Asians are NOT Being Passed Over At Harvard

[Hector12]

And the thing that kicked off the lawsuit is that Harvard was so desperate to justify rejecting smart, accomplished Asians with perfect GPAs and the top 1% of SAT scores in favor of blacks with substantially worse metrics that they came up with a subjective personality test in which they scored Asians low on “likeability.” Talk about racist!!

I have never known an Oriental I did not like. I have known members of my own race that I hated.

 

[Hector12]

Watching a person lose their vaunted favored minority status is... Pathetic.

I find it delightful myself.

When affirmative action in hiring comes to an end millions of Negroes will be fired from jobs they never deserved, Up to now, many thought they were fire proof.

Jews and Orientals provide all the diversity we need. It is unnecessary to lower standards for Negroes.

 

[Unkotare]

...What a disgrace Sotomayor is to the Asian community. A regular Aunt Hu.

?????????????????????????

 

[Cougarbear]

?????????????????????????

I thought you would know it’s the Asian version of Uncle Tom

 

[Unkotare]

I thought you would know it’s the Asian version of Uncle Tom

What the fuck does that have to do with Sotomayor?

 

[Cougarbear]

What the fuck does that have to do with Sotomayor?

She’s Aunt Hu…

 

[Unkotare]

She’s Aunt Hu…

In what way? She is not Asian, you know.

 

[longly]

Asians were indeed blamed for COVID. People who were not Chinese were attacked and Chinese Americans that had nothing to do with the chinese government were attacked. Furthermore the chinese government was not responsible for the way the virus spread here. All other world leaders did not do what ours did.

Only a stupid person would attack a so-called Asian for COVID. It came from China, and it was the responsibility of the Chinese government to keep it contained, but they did not. The people have no responsibility for the actions of the Chinese government. They have no control over their government; therefore, they have no responsibility. They had no more control over their government than the people of Nazi Germany had over theirs. In such systems, one does as the government tells them if they want to live.

 

[Flash]

As for Harvard, Asians are not getting excluded.

Liar!

It was a law suit by an Asian group against Harvard that resulted in the Supremes ruling that they were discriminated against. This was after the Supremes heard all the real evidence.

Any other discussion about it is moot.

 

[Rocko]

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

You should rethink your take on Booker T Washington’s philosophy, If thats what the Asians are doing maybe it’s not by accident that they’re kicking ass.

 

[IM2]

You should rethink your take on Booker T Washington’s philosophy, If thats what the Asians are doing maybe it’s not by accident that they’re kicking ass.

Bookeer T's philosophy did not get civiil rights. And Asians are only kicking ass in the minds of racist whites.

 

[fncceo]

Asian culture teaches to take the abuse and be quiet.

Stereotype much?

You've obviously never met my wife or her family.

 

[Unkotare]

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

You are a lowlife racist son of a bitch.

 

[IM2]

Some Asian Americans say affirmative action ruling used the group as ‘pawns’
“The white supremacist agendas behind these lawsuits use the small number of Asian Americans against affirmative action as pawns in their efforts,” the nonprofit Asian American Advocacy Fund said.

Many Asian American groups and leaders are speaking out against the Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action Thursday.

Some experts and activists argued that the decision is an example of Asian Americans’ being used as a “wedge” to erode civil rights.

They point out that while the two cases, led by the conservative activist Ed Blum — who is white — argued that Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s policies discriminated against Asian Americans, no Asian American students came forward to testify to having experienced discrimination.

“The white supremacist agendas behind these lawsuits use the small number of Asian Americans against affirmative action as pawns in their efforts — weaponizing the model minority myth to divide our communities,” the nonprofit Georgia-based group Asian American Advocacy Fund said in a news release. “Affirmative action policies have played an important role in securing Asian American access to higher education.”

Some Asian Americans say affirmative action ruling used the group as ‘pawns’

“The white supremacist agendas behind these lawsuits use the small number of Asian Americans against affirmative action as pawns in their efforts,” the nonprofit Asian American Advocacy Fund said.

www.nbcnews.com

I think this pretty much speaks for itself. Mostt Asians support Affirmative Action because Asians are included in the policy.

70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action. Here's why misconceptions persist.

With the Harvard affirmative action case a step closer to the Supreme Court, Asian American activists say much of their work involves dispelling myths about affirmative action's impacts.

www.nbcnews.com

Many Asian Americans support affirmative action. The recent Supreme Court cases obscure that.

The cases rely on a narrative that doesn’t reflect the diversity of views among Asian Americans.

www.vox.com

But iin this case whites decided they could speak for Asians and I don't think Asians are pleased.
Racists have concocted all kinds of lies about Asians being passed over and it was done only to return to the policy of whites only.

This case was about discrimination against Asians AND NOT ONE ASIAN TESTIFIED ABOUT BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. This is an example of white privilege when you can make a claim of racial discrimination without anyone testifying to it and it gets heard by the highest court in the land.

 

[Hector12]

Bookeer T's philosophy did not get civiil rights.

Since the civil rights legislation was passed and the War on Poverty was declared, black social pathology has increased. Whites, even white liberals, avoid sending their children to public schools with lots of blacks in them. This is because black majority schools are dangerous places where little learning occurs.

The black response to the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty confirms conservative arguments against them when they were debated in Congress.

White racism is a legitimate response to the high rates of black crime and illegitimacy, and low average intelligence, which have always characterized that race. Only now, blacks, and their white apologists, lack the alibi of racial discrimination.

 

[Unkotare]

Since the civil rights legislation was passed and the War on Poverty was declared, black social pathology has increased. Whites, even white liberals, avoid sending their children to public schools with lots of blacks in them. This is because black majority schools are dangerous places where little learning occurs.

The black response to the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty confirms conservative arguments against them when they were debated in Congress.

White racism is a legitimate response to the high rates of black crime and illegitimacy, and low average intelligence, which have always characterized that race. Only now, blacks, and their white apologists, lack the alibi of racial discrimination.

You and IM2 are basically the same person.