1. Yes, 2004. Nothing has changed since then, so your attempt to imply that it is dated is rejected as the dishonest nonsense it is.
2. I posted from the Huffington Post so that you would feel comfortable with the source. Naturally, the Huffington Post focused on how the discrimination in favor of blacks and browns effected ANOTHER minority instead of whites, but I trusted that you were intelligent enough to grasp that pro-black discrimination that effected asians would also effect whites.
I stand by that assumption of your intelligence, so knock off your shit.
3. A bonus for Athletes, is a separate issue that touches on the role of sports in upper education, and one that I am will to discuss, but is really off topic here.
4. A bonus for alumni, smaller than for black skin, is another separate issue. On one hand, the alumni system is why these schools have so much money and are able to offer so many very helpful complete scholarships to poor students. Are you sure you would want to shut that down? ON that other hand, those numbers enable the schools to partially hide how much they are discriminating against whites. Or on the third hand, do they? I haven't seen demographic breakdown of those students.
5. And I have NOT seen a number on what percentage of students get the alumni bonus, so I don't know how many lower quality students get in with that. DO you?
5. ANd again you want to ignore hard data on the fact of massive anti-white discrimination to focus on outcomes, showing that you SUPPORT discrimination not equality.
Please do not post sources that will "make me comfortable" Just post a credible one that proves that "massive anti white discrmination" is actually happening. The source that you posted speaks to Asians....are they now considered "honorary white people"?
And I am not sure what you mean by "knock off my shit".
If I waste time reading "shit" that's what I normally treat it like.
Capeche?
The study is credible, and has been out there since 2004, and has not be debunked.
THe numbers are real and the massive discrimination in favor of blacks has been well documented.
And the important thing to understand, is that this is a good example NOT because there is any special focus on ivy league education for discrimination, BUT that there is very good documentation of applications so that the discrimination that AA, and Diversity and Disparate Impact Theory, all cause, is just easy to see and document.
The factors that drive the discrimination in the Ivy League are present in all aspects of our society.
You asked for proof of the discrimination i cited, and I have given it to you.
THIS IS THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE TO START DEFLECTING FROM THE TOPIC.
Cause you CAN'T actually address it anymore.
I have addressed it. But see no reason to repeat over and over that the "study" addresses a disparity in potential bonus points for ASIANS.
However, ATHLETES, HISPANICS, AND OFFSPRING OF ALUMINI IN ADDITION TO BLACKS GET BONUS POINTS AS WELL....but you conveniently avoided that conversation, which means you are not genuinely for a system that is fair and balanced for ALL.
I avoided nothing. I pointed out that the Athletics scholarships are a separate issue. hispanics in this scenario are just blacks lite, ie getting a major, but still smaller favorable discrimination. Alumini I made three points about, none of which you addressed, so, dont' talk to me about "conveniently avoiding".
Which makes it clear to me that the extent of your concern is only over what you feel are "blacks being rewarded at YOUR expense"......
Clear to you, because that is a matter of faith with you that you twist all data to fit.
And as I have told you repeatedly, there is NO credible information anywhere that proves that whites are being displaced in colleges or in the workforce by blacks. If anything, white males on the average are being outperformed and surpassed by white females....thanks to AA.
The 230 point bonus means that plenty of whites are losing slots to far less qualified blacks. Otherwise, the amount of the bonus would be ZERO points, if it was not happening.
If it were up to you, the calendar would revert back to 1950 and every black citizen in America would again by law be deemed as a second class citizen.
It is not 1950 anymore.
That's what your problem is.....its not "massive anti white discrimination".
Save your bullshit for someone that has not linked documented proof of massive and widespread discrimination in Ivy League Admissions.
The following is a more current article that outlines the real truth. It is for a fact ASIAN students who are being discriminated against to make room for others who are less deserving....including whites.
"Asian Americans have finally had enough. Theyâre tired of working harder, achieving more academically, then having that held against them as they try to fulfill their educational dreams in our nationâs most elite universities. To gain entry into top private schools such as Harvard or the best public schools such as the University of North CarolinaâChapel Hill, no one has to do better than Americans of Chinese or Japanese or Korean descent. To make room for black, Latino, and â yes â white students, deserving Asian Americans are pushed aside. And theyâre tired of it.
So last week a coalition of more than 60 Asian-American groups filed complaints with the Department of Justice and Department of Education, alleging systematic racial discrimination in college admissions. Theyâre right, of course. Colleges do systematically disadvantage Asian students, and the problem is worse than they imagine. Iâve seen it with my own eyes.
Years ago, before I became a full-time constitutional lawyer, I taught at Cornell Law School â an Ivy League school and one of the top law schools in the country. My second year on the faculty, I served on the admissions committee, and I saw firsthand how not just race but ideology distorts the admissions process. Ivy League admissions are one part meritocracy â the students are quite bright â and one part ideological engineering. And if Americans broadly understood how the process works, support for affirmative action would diminish even further.
RELATED: Smash the âBamboo Ceilingâ of Racial Quotas
First, few people understand how dramatic the boost is for favored minority groups. If students were black or the ârightâ kind of Latino, they would often receive admissions offers with test scores 20 or 30 percentile points lower than those of white or Asian students. When I expressed concern about an admissions offer to a black student with test scores in the 70th percentile â after weâd passed over white and Asian students with scores in the 98th percentile and far higher grades â I was told that we had to offer admission or weâd surely lose him to our Ivy League rivals.
â
Second, these dramatic breaks rarely go to poor kids who are overcoming the challenges of ghetto schools. Many Americans, myself included, understand it is a real and substantial achievement â one that canât be measured in test scores â to overcome extreme poverty and Americaâs worst public schools to compete with students from far more prosperous backgrounds. But the same reasoning doesnât apply to the children of doctors and lawyers. Yet they get dramatic advantages as well. In fact, unless admissions committees gave rich black and Latino kids dramatic advantages, they wouldnât be able to hit their diversity targets. At the Ivy League level, affirmative action is an enhanced-opportunity program for favored rich kids.
RELATED: Affirmative Discrimination in Higher Education: Notes on the Continuing Struggle
Third, affirmative action isnât necessarily for every black or Latino applicant. Cuban Americans often get less help. African students get less help. And, worst of all, there are times when admissions committees will actually ideologically cleanse the minority applicant pool of minorities who are seen as âless diverseâ because of expressed interest in âwhiteâ professions such as, say, investment banking. If youâre a Mexican American who writes an admissions essay about defending the rights of migrant farm workers, youâre a dream candidate. If youâre a black candidate who aspires to work for Goldman Sachs, youâre âless diverseâ (these are real-life examples, by the way).
Like-minded admissions committees admit like-minded students while marinating in the âsoft bigotry of lower expectations.â
The ideological cleansing also happens to white candidates. In one of the most memorable incidents, the committee almost rejected an extraordinarily qualified applicant because of his obvious Christian faith (heâd attended a Christian college, a conservative seminary, and worked for religious conservative causes). In writing, committee members questioned whether they wanted his âBible-thumpingâ or âGod-squaddingâ on campus. I objected, noting that my own background was even more conservative. To their credit, the committee members apologized and offered him admission.
It was sobering to see the immense achievement gap between most of the black and Latino applicants and their white and especially Asian counterparts. But I couldnât help but think that part of that gap was due to the well-known lowered expectations for favored minorities. Even achievement-oriented students tend to work hard enough to accomplish their goals â and no harder. Why tell the best and brightest black and Latino students that they donât have to do as well, that they can take their foot off the accelerator and still attend the best schools?
RELATED: The Modern University Is Failing Students in Every Respect
â
Like-minded admissions committees admit like-minded students while marinating in the âsoft bigotry of lower expectations.â During my one year on the committee, I did what I could to try to introduce a different perspective, but I felt as if I were fighting a raging fire with a garden hose.
In the interests of full disclosure: My youngest daughter is black, adopted from Ethiopia. The last thing I want to see is her placed in a school where sheâs not equipped to compete and succeed. I love her too much to see her well-being sacrificed so an academic liberal â no matter how well-intentioned â can meet a quota."
â David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.
â
The discrimination in favor of blacks and, to a lesser extent browns, of course is also discrimination AGAINST higher scoring White AND asians.
That I did not specifically focus on asians, was not a denial that they are being discriminated against. My own link discussed that, AND I pointed it out ALSO, in my post.
The rest of your complaints about the effect of anti-white and anti-asian discrimination is worthy of discussion, but then again, you deny that it is occurring, sort of, at least against whites, so, wtf are you talking about?
Therein lies your answer. It is pointless to waste time speaking to you, because you post information that addresses something completely different than what you claim to be your issue. I agreed that Asians are being discriminated against. And in some cases lose out to lesser deserving whites as well
You are just obsessed with blacks being rewarded at "your expense" and chose to ignore the plight of Asian students to facilitate your own agenda.
I even took the time to search for any information that validates that white people are losing out to blacks just to humor you and nothing came up.
Why?
Because WHITE FEMALES are the most rewarded demographic as it relates to ALL groups.
Case closed. I'm done arguing over nonsense.
By giving blacks and to a lesser extent browns, an effective sat bonus for their skin color, they are discriminating against those who scored better (whites and asians) and thus deserve the slots that go to the blacks and browns who would otherwise be rejected.
I do tend to focus more on discrimination that hurts me and mine.
I see the pain caused by this discrimination every day.
Your point about white women benefiting does not change the fact of that 230 point bonus for black skin.
AND, let's keep this point in mind. Ivy League Admissions were not examined because there is any reason to believe that anti-white discrimination is worse there than anywhere else,
but because admissions are so well documented so that the discrimination that is everywhere can be well defined in this specific example.