Cheng recalls the fight as a lonely one.

“We never really wanted to be the leaders in the fight,” he said. “It’s just that nobody wanted to do it.”

https://durangoherald.com/articles/238905#slide=0
 
Nobody cares when the NFL and NBA are dominated by black people because sports are the ultimate meritocracy. All that matters is winning. Black people win in those sports and dominate them. Those sports are THRIVING with fandom and viewership. It is how it should be. The very best are rewarded for being the best.

But when it comes to Asians choosing school as their sport? For some reason that isn't fair? Because they work too hard and score too well? If Harvard and UCLA and any other school ended up all Asian because they were the best? Good on them. I don't care that I've never seen an Asian quarterback, and I am not going to complain about how colleges look.

I just wish we could be judged for who we are as individual humans.


lmao, the Cleveland Cavs were once purchased by a racist asshole who thought he could get better ratings if he drafted and traded for tons of white guys. The shitty franchise got shittier and ratings and attendance dropped. People voted with their dollars. Fans just want to see the best players and win.
 
Harvard Admissions Dean Largely Ignored Report on Factors Affecting Asian-American Applicants
By Melissa Korn | Oct. 17, 2018



BOSTON—Were admission to Harvard based solely on academic merit, Asian-Americans would comprise 43% of the freshman class, while African-Americans would make up less than 1%, according to an internal Harvard report discussed at a trial here Wednesday.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvar...asian-american-applicants-1539806653?mod=e2fb
 
Last edited:
Asian Americans are the punching bag of America lol

That is what happens when you do too well folks.
 
Clearly, this is the most pressing issue facing mankind, and the only logical response is to elect politicians who deny climate change is a man made phenomenon want to and end Social Security.
 
I like how it's assumed that for every Asian-American that gets rejected from any top tier school a black/Hispanic/undeserving brown person took their place.
 
I like how it's assumed that for every Asian-American that gets rejected from any top tier school a black/Hispanic/undeserving brown person took their place.

Undeserving white people too, not cool to leave them out. But then again you're only projecting your assumptions/narrative
 
Clearly, this is the most pressing issue facing mankind, and the only logical response is to elect politicians who deny climate change is a man made phenomenon want to and end Social Security.

Clearly, you are utterly incapable of on-topic discussion.
 
I like how it's assumed that for every Asian-American that gets rejected from any top tier school a black/Hispanic/undeserving brown person took their place.
Because people don't really care about the details once they've settled on an opinion.

Most of the details that are forthcoming indicate that Harvard highly prizes athletes, legacies and donors. They do send out letters to the different racial groups based on differing SAT scores. They also do so for different states and for the different genders. They also court low-income students.

Their argument is that they do this to encourage students who might not apply to Harvard to do so. So, a student might look at his SAT score and conclude that he/she has no chance of getting in but Harvard hopes that by sending them a letter that suggests interest, the student will apply anyway. Is that racial discrimination against Asian-American students? Depends on how much value you attach to the concept of Harvard trying to encourage a broad range of students to apply.

The legacy, donor and athlete thing has been well known and some recent emails from the trial really underscore how much they value the donors.

Are Asian Americans get shafted through these metrics? I have no idea. If you listen to what Harvard says then you have ask some questions:

1) Do Asian Americans participate in sports at a high enough frequency that the athlete preference shouldn't impact them?
2) Do Asian Americans need prodding at lower SAT scores to consider applying to Harvard?
3) Do Asian alumni and/or the families of potential admittees have a track record of delivering high value donations to the university?
4) Are low income Asian-American applicants being negatively treated compared to other low-income applicants?

I imagine that the answers to those questions and thus the answer to whether or not Harvard practices unfairly impact Asian-American students will be part of Harvard's defense when they put on their case.

On the flip side, Harvard has been aware that Asian-Americans were negatively impacted by their admissions practices for quite some time. Impacted does not intrinsically mean "unfairly" but Harvard didn't dig deeper either. So they showed an unwillingness to actually vet their process all those years ago despite an awareness of how Asian-Americans were affected.

Additionally, the language used in the personal category has been called stereotypical suggesting some type of bias in how they perceive Asian-American students. "Quiet" being a term that got particular attention.

All in all, what's come out is very interesting. The admissions process is far more complex than just test scores and GPA's. Unfortunately, many people have swallowed the narrative that Harvard is excluding Asians to admit blacks and Hispanics. In doing so, they are missing out on a host of useful information about how elite college admissions work. Even if Harvard loses this (and I mean on appeal because it's definitely going to get appealed regardless of the trial decision), the universities are going to continue with this exact admissions process.

I've been looking at elite prep school admissions a lot in recent days and they follow very similar models. Expensive, academically esteemed, extremely large endowments compared to their less esteemed peers, etc. Similarly, many of them have a historical association with local elite universities (such as the Trinity School in NYC and Columbia U.) But behind that - legacies are prized. They are driven by their ability to fund raise. They bend over backwards to field highly competitive sports teams. If this is the standard and the values at the prep school level then I see zero reason it will change at the college level when these schools are so intimately linked.
 
Back
Top