7 ms·

Gaslighting Asian Americans About College Admissions

85 points by scarmig 5y ago

jevoten 5y ago
> Still, it advances the important goals of exposing students to a somewhat broader range of colleagues and helping to lift more underrepresented minorities into positions in the power elite, which remains heavily white. I don't know about the power elite, but I wouldn't call Harvard or the Ivy League "heavily white". The current (or recent, last few years) composition of non-international students in the Ivy League is as follows: Ivy League US Ratio Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16 Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71 White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82 Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65 Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61 White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56 Multi-ethnic students and minor ethnicities were excluded from this table. Sources used were the universities own diversity reports, and the lowest estimate for the Jewish student body from the following Jewish organizations: http://hillel.org/college-guide/list/ http://hillel.org/college-guide/list/, https://forward.com/jewish-college-guide/ https://forward.com/jewish-college-guide/, and https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduates/ https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat.... The (slightly messy) calculations: https://www.jotform.com/tables/220446862418862 https://www.jotform.com/tables/220446862418862 - please let me know if you find any errors. Edit: Updated table link: https://airtable.com/shrtIPZdmejxwKUcM https://airtable.com/shrtIPZdmejxwKUcM - jotform seems to let the creator view the table, but anyone else is made to log in. Hopefully airtable doesn't pull shady tricks like that.
- balsam 5y ago
  So.. you are saying the Ivies are heavily Jewish? (Going by the ratios) In any case, I think there should be just 2 categories: left/right or judeo-christian/non-judeo christian
- muh_gradle 5y ago
  I'd be curious about seeing statistics that are white (including Jewish) and also students that benefited from legacy. In fact, if we do a (race && legacy_flag), where do you think it would be favored? I am guessing it would lean very heavily towards white.
  - thomassmith65 5y ago
    The history of Jewish admissions at Harvard* (and Princeton, etc) is sort of 'required reading' to understand the Asian admissions issue. If I recall correctly large numbers of Jewish students, at least into the 1960s, who applied to the Ivies just had stellar grades. Harvard and others implemented 'character tests' as a result, as they worried the overrepresentation of Jews on campus would scare off Christian parents. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
    - muh_gradle 5y ago
      I can believe that. I am confident though that Jewish students benefit heavily more with legacy. Asian Americans don't have 3-5 generations of Harvard and Ivy league students to benefit from. It's all a moot point though because private institutions will never release this information, and we will always have an "elite" white cohort consequently.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Does this presume that all Jewish people are white? I suppose it's probably a safe assumption in the US where the overwhelming majority are Ashkenazim (European Jews).
  - bitcurious 5y ago
    Middle Eastern folks also are classified as “white” so it’s a comparatively small population of Jewish folks who are potentially misclassified.
- scarmig 5y ago
  I think I found a bug in your calculation link. When I click on it, it shows me some kind of button telling me to login with something called the Facebook or Google? Has it been hacked in some way? ETA: thanks, Airtable works.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tharne 5y ago
  > I don't know about the power elite, but I wouldn't call Harvard or the Ivy League "heavily white". Don't mess up the progressive narrative with facts. You'll just get called a racist.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
agensaequivocum 5y ago
> policies like promising to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court (or other political bodies with a public representative function) strike me as obviously sensible. So he thinks racism is ok. And contrary to what he says in his linked article I don't think his choice will necessarily be unqualified but to use race as the primary metric is by definition racist. If Trump said said he would only choose a white man, that policy would aptly be decried as racist.
- bradbatt 5y ago
  Racism definition: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." No, it isn't "by definition racist"
  - legolas2412 5y ago
    Yeah, OP should have said that the policy is racially discriminatory
    - ameminator 5y ago
      For most people, "racism" and "racial discrimination" are the same thing.
      - triactual 5y ago
        This is racial discrimination for the Right Reasons, apparently. As long as everyone agrees on when we can and cannot discriminate by race, it should go very well.
        ameminator 5y ago
        I'm not convinced that our society has had that wider debate. I myself am not convinced that these "Right Reasons" are good and fair, even if they are so widespread.
js2 5y ago
> Defenders of affirmative action--and even some of its critics--frequently criticize Justice Lewis Powell's controlling opinion in the Bakke case on the ground that it rejected the most compelling justification for race-based affirmative action while validating a relatively weak justification. I'll offer a hesitant defense of Powell's position (which subsequently was adopted by a SCOTUS majority). http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/08/a-tepid-defense-of-diversity-rationale.html http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/08/a-tepid-defense-of-diversit...
birdyrooster 5y ago
Asians in America are more often rich (Indian, Japanese, Chinese immigrants, not Korean or Vietnamese refugees), in some markets more so than whites (e.g. Los Angeles), and have much more power and access than latinos and blacks. The system is broken and adding more Asians (broadly) does not make it better. There are sub-groups of Asians which are vastly more underprivileged than other Asian ethnicities (Japanese-Americans are ~10x more wealthy than Korean-Americans in L.A. [1]). Affirmative Action isn't intended to just give non-whites opportunities equally. It's intended to restore equity by giving greater opportunity to those historically disadvantaged, focusing on the most disadvantaged first (descendants of American slavery, refugees of war, etc). Or, instead of focusing on first principles of justice and equity, we can continue to just hand-wave the difference of ability and struggle that exist between asian immigrants and flatten it all into "asian" giving benefits to the most privileged of them. In my industry, European-Americans and Asian-Americans have teamed up (unwittingly or otherwise) to limit diversity because they make up the vast majority of the labor and take many opportunities that could go to blacks or latinos. [1] https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/color-of-wealth-in-los-angeles.pdf https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/color-of-w...
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  they might not be rich, but most of them are solidly middle/upper middle class and have a strong family structure in which the parents take a very active role in their childs life and future. This is not to say Asians don't work hard, in general a lot of them work very hard and have high standards for themselves, but i would say that if they went to a state school vs Harvard, i would bet their future outcomes wouldn't be too different. If someone from a under represented minority who came from a poor family managed to get into Harvard, their future outcomes might change a lot, they could finally get access to a sort of "knowledge" that middle and upper middle class give to their children since the time they are born, a knowledge on what the world is really like and what is possible in this world.
  - fish45 5y ago
    I just want to point out that this is part of the premise of the original article: > Harvard’s admissions policies make me especially queasy, because the burden rests so heavily on Asian Americans. Still, it advances the important goals of exposing students to a somewhat broader range of colleagues and helping to lift more underrepresented minorities into positions in the power elite, which remains heavily white. Generally, going to prestigious schools benefits under represented minorities more than it benefits Asian Americans to an extent that affirmative action can be effective at addressing systemic inequalities, but it's still discriminatory against Asian americans to do so. It's a matter of opinion whether it's a good tradeoff or not
nobodyandproud 5y ago
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s the conservative party that is highlighting the discrimination, and only because it serves their ends. Asian Americans are in an uncomfortable, lonely position with no way to even “blend in”.
- 0x7E3 5y ago
  > only because it serves their ends. Discrimination based on skin color is morally reprehensible. Doing it systematically at an institutional level is particularly damaging. The 'conservative party' as you put it recognizes this. The 'other party' only recognizes it for certain skin colors, which is a subset of the aforementioned discrimination based on skin color. So yes, you are correct in that the ends of the conservative party seem to be to end racial discrimination. The ends of the other party appear to be stoking racial hatred to garner support based on an outdated perception of their role. I much prefer the conservative take on this issue in 2022.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Eh, not really. It's pretty obvious that there's racial discrimination in plenty of other areas, and the GOP just plays the "well hold on now" card ad infinitum. Like, they might acknowledge the occasional study showing discrimination in, say, policing, or hiring preferences. But they virtually never propose to actually do anything about it; their usual rhetoric on the issue is just to criticize whatever Democrats propose. Nothing wrong with critiquing Democrat proposals, obviously, it's just that they never seem to have a credible, serious alternative.
  - tqi 5y ago
    It's not that simple. "Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality."
naveen99 5y ago
Atleast there are no quotas in grad school.
musicale 5y ago
Is there a legal basis for requiring Harvard, a private university, to change its admission criteria (however arbitrary or unfair they may be?) Private universities routinely make admissions decisions based on non-academic criteria including geographic diversity, likelihood of parental donations, ability to pay, athletic skill, and demographic desirability (e.g. maintaining similar numbers of men and women.) Needless to say, some of those criteria convey additional advantages upon the privileged and wealthy. Or is it simply the power of the purse, given that Harvard depends heavily on grants (especially research grants) from the federal government? (Edit: the answer appears to be both: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by private schools receiving federal funding, and Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in private contracts; discrimination may also affect the tax-exempt status of universities.) (Another question is whether Title IX permits admission of men at a higher rate as a form of equity, or prohibits it as a form of discrimination.)
- scarmig 5y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyon_v._McCrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyon_v._McCrary for a precedent for the federal government prohibiting private schools from discriminating based on race.
parkingrift 5y ago
Pick one: Affirmative action or equality. Democrats lie and gaslight to pretend you can have both. Everyone is either treated equally or everyone is weighed based on their race or skin color. If you think racial discrimination is okay so long as it supports a minority group, so be it. Just admit you aren’t a proponent of equality.
- vinay427 5y ago
  You might be interested in other senses of the word “equality”, as your confusion seems to stem from assuming one particular sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome
  - parkingrift 5y ago
    Seems you’ve confused equality with equity.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Ivy League admissions will always and inherently be about gatekeeping, not equality. The whole system is built around that goal. If you really care about having high-quality "college education for everyone", you'll have to look elsewhere for it and radically expand your notion of where a "high-quality education" might come from. (As an aside, "affirmative action" is a hugely misleading term for race-biased special treatment in admissions and the like. The original meaning of that phrase just meant "take action to ensure that everyone is being treated equally under the law, and no covert violation of their rights is going on". Having an overt policy that requires special treatment for some is the opposite of what "affirmative action" means! It's an Orwellian twist, a Big Lie meant to make race-biased discrimination acceptable to those who don't know any better.)
P_I_Staker 5y ago
I just want to chime in to say how astonished I've been in the past with Harvard's behavior, not necessarily with their affirmative action practices, but how they defend them. I did skim the article, but may not be familiar with the latest stance from Harvard. However, if memory serves their legal defense really just seemed to be that the racism was right. Asian people have inferior personalities (obviously untrue, but that seemed to be what they were saying at times). I was surprised there hasn't been more backlash that this is their present stance (at the time it was and this was not being talked about). Also, it's worth pointing out that many Asian people are totally playing the game and still getting boxed out. There have been a ton of families that have just said "Okay, this is what we have to do. Be a well rounded person. Show your leadership skills, participate in activities, and be a full person in the community. No problem. We'll just do that." Many of them don't even have that much of a problem with the policy, and have no issue getting their kids to achieve on that front. They still get denied. I don't have the answer, and don't agree with using criticism of affirmative action as a Trojan horse for white supremacy. However, pursuing an openly racist legal defense that Asian people essentially have worse personalities seems quite shocking to me.
- pgwhalen 5y ago
  Can you provide a source of the “inferior personality” narrative? I have heard about how interviews/character essays/etc. can affect admissions, but that’s a pretty lofty accusation.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    I believe this comes from an ongoing lawsuit[1] that SCOTUS recently agreed to hear. > The plaintiffs revealed that Harvard admissions officers consistently rated Asian-American applicants as a group lower than others on traits like positive personality, likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected. Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on other admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, but the students' personal ratings significantly dragged down their admissions chances. The plaintiffs also claimed that alumni interviewers (who, unlike admissions officers within Harvard, did actually meet with individual applicants) gave Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to white applicants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College#Plaintiff_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
IMAYousaf 5y ago
Pretty disheartening to see.

85 points by scarmig 5y ago

> Still, it advances the important goals of exposing students to a somewhat broader range of colleagues and helping to lift more underrepresented minorities into positions in the power elite, which remains heavily white. I don't know about the power elite, but I wouldn't call Harvard or the Ivy League "heavily white". The current (or recent, last few years) composition of non-international students in the Ivy League is as follows: Ivy League US Ratio Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16 Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71 White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82 Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65 Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61 White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56 Multi-ethnic students and minor ethnicities were excluded from this table. Sources used were the universities own diversity reports, and the lowest estimate for the Jewish student body from the following Jewish organizations: http://hillel.org/college-guide/list/ http://hillel.org/college-guide/list/, https://forward.com/jewish-college-guide/ https://forward.com/jewish-college-guide/, and https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduates/ https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat.... The (slightly messy) calculations: https://www.jotform.com/tables/220446862418862 https://www.jotform.com/tables/220446862418862 - please let me know if you find any errors. Edit: Updated table link: https://airtable.com/shrtIPZdmejxwKUcM https://airtable.com/shrtIPZdmejxwKUcM - jotform seems to let the creator view the table, but anyone else is made to log in. Hopefully airtable doesn't pull shady tricks like that.

balsam 5y ago
So.. you are saying the Ivies are heavily Jewish? (Going by the ratios) In any case, I think there should be just 2 categories: left/right or judeo-christian/non-judeo christian
muh_gradle 5y ago
I'd be curious about seeing statistics that are white (including Jewish) and also students that benefited from legacy. In fact, if we do a (race && legacy_flag), where do you think it would be favored? I am guessing it would lean very heavily towards white.
- thomassmith65 5y ago
  The history of Jewish admissions at Harvard* (and Princeton, etc) is sort of 'required reading' to understand the Asian admissions issue. If I recall correctly large numbers of Jewish students, at least into the 1960s, who applied to the Ivies just had stellar grades. Harvard and others implemented 'character tests' as a result, as they worried the overrepresentation of Jews on campus would scare off Christian parents. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
  - muh_gradle 5y ago
    I can believe that. I am confident though that Jewish students benefit heavily more with legacy. Asian Americans don't have 3-5 generations of Harvard and Ivy league students to benefit from. It's all a moot point though because private institutions will never release this information, and we will always have an "elite" white cohort consequently.
Manuel_D 5y ago
Does this presume that all Jewish people are white? I suppose it's probably a safe assumption in the US where the overwhelming majority are Ashkenazim (European Jews).
- bitcurious 5y ago
  Middle Eastern folks also are classified as “white” so it’s a comparatively small population of Jewish folks who are potentially misclassified.
scarmig 5y ago
I think I found a bug in your calculation link. When I click on it, it shows me some kind of button telling me to login with something called the Facebook or Google? Has it been hacked in some way? ETA: thanks, Airtable works.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tharne 5y ago
> I don't know about the power elite, but I wouldn't call Harvard or the Ivy League "heavily white". Don't mess up the progressive narrative with facts. You'll just get called a racist.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

agensaequivocum 5y ago

> policies like promising to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court (or other political bodies with a public representative function) strike me as obviously sensible. So he thinks racism is ok. And contrary to what he says in his linked article I don't think his choice will necessarily be unqualified but to use race as the primary metric is by definition racist. If Trump said said he would only choose a white man, that policy would aptly be decried as racist.

bradbatt 5y ago
Racism definition: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." No, it isn't "by definition racist"
- legolas2412 5y ago
  Yeah, OP should have said that the policy is racially discriminatory
  - ameminator 5y ago
    For most people, "racism" and "racial discrimination" are the same thing.
    - triactual 5y ago
      This is racial discrimination for the Right Reasons, apparently. As long as everyone agrees on when we can and cannot discriminate by race, it should go very well.
      - ameminator 5y ago
        I'm not convinced that our society has had that wider debate. I myself am not convinced that these "Right Reasons" are good and fair, even if they are so widespread.

js2 5y ago

> Defenders of affirmative action--and even some of its critics--frequently criticize Justice Lewis Powell's controlling opinion in the Bakke case on the ground that it rejected the most compelling justification for race-based affirmative action while validating a relatively weak justification. I'll offer a hesitant defense of Powell's position (which subsequently was adopted by a SCOTUS majority). http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/08/a-tepid-defense-of-diversity-rationale.html http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/08/a-tepid-defense-of-diversit...

birdyrooster 5y ago

Asians in America are more often rich (Indian, Japanese, Chinese immigrants, not Korean or Vietnamese refugees), in some markets more so than whites (e.g. Los Angeles), and have much more power and access than latinos and blacks. The system is broken and adding more Asians (broadly) does not make it better. There are sub-groups of Asians which are vastly more underprivileged than other Asian ethnicities (Japanese-Americans are ~10x more wealthy than Korean-Americans in L.A. [1]). Affirmative Action isn't intended to just give non-whites opportunities equally. It's intended to restore equity by giving greater opportunity to those historically disadvantaged, focusing on the most disadvantaged first (descendants of American slavery, refugees of war, etc). Or, instead of focusing on first principles of justice and equity, we can continue to just hand-wave the difference of ability and struggle that exist between asian immigrants and flatten it all into "asian" giving benefits to the most privileged of them. In my industry, European-Americans and Asian-Americans have teamed up (unwittingly or otherwise) to limit diversity because they make up the vast majority of the labor and take many opportunities that could go to blacks or latinos. [1] https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/color-of-wealth-in-los-angeles.pdf https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/color-of-w...

strikelaserclaw 5y ago
they might not be rich, but most of them are solidly middle/upper middle class and have a strong family structure in which the parents take a very active role in their childs life and future. This is not to say Asians don't work hard, in general a lot of them work very hard and have high standards for themselves, but i would say that if they went to a state school vs Harvard, i would bet their future outcomes wouldn't be too different. If someone from a under represented minority who came from a poor family managed to get into Harvard, their future outcomes might change a lot, they could finally get access to a sort of "knowledge" that middle and upper middle class give to their children since the time they are born, a knowledge on what the world is really like and what is possible in this world.
- fish45 5y ago
  I just want to point out that this is part of the premise of the original article: > Harvard’s admissions policies make me especially queasy, because the burden rests so heavily on Asian Americans. Still, it advances the important goals of exposing students to a somewhat broader range of colleagues and helping to lift more underrepresented minorities into positions in the power elite, which remains heavily white. Generally, going to prestigious schools benefits under represented minorities more than it benefits Asian Americans to an extent that affirmative action can be effective at addressing systemic inequalities, but it's still discriminatory against Asian americans to do so. It's a matter of opinion whether it's a good tradeoff or not

nobodyandproud 5y ago

The uncomfortable truth is that it’s the conservative party that is highlighting the discrimination, and only because it serves their ends. Asian Americans are in an uncomfortable, lonely position with no way to even “blend in”.

0x7E3 5y ago
> only because it serves their ends. Discrimination based on skin color is morally reprehensible. Doing it systematically at an institutional level is particularly damaging. The 'conservative party' as you put it recognizes this. The 'other party' only recognizes it for certain skin colors, which is a subset of the aforementioned discrimination based on skin color. So yes, you are correct in that the ends of the conservative party seem to be to end racial discrimination. The ends of the other party appear to be stoking racial hatred to garner support based on an outdated perception of their role. I much prefer the conservative take on this issue in 2022.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Eh, not really. It's pretty obvious that there's racial discrimination in plenty of other areas, and the GOP just plays the "well hold on now" card ad infinitum. Like, they might acknowledge the occasional study showing discrimination in, say, policing, or hiring preferences. But they virtually never propose to actually do anything about it; their usual rhetoric on the issue is just to criticize whatever Democrats propose. Nothing wrong with critiquing Democrat proposals, obviously, it's just that they never seem to have a credible, serious alternative.
- tqi 5y ago
  It's not that simple. "Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality."

naveen99 5y ago

Atleast there are no quotas in grad school.

musicale 5y ago

Is there a legal basis for requiring Harvard, a private university, to change its admission criteria (however arbitrary or unfair they may be?) Private universities routinely make admissions decisions based on non-academic criteria including geographic diversity, likelihood of parental donations, ability to pay, athletic skill, and demographic desirability (e.g. maintaining similar numbers of men and women.) Needless to say, some of those criteria convey additional advantages upon the privileged and wealthy. Or is it simply the power of the purse, given that Harvard depends heavily on grants (especially research grants) from the federal government? (Edit: the answer appears to be both: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by private schools receiving federal funding, and Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in private contracts; discrimination may also affect the tax-exempt status of universities.) (Another question is whether Title IX permits admission of men at a higher rate as a form of equity, or prohibits it as a form of discrimination.)

scarmig 5y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyon_v._McCrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyon_v._McCrary for a precedent for the federal government prohibiting private schools from discriminating based on race.

parkingrift 5y ago

Pick one: Affirmative action or equality. Democrats lie and gaslight to pretend you can have both. Everyone is either treated equally or everyone is weighed based on their race or skin color. If you think racial discrimination is okay so long as it supports a minority group, so be it. Just admit you aren’t a proponent of equality.

vinay427 5y ago
You might be interested in other senses of the word “equality”, as your confusion seems to stem from assuming one particular sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome
- parkingrift 5y ago
  Seems you’ve confused equality with equity.
zozbot234 5y ago
Ivy League admissions will always and inherently be about gatekeeping, not equality. The whole system is built around that goal. If you really care about having high-quality "college education for everyone", you'll have to look elsewhere for it and radically expand your notion of where a "high-quality education" might come from. (As an aside, "affirmative action" is a hugely misleading term for race-biased special treatment in admissions and the like. The original meaning of that phrase just meant "take action to ensure that everyone is being treated equally under the law, and no covert violation of their rights is going on". Having an overt policy that requires special treatment for some is the opposite of what "affirmative action" means! It's an Orwellian twist, a Big Lie meant to make race-biased discrimination acceptable to those who don't know any better.)

P_I_Staker 5y ago

I just want to chime in to say how astonished I've been in the past with Harvard's behavior, not necessarily with their affirmative action practices, but how they defend them. I did skim the article, but may not be familiar with the latest stance from Harvard. However, if memory serves their legal defense really just seemed to be that the racism was right. Asian people have inferior personalities (obviously untrue, but that seemed to be what they were saying at times). I was surprised there hasn't been more backlash that this is their present stance (at the time it was and this was not being talked about). Also, it's worth pointing out that many Asian people are totally playing the game and still getting boxed out. There have been a ton of families that have just said "Okay, this is what we have to do. Be a well rounded person. Show your leadership skills, participate in activities, and be a full person in the community. No problem. We'll just do that." Many of them don't even have that much of a problem with the policy, and have no issue getting their kids to achieve on that front. They still get denied. I don't have the answer, and don't agree with using criticism of affirmative action as a Trojan horse for white supremacy. However, pursuing an openly racist legal defense that Asian people essentially have worse personalities seems quite shocking to me.

pgwhalen 5y ago
Can you provide a source of the “inferior personality” narrative? I have heard about how interviews/character essays/etc. can affect admissions, but that’s a pretty lofty accusation.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  I believe this comes from an ongoing lawsuit[1] that SCOTUS recently agreed to hear. > The plaintiffs revealed that Harvard admissions officers consistently rated Asian-American applicants as a group lower than others on traits like positive personality, likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected. Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on other admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, but the students' personal ratings significantly dragged down their admissions chances. The plaintiffs also claimed that alumni interviewers (who, unlike admissions officers within Harvard, did actually meet with individual applicants) gave Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to white applicants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College#Plaintiff_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...

IMAYousaf 5y ago

Pretty disheartening to see.