Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,837
- 290
If only the game was equal . White people hook up their white friends and families.
For example , see Donald Trumps staff .
President Trump is exploring the possibility of suing universities over racist affirmative action
- Thread starter AsianTrumpSupporter
- Start date
If only the game was equal . White people hook up their white friends and families.
For example , see Donald Trumps staff .
ptbw forever
Gold Member
- May 9, 2015
- 16,522
- 1,782
- 290
- Banned
- #23
Funny how the status quo of "diversity" never changes....
You do know that white people are a minority in the world, right? Especially white people under 30.
I thought you morons were globalists....
Clintonista
VIP Member
- Jul 6, 2016
- 348
- 41
- 68
The Ku Klux Klan Democrats must be behind these affirmative action quotas which give preferences to crackhead Watts negroes.
ptbw forever
Gold Member
- May 9, 2015
- 16,522
- 1,782
- 290
- Banned
- #26
Are black people exempt from legacy enrollment?
Do you even know how many kids of black athletes and rappers get in solely because of "the money"?
AsianTrumpSupporter
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #27
Not only that, but they actually get a double boost since they're also black.
AsianTrumpSupporter
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #28
Asian-American students Harvard turned down are at the center of the next big fight over affirmative action
In 2016 the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action at the University of Texas-Austin (UT), further validating the use of race in admissions policies around the country.
The efforts of opponents of affirmative action were temporarily stymied, but they have reemerged with a lawsuit against Harvard University claiming the school discriminates against Asian-Americans, The New York Times reported.
An anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions filed a lawsuit against Harvard in 2015, alleging that the college and other Ivy League institutions use racial quotas to admit students to the detriment of more qualified Asian-American applicants. The group includes a coalition of more than 60 Asian-American groups.
"It falls afoul of our most basic civil rights principles, and those principles are that your race and your ethnicity should not be something to be used to harm you in life nor help you in life," Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, told The Times.
Blum is the same figure who helped to bring the landmark University of Texas-Austin case to the Supreme Court.
The suit against Harvard claims Asian-American applicants are held to a higher standard than others and must achieve, for example, higher test scores to be accepted.
Michael Wang, an Asian-American recent college graduate, relates to those claims. He was ranked second in his class and graduated with a 4.67 weighted GPA. He scored a 2230 on his SAT, placing him in the 99th percentile of students who took the exam.
When he applied in 2013, Wang suspected that his race might work against him. But he was still shocked when he received rejection letters from Stanford and every Ivy League school except for the University of Pennsylvania.
"There was nothing humanly possible I could do," Wang told Business Insider in 2016, adding that he felt utterly demoralized after his rejections.
The Department of Justice confirmed it has begun seeking volunteers to investigate the Harvard complaint, an indication that they may be starting an investigation...
Asians will no longer sit idly and let liberals discriminate against us. #MAGA
In 2016 the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action at the University of Texas-Austin (UT), further validating the use of race in admissions policies around the country.
The efforts of opponents of affirmative action were temporarily stymied, but they have reemerged with a lawsuit against Harvard University claiming the school discriminates against Asian-Americans, The New York Times reported.
An anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions filed a lawsuit against Harvard in 2015, alleging that the college and other Ivy League institutions use racial quotas to admit students to the detriment of more qualified Asian-American applicants. The group includes a coalition of more than 60 Asian-American groups.
"It falls afoul of our most basic civil rights principles, and those principles are that your race and your ethnicity should not be something to be used to harm you in life nor help you in life," Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, told The Times.
Blum is the same figure who helped to bring the landmark University of Texas-Austin case to the Supreme Court.
The suit against Harvard claims Asian-American applicants are held to a higher standard than others and must achieve, for example, higher test scores to be accepted.
Michael Wang, an Asian-American recent college graduate, relates to those claims. He was ranked second in his class and graduated with a 4.67 weighted GPA. He scored a 2230 on his SAT, placing him in the 99th percentile of students who took the exam.
When he applied in 2013, Wang suspected that his race might work against him. But he was still shocked when he received rejection letters from Stanford and every Ivy League school except for the University of Pennsylvania.
"There was nothing humanly possible I could do," Wang told Business Insider in 2016, adding that he felt utterly demoralized after his rejections.
The Department of Justice confirmed it has begun seeking volunteers to investigate the Harvard complaint, an indication that they may be starting an investigation...
Asians will no longer sit idly and let liberals discriminate against us. #MAGA
Last edited:
Snouter
Can You Smell Me
- Aug 3, 2013
- 13,666
- 4,991
- 350
Assuming Hussaine did attend Harvard (there is not much evidence) he might have applied as a foreign student like he did with Occidental College and Columbia, assuming he actually attended those facilities.
You liberal testaments to everything mankind has ever done wrong have made it clear that white males are your ultimate bogeyman-nightmare-villain. So in my official capacity as your bogeyman-nightmare-villain, I truly wish cocksuckers like you would crawl back into the toilets you crawled out of. You iridium-isotope-speckled piece of meteorite's shit! You piece of filth.
IsaacNewton
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2015
- 17,308
- 3,698
- 290
Jesus, these derps want to sue colleges that are required by federal law to implement affirmative action.
You think Trump and his court of flying monkeys are as ignorant as they can be, and then they lower the bar again. Land of the bugwits.
You think Trump and his court of flying monkeys are as ignorant as they can be, and then they lower the bar again. Land of the bugwits.
Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #32
It can only cause those with higher ones to have to pick up their slack when affirmative action puts them where they don't belong.
Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #33
If their IQs are that high, why do they use affirmative action? Courts have upheld the racist practice of AA and whites damn sure don't benefit from it.
Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #34
Looks to me as if the monkeys are the ones benefiting from affirmative action. How sad it must be to be told you have to have a program to get you something you can't earn on your own then think getting it for something you had no control over, race, means you earned it.
Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #35
When white men get it, we have the luxury of knowing the government didn't have to step in and force someone to give it to us.
Why can't those that benefit from AA do it on their own? Why do they have to have something the rest of us don't need to get what they have handed to them?
AsianTrumpSupporter
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #36
Bias is replete in college admissions process
There are many reasons that conservatives rallied so strongly around Jeff Sessions in his recent conflict with President Trump. This week, we gained another reason to be glad that he runs the Department of Justice.
The New York Times reported that it obtained a document indicating that DOJ was looking for lawyers who were interested in "investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions." Despite the lack of any racial emphasis whatsoever, the Times described the intent as "redirecting resources" to protect "white applicants."
I'd describe it differently. I'd say the DOJ is enforcing the law. And if you think white applicants would be the prime beneficiary of fair enforcement, you're sadly mistaken. The true victims of affirmative action are our Asian American citizens.
In 2015 and 2016, Asian American groups filed complaints against a number of elite American colleges, and these complaints presented evidence of a truly stunning level of race-based discrimination in higher education. For example, they alleged that Asian Americans have the "lowest acceptance rate for each SAT test-score bracket." To gain admission to college, Asian American students had to score 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than black students.
Compounding the problem, the complaints presented strong evidence of prohibited quotas. As the Asian American population expanded, its college-admission rate stagnated - in much the same way that anti-Semitic administrators used to place caps on Jewish students.
At Yale, for example, from 2001 to 2008 the percentage of Asian American students never exceeded 13.80 percent of the student body or dropped below 13.50 percent - an unbelievable almost decade-long fluctuation of only 0.3 percent.
The complaints rightly assail the damage caused by the quotas and the obvious and extreme higher standards applied to Asian American students:
The discriminatory practices by Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, and other Ivy League colleges have caused tremendous harm to students in the Asian American community, including stress/mental health issues; pressure to study more as the bar is raised higher; lack of trust in American institutions; self-identification crises; and fortification of racial barriers.
I served for a time on the admissions committee at Cornell Law School, and there was a crystal-clear racial, ethnic, and ideological hierarchy. Asian students faced the toughest admissions challenge, then white students, then Hispanics; black students had to clear the lowest academic hurdle. In fact, there was discrimination even within ethnic groups. The committee preferred Mexican Americans to Cuban Americans. It preferred Filipino applicants to Chinese.
Moreover, in practice, affirmative action often increases the admissions chances of wealthy black and Hispanic kids over poor Asian Americans and poor whites. White students are dinged for their alleged "privilege," but what privilege do Asian Americans students enjoy? After all, there are still Japanese Americans alive today who spent time in internment camps. The legacy and pain of discrimination is very real, and it's compounded by academic standards that explicitly tell Asian American students that they have to do more and achieve more than anyone else to enjoy the same access to higher education.
How is any of this legal? After all, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, and national origin" in federally funded educational institutions. The 14th Amendment establishes that no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the "equal protection of the laws."
Decades of leftist judicial and regulatory activism have reversed their meanings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment permits the use of race in admissions for the sake of advancing the "compelling state interest" of a properly diverse student body. Left-wing regulators have essentially and improperly rewritten Title VI so that colleges may take the Orwellian step of discriminating to allegedly "end" discrimination.
But these exceptions are supposed to be relatively narrow. Colleges are supposed to reject formulas and quotas. The admissions process is supposed to be "holistic," with race merely one of many factors considered. In practice, quotas exist. In practice, the formulas are clear. In reality, race isn't just one factor in admissions - time and again it's the most important factor.
Kids know it. Parents know it. Admissions officers know it...
Asians who vote Democrat are the Uncle Toms of Asians.
There are many reasons that conservatives rallied so strongly around Jeff Sessions in his recent conflict with President Trump. This week, we gained another reason to be glad that he runs the Department of Justice.
The New York Times reported that it obtained a document indicating that DOJ was looking for lawyers who were interested in "investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions." Despite the lack of any racial emphasis whatsoever, the Times described the intent as "redirecting resources" to protect "white applicants."
I'd describe it differently. I'd say the DOJ is enforcing the law. And if you think white applicants would be the prime beneficiary of fair enforcement, you're sadly mistaken. The true victims of affirmative action are our Asian American citizens.
In 2015 and 2016, Asian American groups filed complaints against a number of elite American colleges, and these complaints presented evidence of a truly stunning level of race-based discrimination in higher education. For example, they alleged that Asian Americans have the "lowest acceptance rate for each SAT test-score bracket." To gain admission to college, Asian American students had to score 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than black students.
Compounding the problem, the complaints presented strong evidence of prohibited quotas. As the Asian American population expanded, its college-admission rate stagnated - in much the same way that anti-Semitic administrators used to place caps on Jewish students.
At Yale, for example, from 2001 to 2008 the percentage of Asian American students never exceeded 13.80 percent of the student body or dropped below 13.50 percent - an unbelievable almost decade-long fluctuation of only 0.3 percent.
The complaints rightly assail the damage caused by the quotas and the obvious and extreme higher standards applied to Asian American students:
The discriminatory practices by Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, and other Ivy League colleges have caused tremendous harm to students in the Asian American community, including stress/mental health issues; pressure to study more as the bar is raised higher; lack of trust in American institutions; self-identification crises; and fortification of racial barriers.
I served for a time on the admissions committee at Cornell Law School, and there was a crystal-clear racial, ethnic, and ideological hierarchy. Asian students faced the toughest admissions challenge, then white students, then Hispanics; black students had to clear the lowest academic hurdle. In fact, there was discrimination even within ethnic groups. The committee preferred Mexican Americans to Cuban Americans. It preferred Filipino applicants to Chinese.
Moreover, in practice, affirmative action often increases the admissions chances of wealthy black and Hispanic kids over poor Asian Americans and poor whites. White students are dinged for their alleged "privilege," but what privilege do Asian Americans students enjoy? After all, there are still Japanese Americans alive today who spent time in internment camps. The legacy and pain of discrimination is very real, and it's compounded by academic standards that explicitly tell Asian American students that they have to do more and achieve more than anyone else to enjoy the same access to higher education.
How is any of this legal? After all, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, and national origin" in federally funded educational institutions. The 14th Amendment establishes that no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the "equal protection of the laws."
Decades of leftist judicial and regulatory activism have reversed their meanings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment permits the use of race in admissions for the sake of advancing the "compelling state interest" of a properly diverse student body. Left-wing regulators have essentially and improperly rewritten Title VI so that colleges may take the Orwellian step of discriminating to allegedly "end" discrimination.
But these exceptions are supposed to be relatively narrow. Colleges are supposed to reject formulas and quotas. The admissions process is supposed to be "holistic," with race merely one of many factors considered. In practice, quotas exist. In practice, the formulas are clear. In reality, race isn't just one factor in admissions - time and again it's the most important factor.
Kids know it. Parents know it. Admissions officers know it...
Asians who vote Democrat are the Uncle Toms of Asians.
AsianTrumpSupporter
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #37
Kill the commies.
AsianTrumpSupporter
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #38
Harvard’s discrimination against Asian Americans must end
The Justice Department confirmed last week that it is examining claims of racial discrimination against Asian Americans in university admissions. It is possible that this will result in investigations and lawsuits targeting our nation’s most competitive schools.
This is a significant and welcome development. If the Justice Department follows through — as it should — what its lawyers will find at Harvard University and other Ivy League schools is an unfair and unconstitutional process that restricts the number of Asians admitted. That should alarm all Americans.
Sadly, Harvard has a long and ugly history of using “holistic” admissions to discriminate against high-achieving minorities. As many historians have detailed, nearly 100 years ago, Harvard’s leadership believed it had too many Jews because almost a quarter of all Harvard freshmen were Jewish.
In 1920, in a letter to a colleague, Harvard President Abbott Lawrence Lowell warned that the increasing number of Jewish students enrolling at Harvard would ultimately “ruin the college.”
To solve their “Jewish invasion,” Harvard invented the “holistic” admissions system, which diminished an applicant’s academic achievements in favor of subjective factors such as “leadership” and “sociability.” Within a year, holistic admissions decimated Jewish enrollment.
Today, Harvard’s discriminatory policies harm Asian Americans — call it the Asian problem. To end this discrimination, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group which I lead as president, sued Harvard in federal court.
It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has allowed universities to grant preferences to applicants based on race and ethnicity. Last year in Fisher v. University of Texas — in which Students for Fair Admissions provided counsel to the plaintiff — the Supreme Court allowed the University of Texas at Austin to continue the practice. Nonetheless, in Fisher and earlier cases, the court has been clear about the how these racial preferences must be implemented: Purposeful quotas and racial balancing are strictly prohibited. And, of course, diversity can never be a justification for invidious discrimination
Proving that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans is a complex and laborious process that will ultimately play out in open court for all of America to see. But one fact is indisputable: From 1992 through 2013, the percentage of Asians admitted to Harvard each year has been remarkably stable. In 1992, 19 percent of admitted students were Asian, while in 2013, 18 percent were Asian. This is true even though the number of Asian applicants to elite schools have disproportionately risen in recent decades. Research also shows that Asian applicants make up a large percentage of the most qualified applicants.
This rate of admissions for Asians cannot be a coincidence. Just compare Harvard’s percentages with those at another highly competitive school that doesn’t use race as an admissions factor: The California Institute of Technology, for example, has seen Asian American admittees grow from 25 percent in 1992 to nearly 43 percent in 2013.
And Harvard isn’t alone. The same flat rate of Asian admissions is evidenced at all of the Ivy League schools. Indeed, from 2007 to 2013, the enrollment of Asians at every Ivy League school ranged between 12 and 18 percent. Another coincidence?
Since racial and ethnic preferences were introduced in the 1970s, they have been divisive. They stigmatize recipients, punish better-qualified individuals and pit Americans against one another. Most Americans understand this. A 2016 Gallup Poll shows that nearly 7 in 10 Americans (including 57 percent of African Americans) believe that a student’s race should not be a factor in college admissions.
Racial preferences need to end. For our most competitive colleges especially, there are better means to produce a diverse student body than race-based affirmative action.
In states that have banned using race by voter initiative or legislative statutes, many schools have responded by implementing a kind of “socio-economic affirmative action” to assist economically disadvantaged students regardless of race or ethnicity.
This “needs-based affirmative action,” when used with traditional outreach, financial assistance and academic remediation is fairer. It cannot be reasonably argued that in the name of diversity, the daughter of an Asian working-class immigrant should be penalized in her efforts to gain admission to Harvard over the daughter of a successful white, Hispanic or African American professional...
The Justice Department confirmed last week that it is examining claims of racial discrimination against Asian Americans in university admissions. It is possible that this will result in investigations and lawsuits targeting our nation’s most competitive schools.
This is a significant and welcome development. If the Justice Department follows through — as it should — what its lawyers will find at Harvard University and other Ivy League schools is an unfair and unconstitutional process that restricts the number of Asians admitted. That should alarm all Americans.
Sadly, Harvard has a long and ugly history of using “holistic” admissions to discriminate against high-achieving minorities. As many historians have detailed, nearly 100 years ago, Harvard’s leadership believed it had too many Jews because almost a quarter of all Harvard freshmen were Jewish.
In 1920, in a letter to a colleague, Harvard President Abbott Lawrence Lowell warned that the increasing number of Jewish students enrolling at Harvard would ultimately “ruin the college.”
To solve their “Jewish invasion,” Harvard invented the “holistic” admissions system, which diminished an applicant’s academic achievements in favor of subjective factors such as “leadership” and “sociability.” Within a year, holistic admissions decimated Jewish enrollment.
Today, Harvard’s discriminatory policies harm Asian Americans — call it the Asian problem. To end this discrimination, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group which I lead as president, sued Harvard in federal court.
It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has allowed universities to grant preferences to applicants based on race and ethnicity. Last year in Fisher v. University of Texas — in which Students for Fair Admissions provided counsel to the plaintiff — the Supreme Court allowed the University of Texas at Austin to continue the practice. Nonetheless, in Fisher and earlier cases, the court has been clear about the how these racial preferences must be implemented: Purposeful quotas and racial balancing are strictly prohibited. And, of course, diversity can never be a justification for invidious discrimination
Proving that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans is a complex and laborious process that will ultimately play out in open court for all of America to see. But one fact is indisputable: From 1992 through 2013, the percentage of Asians admitted to Harvard each year has been remarkably stable. In 1992, 19 percent of admitted students were Asian, while in 2013, 18 percent were Asian. This is true even though the number of Asian applicants to elite schools have disproportionately risen in recent decades. Research also shows that Asian applicants make up a large percentage of the most qualified applicants.
This rate of admissions for Asians cannot be a coincidence. Just compare Harvard’s percentages with those at another highly competitive school that doesn’t use race as an admissions factor: The California Institute of Technology, for example, has seen Asian American admittees grow from 25 percent in 1992 to nearly 43 percent in 2013.
And Harvard isn’t alone. The same flat rate of Asian admissions is evidenced at all of the Ivy League schools. Indeed, from 2007 to 2013, the enrollment of Asians at every Ivy League school ranged between 12 and 18 percent. Another coincidence?
Since racial and ethnic preferences were introduced in the 1970s, they have been divisive. They stigmatize recipients, punish better-qualified individuals and pit Americans against one another. Most Americans understand this. A 2016 Gallup Poll shows that nearly 7 in 10 Americans (including 57 percent of African Americans) believe that a student’s race should not be a factor in college admissions.
Racial preferences need to end. For our most competitive colleges especially, there are better means to produce a diverse student body than race-based affirmative action.
In states that have banned using race by voter initiative or legislative statutes, many schools have responded by implementing a kind of “socio-economic affirmative action” to assist economically disadvantaged students regardless of race or ethnicity.
This “needs-based affirmative action,” when used with traditional outreach, financial assistance and academic remediation is fairer. It cannot be reasonably argued that in the name of diversity, the daughter of an Asian working-class immigrant should be penalized in her efforts to gain admission to Harvard over the daughter of a successful white, Hispanic or African American professional...
bendog
Diamond Member
Using a solicitor general is for whimps, and President Trump is a man's man.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Jasmine Crockett SNAPS After President Trump Dunks On Her During Meet The Press Interview- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 0
-
Netanyahu declared firm support for Trump’s stance on Iran, which he declared in a post from March, hours after a deadly Houthi attac
- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
Report: All Horses in 151st Kentucky Derby Were Descended from Legendary Secretariat
- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
Philly night club displays vile Jewish hate . Video- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 3
-
