- Mar 11, 2015
- 76,494
- 33,149
- 2,330
First, let me start with the reason right-wingers here defend Asians even after blaming them for COVID19 was that Asian culture teaches to take the abuse and be quiet. It is the same philosophy Booker T. Washington used and blacks found that DID NOT WORK. Young Asians today have found that it does not work and are talking to older Asians about it. In upcoming years look for Asians to lose most favored minority group status and honorary whiteness as they begin to get more forceful in their challenge of white supremacy.
As for Harvard, Asians are not getting excluded. Once again I will repost the information from the upcoming case.
Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. It is a case first filed in 2014.
In this case, the contention is that Asians are discriminated against based on the number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. More than 30,000 students each year apply to Harvard. In 2019, there were 36,000 applicants for 1,600 slots. That meant 34,400 students of all races were not admitted. The claim is Asians get excluded to add black and Hispanic students. Ironically the claim is not made about Asians being passed over for white legacy students. Students for Fair Admissions claimed that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federal financial assistance programs and activities.” Here is where the claim gets sticky. But before we get to that, we need to understand what courts use as regulations guiding a decision in cases such as this.
When a case such as this goes to court, the court considers many things. As it pertains to this case, the First Circuit Court determined that Harvard’s policy satisfied “strict scrutiny” and did not discriminate against Asians relative to admissions. Strict scrutiny comes into play in equal protection cases such as this one because race is considered a suspect category under the law. As a suspect category, if race is used as a classification in situations like this, it must be proven that using race is necessary to further a “compelling interest,” and the objective could not be accomplished without doing so. The use of racial classifications in this situation makes sense if a university is trying to create a learning atmosphere that utilizes students, faculty, and staff's diverse life experiences.
It is time to look at Blum's claim. He claims Asians are discriminated against in admissions. Harvard admission numbers do not support his claim. Asians are 6 percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021. That is a full ten percentage points more than African Americans (15.9%) and more than double the percentage of both Hispanics(12.5%) and Native Americans(11%). In fact, there were more Asians admitted into Harvard than Hispanics and Native Americans combined. Additionally, a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and reported on the NBC.com website on September 20, 2019, revealed this:
“Using publicly released reports, we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.”
Here, we see that whites are provided entry by a plethora of other preferences they would not qualify for if not for connections they have due to their race. The study shows that Asians are not adversely impacted because Harvard must admit blacks and Hispanics that are presumably unqualified. Instead, we see white ALDC students who would not qualify under any other circumstance who get accepted at more than double the percentage of Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans who meet the same criteria.
Equal protection means that government entities must treat all individuals the same when the circumstances or situations are the same. Students for Fair Admissions claimed that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federal financial assistance programs and activities.” The numbers show that when the circumstances and situations are the same, meaning ALDC preferences, 2.68 times more whites get admitted due to this preference than Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans.
Harvard’s Admissions Program Does Not Violate the Civil Rights Act., Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000D ET SEQ., Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d Et Seq.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, First Circuit Holds that Harvard’s Admissions Program Does Not Violate the Civil Rights Act., Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
Russell W. Galloway Jr., Basic Equal Protection Analysis, 29 Santa Clara L. Rev. 121 (1989). Basic Equal Protection Analysis
The diverse demographics of Asian Americans, The diverse demographics of Asian Americans
Admissions Statistics, A Brief Profile of the Admitted Class of 2025, Harvard welcomes students from across the country and all over, Admissions Statistics
Daniella Silva, Study on Harvard finds 43 percent of white students are legacy, athletes, related to donors or staff, Study finds 43 percent of Harvard's white students are legacy, athletes, related to donors or staff
Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, Tyler Ransom, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Legacy And Athlete Preferences At Harvard, Working Paper 26316, Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard
As for Harvard, Asians are not getting excluded. Once again I will repost the information from the upcoming case.
Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. It is a case first filed in 2014.
In this case, the contention is that Asians are discriminated against based on the number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. More than 30,000 students each year apply to Harvard. In 2019, there were 36,000 applicants for 1,600 slots. That meant 34,400 students of all races were not admitted. The claim is Asians get excluded to add black and Hispanic students. Ironically the claim is not made about Asians being passed over for white legacy students. Students for Fair Admissions claimed that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federal financial assistance programs and activities.” Here is where the claim gets sticky. But before we get to that, we need to understand what courts use as regulations guiding a decision in cases such as this.
When a case such as this goes to court, the court considers many things. As it pertains to this case, the First Circuit Court determined that Harvard’s policy satisfied “strict scrutiny” and did not discriminate against Asians relative to admissions. Strict scrutiny comes into play in equal protection cases such as this one because race is considered a suspect category under the law. As a suspect category, if race is used as a classification in situations like this, it must be proven that using race is necessary to further a “compelling interest,” and the objective could not be accomplished without doing so. The use of racial classifications in this situation makes sense if a university is trying to create a learning atmosphere that utilizes students, faculty, and staff's diverse life experiences.
It is time to look at Blum's claim. He claims Asians are discriminated against in admissions. Harvard admission numbers do not support his claim. Asians are 6 percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021. That is a full ten percentage points more than African Americans (15.9%) and more than double the percentage of both Hispanics(12.5%) and Native Americans(11%). In fact, there were more Asians admitted into Harvard than Hispanics and Native Americans combined. Additionally, a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and reported on the NBC.com website on September 20, 2019, revealed this:
“Using publicly released reports, we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.”
Here, we see that whites are provided entry by a plethora of other preferences they would not qualify for if not for connections they have due to their race. The study shows that Asians are not adversely impacted because Harvard must admit blacks and Hispanics that are presumably unqualified. Instead, we see white ALDC students who would not qualify under any other circumstance who get accepted at more than double the percentage of Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans who meet the same criteria.
Equal protection means that government entities must treat all individuals the same when the circumstances or situations are the same. Students for Fair Admissions claimed that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federal financial assistance programs and activities.” The numbers show that when the circumstances and situations are the same, meaning ALDC preferences, 2.68 times more whites get admitted due to this preference than Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans.
Harvard’s Admissions Program Does Not Violate the Civil Rights Act., Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000D ET SEQ., Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d Et Seq.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, First Circuit Holds that Harvard’s Admissions Program Does Not Violate the Civil Rights Act., Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
Russell W. Galloway Jr., Basic Equal Protection Analysis, 29 Santa Clara L. Rev. 121 (1989). Basic Equal Protection Analysis
The diverse demographics of Asian Americans, The diverse demographics of Asian Americans
Admissions Statistics, A Brief Profile of the Admitted Class of 2025, Harvard welcomes students from across the country and all over, Admissions Statistics
Daniella Silva, Study on Harvard finds 43 percent of white students are legacy, athletes, related to donors or staff, Study finds 43 percent of Harvard's white students are legacy, athletes, related to donors or staff
Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, Tyler Ransom, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Legacy And Athlete Preferences At Harvard, Working Paper 26316, Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard
