- Mar 11, 2015
- 76,397
- 32,711
- 2,330
Today with a majority right wing supreme court thanks to 2 stolen seats due to ethically questionable tactics by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Affirmative Action will be on the chopping block with odds looking very bad for it’s survival. Much of this is due to the tireless racism of one Edward Blum. Blum has tried countless times to end affirmative action. This time he has latched on to Asians to use in his maniacal quest to return America to white supremacy. Let us look at the particulars of 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 being discriminated against based on number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. More than 30,000 student 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 are being excluded for black and hispanic students. Ironically they aren’t being denied for white legacy students. Students for Fair Admissions claimed that Harvard violated title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI, “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.” Now this is where the claim gets sticky. But before we get to that, we need to understand what courts use as regulations guiding a decision of cases such as this.
When a case such as this goes to court there are many things the court considers. As it pertains to this case, 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 under the law, race is considered a suspect category therefore if race is used as a classification in situations like this one, it must be proven that using race is “necessary to further a compelling interest.”
It is time to look at Blums claim. He claims Asians are being 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 10 percentage points more than African Americans(15.9%) and more than double the percentage of Hispanics(12.5%) and Native Americans(11%). In addition, a study was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and reported on the NBC.com web site 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.”
So what we see here is that whites are provided entry by a plethora of other preferences they would not qualify for if not for their race. The study shows that Asian admittance is not being stifled or reduced because Harvard must admit blacks and Hispanics that are presumably unqualified. Instead we see that it is white ALDC students who would not qualify under any other circumstance being admitted at more than double the number of Asians, blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans.
So will white privilege whereby a white man can whine for years to the supreme court bringing case after case of meritless crap, end affirmative action when the facts plainly show that more unqualified white students are being admitted into Harvard on preferences they get that non whites can't? Will white privilege whereby whites can pretend that race has nothing to do with legacy, deans interest lists and children of faculty/staff that are majority white win?
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
In this case the contention is that Asians are being discriminated against based on number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. More than 30,000 student 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 are being excluded for black and hispanic students. Ironically they aren’t being denied for white legacy students. Students for Fair Admissions claimed that Harvard violated title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI, “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.” Now this is where the claim gets sticky. But before we get to that, we need to understand what courts use as regulations guiding a decision of cases such as this.
When a case such as this goes to court there are many things the court considers. As it pertains to this case, 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 under the law, race is considered a suspect category therefore if race is used as a classification in situations like this one, it must be proven that using race is “necessary to further a compelling interest.”
It is time to look at Blums claim. He claims Asians are being 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 10 percentage points more than African Americans(15.9%) and more than double the percentage of Hispanics(12.5%) and Native Americans(11%). In addition, a study was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and reported on the NBC.com web site 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.”
So what we see here is that whites are provided entry by a plethora of other preferences they would not qualify for if not for their race. The study shows that Asian admittance is not being stifled or reduced because Harvard must admit blacks and Hispanics that are presumably unqualified. Instead we see that it is white ALDC students who would not qualify under any other circumstance being admitted at more than double the number of Asians, blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans.
So will white privilege whereby a white man can whine for years to the supreme court bringing case after case of meritless crap, end affirmative action when the facts plainly show that more unqualified white students are being admitted into Harvard on preferences they get that non whites can't? Will white privilege whereby whites can pretend that race has nothing to do with legacy, deans interest lists and children of faculty/staff that are majority white win?
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
