6 ms·

Harvard Accused of Bias Against Asian-American === Harvard Accused of Favoritism towards African-Americans/Latinos/etc. The former just has a sexy title. The l

Harvard Accused of Bias Against Asian-American === Harvard Accused of Favoritism towards African-Americans/Latinos/etc. The former just has a sexy title. The latter we've known all along because these schools openly state that they embrace affirmative action. The matter of fact is that the school is incredibly strategic in how it makes its admissions decision, taking into account not only race, but geography, and a whole host of other factors. The complaint is utterly silly, because it fails to realize that nowhere is the claim made that the admissions process seeks to select the best students according to the SAT -- it seeks to select the students who best add something novel to that year's entering class. A VERY STRONG argument could be made that race ought to be something which can't enter into that calculus. And I agree with that. But, from the moment a school adopts Affirmative Action (and the US supreme court upholds it), then this is just the sort of thing we can expect to see.

interesting_att 11y ago
A private school can use whatever criteria it wants if it believes it enhances the experience. But why should Asian American tax dollars go to a university that clearly discriminates against them? Harvard shouldn't be able to get public funds and engage in systemic racism.
- afshin 11y ago
  Well, consider your answer to this question: Why should childless adults pay taxes that go toward a school system that educates children, despite the fact that they don't have children? Whatever your answer to that is, it is probably closely related to the answer to the question you posed. My own interpretation is that the whole point of paying taxes and building services is to cover the larger society's needs, not simply my own needs.
  - interesting_att 11y ago
    I see some strength in your analogy, but two main differences: 1) Tax money spent on sending kids to college helps everyone, even the non-parents, since more educated people = better world. Affirmative action doesn't help Asians in any conceivable way. Does it even help society at large? No one arguing for it shows reliable data that it creates significant community benefit. 2) You can always have a child in the future if you choose to. You can't become non-Asian if you were born Asian.
nodiscpls 11y ago
Discrimination is a bad thing that should be rooted out and stopped. The most insidious is of course the very PC "positive or affirmative discrimiation" - where a group of people decide discrimination is now ok, just because. It ends up with parody situations, like here in the UK, there is the joke about a lady making an absolute fortune, companies being desperate to hire her, because she is disabled, ethnic, lesbian, has diverse politics - and so in one hire, the company can tick every positive discrimination category. Back to the real world though - what a shitty thing to do to someone - to care so little about them as an individual, but to only give them a place because they meet this week's PC hiring criteria. For shame all of those who promote or continue with positive discrimination.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  Well, the general idea is "there are groups of people who are being discriminated against at some level, so we'll discriminate for them at this level, to even the scales out." A better solution would be to stop negative discrimination in the first place, but sometimes that's too hard. When you pile hacks on hacks, you end up with crazy edge cases.
  - _xander 11y ago
    Yeah, I think achieving this - or even coming sufficiently close to achieving this - is impossible. Tracking discrimination is very difficult. A person is an incredibly complex array of both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory features. A tall, poor African American with a really great support network might actually face less discrimination than a fat, middle-class European American who has that one goofy ear. It's just impossible try and rectify this after the fact. Stopping negative discrimination in the first place is not just a better solution, it's the only solution.
    - StavrosK 11y ago
      I think I'm inclined to agree.
- mattbee 11y ago
learnstats2 11y ago
I approve of affirmative action where it helps to redress an unfair societal imbalance, as it does here. I think it acts as a band-aid, as is commonly said, and I don't think it's an ideal solution to racial discrimination. But band-aids exist exactly because they contribute towards long-term improvement of a wound. On that point, it's very hard for me to see how Asian-Americans have a societal advantage that needs redressing in the USA. As I see it, Asian-Americans are being punished - not to admit more Afrian-Americans - but to keep European-American admissions higher. If we say that African-Americans are benefiting from positive discrimination, we must be consistent and say that European-Americans are benefiting from positive discrimination. I would expand your use of 'etc': Harvard Accused of Bias Against Asian-Americans === Harvard Accused of Favoritism Towards European-Americans
perfTerm 11y ago
I hate typing on my phone so I'll make this short. When it comes to companies, diversity is far better than having whatever the equivalent of "everyone looks the same and has the same SAT scores" so presumably it'd probably work to Harvard's benefit as well to encourage diversity whether mandated by law or not. There's been plenty of studies pointing to the positives of diversity. In order to foster an environment which will be diverse you're probably going to have to skip over some of the kids from the populations that are large and generally well off even if they have better SAT scores. I personally, have no problem with this. The kid who just missed getting into Harvard because of their race is probably going to an awesome school and statistically is more likely to come from a pretty good place in the world. They'll be fine. The other kids who do get in though, get to go to a school that is better precisely because of the advantages diversity offers. Here's some reading: http://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation_Through_Diversity.pdf http://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation...
- protomyth 11y ago
  "The kid who just missed getting into Harvard because of their race is probably going to an awesome school and statistically is more likely to come from a pretty good place in the world. They'll be fine." Or they kill themselves because their life goal is over or become bitter and hateful of others. Really hard to tell when you shatter someones dreams arbitrarily.
  - calbear81 11y ago
    If not getting into Harvard is something that would cause someone to kill themself, then that's probably a good sign that they should not have been admitted. I'm not trying to be mean but someone who can't handle rejection or have confidence in their ability to do well without getting into Harvard is not Harvard material.
    - marcos123 11y ago
      Yeah, there have been a couple comments in this thread with this kind of viewpoint; "How will I go on in life after all the opportunity cost of not getting into [insert high prestige school]". I feel so sad for anyone that has such a futile outlook in life. Life is literally what you make it, not what some gatekeepers make of it for you.
rayiner 11y ago
That's not actually true. The majority of Harvard's class is white. Statistically, if they are biased against Asians, that seat is going to a white person, not a black or Hispanic person. The magnet school where I went to high school has median SAT scores comparable to one of the mid-level Ivies. They got rid of affirmative action. It is now 70% Asian. And that's without accepting any foreign or out of state students. Asians didn't take seats from other minorities, because there weren't all that many to begin with. They took seats from white kids. CalTech, which is race blind, has 40% Asians, more than the number of whites. That's the end result schools like Harvard are trying to avoid.
- shiven 11y ago
  That's the end result schools like Harvard are trying to avoid. Why? That is the worst kind of discrimination in my book. How is it my fault that I was born smart, worked hard to capitalize on my innate abities and then competed on a standardized test to perform better than folks who just happened to pop out of a different vagina or uterus? Nice way to fuck me for no fault of mine. For those saying not getting into Harvard or MIT is no big deal, are either in the sour grapes camp or have never had to face opportunity costs arising from picking a non-exclusive-low-visibility-(but-great)-school. I don't know what la-la-land they live in, but that Veritas stamp will open doors that no amount of effort, intelligence or other factors ever can.
  - calbear81 11y ago
    To the question of why, Harvard believes that standardized tests are simply one of many factors that should be taken into account when deciding on who to admit. In building a student class, they value diversity not of race but of backgrounds and experiences. Perhaps that correlates closely with race since much of our country's socio-economic divisions also fall along racial lines in many places. As an Asian myself, perhaps the question that needs to be asked is if there is enough diversity in our upbringing to be well-rounded candidates for admissions to "elite" schools?
    - jababaloo 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

interesting_att 11y ago

A private school can use whatever criteria it wants if it believes it enhances the experience. But why should Asian American tax dollars go to a university that clearly discriminates against them? Harvard shouldn't be able to get public funds and engage in systemic racism.

afshin 11y ago
Well, consider your answer to this question: Why should childless adults pay taxes that go toward a school system that educates children, despite the fact that they don't have children? Whatever your answer to that is, it is probably closely related to the answer to the question you posed. My own interpretation is that the whole point of paying taxes and building services is to cover the larger society's needs, not simply my own needs.
- interesting_att 11y ago
  I see some strength in your analogy, but two main differences: 1) Tax money spent on sending kids to college helps everyone, even the non-parents, since more educated people = better world. Affirmative action doesn't help Asians in any conceivable way. Does it even help society at large? No one arguing for it shows reliable data that it creates significant community benefit. 2) You can always have a child in the future if you choose to. You can't become non-Asian if you were born Asian.

nodiscpls 11y ago

Discrimination is a bad thing that should be rooted out and stopped. The most insidious is of course the very PC "positive or affirmative discrimiation" - where a group of people decide discrimination is now ok, just because. It ends up with parody situations, like here in the UK, there is the joke about a lady making an absolute fortune, companies being desperate to hire her, because she is disabled, ethnic, lesbian, has diverse politics - and so in one hire, the company can tick every positive discrimination category. Back to the real world though - what a shitty thing to do to someone - to care so little about them as an individual, but to only give them a place because they meet this week's PC hiring criteria. For shame all of those who promote or continue with positive discrimination.

StavrosK 11y ago
Well, the general idea is "there are groups of people who are being discriminated against at some level, so we'll discriminate for them at this level, to even the scales out." A better solution would be to stop negative discrimination in the first place, but sometimes that's too hard. When you pile hacks on hacks, you end up with crazy edge cases.
- _xander 11y ago
  Yeah, I think achieving this - or even coming sufficiently close to achieving this - is impossible. Tracking discrimination is very difficult. A person is an incredibly complex array of both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory features. A tall, poor African American with a really great support network might actually face less discrimination than a fat, middle-class European American who has that one goofy ear. It's just impossible try and rectify this after the fact. Stopping negative discrimination in the first place is not just a better solution, it's the only solution.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    I think I'm inclined to agree.
mattbee 11y ago

learnstats2 11y ago

I approve of affirmative action where it helps to redress an unfair societal imbalance, as it does here. I think it acts as a band-aid, as is commonly said, and I don't think it's an ideal solution to racial discrimination. But band-aids exist exactly because they contribute towards long-term improvement of a wound. On that point, it's very hard for me to see how Asian-Americans have a societal advantage that needs redressing in the USA. As I see it, Asian-Americans are being punished - not to admit more Afrian-Americans - but to keep European-American admissions higher. If we say that African-Americans are benefiting from positive discrimination, we must be consistent and say that European-Americans are benefiting from positive discrimination. I would expand your use of 'etc': Harvard Accused of Bias Against Asian-Americans === Harvard Accused of Favoritism Towards European-Americans

perfTerm 11y ago

I hate typing on my phone so I'll make this short. When it comes to companies, diversity is far better than having whatever the equivalent of "everyone looks the same and has the same SAT scores" so presumably it'd probably work to Harvard's benefit as well to encourage diversity whether mandated by law or not. There's been plenty of studies pointing to the positives of diversity. In order to foster an environment which will be diverse you're probably going to have to skip over some of the kids from the populations that are large and generally well off even if they have better SAT scores. I personally, have no problem with this. The kid who just missed getting into Harvard because of their race is probably going to an awesome school and statistically is more likely to come from a pretty good place in the world. They'll be fine. The other kids who do get in though, get to go to a school that is better precisely because of the advantages diversity offers. Here's some reading: http://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation_Through_Diversity.pdf http://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation...

protomyth 11y ago
"The kid who just missed getting into Harvard because of their race is probably going to an awesome school and statistically is more likely to come from a pretty good place in the world. They'll be fine." Or they kill themselves because their life goal is over or become bitter and hateful of others. Really hard to tell when you shatter someones dreams arbitrarily.
- calbear81 11y ago
  If not getting into Harvard is something that would cause someone to kill themself, then that's probably a good sign that they should not have been admitted. I'm not trying to be mean but someone who can't handle rejection or have confidence in their ability to do well without getting into Harvard is not Harvard material.
  - marcos123 11y ago
    Yeah, there have been a couple comments in this thread with this kind of viewpoint; "How will I go on in life after all the opportunity cost of not getting into [insert high prestige school]". I feel so sad for anyone that has such a futile outlook in life. Life is literally what you make it, not what some gatekeepers make of it for you.

rayiner 11y ago

That's not actually true. The majority of Harvard's class is white. Statistically, if they are biased against Asians, that seat is going to a white person, not a black or Hispanic person. The magnet school where I went to high school has median SAT scores comparable to one of the mid-level Ivies. They got rid of affirmative action. It is now 70% Asian. And that's without accepting any foreign or out of state students. Asians didn't take seats from other minorities, because there weren't all that many to begin with. They took seats from white kids. CalTech, which is race blind, has 40% Asians, more than the number of whites. That's the end result schools like Harvard are trying to avoid.

shiven 11y ago
That's the end result schools like Harvard are trying to avoid. Why? That is the worst kind of discrimination in my book. How is it my fault that I was born smart, worked hard to capitalize on my innate abities and then competed on a standardized test to perform better than folks who just happened to pop out of a different vagina or uterus? Nice way to fuck me for no fault of mine. For those saying not getting into Harvard or MIT is no big deal, are either in the sour grapes camp or have never had to face opportunity costs arising from picking a non-exclusive-low-visibility-(but-great)-school. I don't know what la-la-land they live in, but that Veritas stamp will open doors that no amount of effort, intelligence or other factors ever can.
- calbear81 11y ago
  To the question of why, Harvard believes that standardized tests are simply one of many factors that should be taken into account when deciding on who to admit. In building a student class, they value diversity not of race but of backgrounds and experiences. Perhaps that correlates closely with race since much of our country's socio-economic divisions also fall along racial lines in many places. As an Asian myself, perhaps the question that needs to be asked is if there is enough diversity in our upbringing to be well-rounded candidates for admissions to "elite" schools?
  - jababaloo 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]