"[Harvard] considers race only as one of many factors in deciding ..."

[Grumpy_Polecat]

As far as I'm concerned, race should be NONE of the factors.

From the same article:

"... Harvard has not seriously considered alternative, race-neutral approaches to admissions."

And,

"... the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling on affirmative action, the Court held that college can consider race as one factor in admissions ..."

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.




https://www.vox.com/vox-sentences/20...rmative-action

[Daryl Flynn]

Yep, race shouldn't be a factor.

But, Harvard is over run by C-Marxists.

Their agenda isn't to help minorities, it's to hurt whites.

God I'm glad the right has the SC for the next 50 years.

[yumpy]

Asians have a law suit for discrimination.

It's obvious.

Some black person of color only needs 300 pts less than an asian.

Maybe 150 pts less than a white person.

High cheekbones gets you tenure.

[Opposite Day]

Not caring what color anyone is? As any lib can tell you, that's like the most racist thing you can do! Even worse than having Black friends!

[Cornholio Farquarth III]

The lawsuit contends that Asians are held to a higher standard to be considered for admission. So it's a test to exclude, based on ethnicity.

[Daryl Flynn]

C-Marxists fear Asians.

Way too smart, in general.

[arcadesonfire]

Howdy folks. I've thought a lot about the lawsuit and of course weigh arguments on both sides. First, I'm compelled to toss in a factoid from a friend who has worked in the Yale admissions office for a few years. He reports that if they were to go just based on SAT scores, an incoming class would be something like 80% Asian; the white legacy students who get in not because of their performance but because the schools need their parents to write large checks would cover the next 15% as they do currently; and then there would be 5% room left for everyone else. Again, that's if they went just based on entrance exam scores. Surely you folks recognize a high schooler features more evidence of proclivity to be an important, productive, unique contributor to their college class than just their standardized test scores. Hence, Harvard's defense includes discussion of "personal score." I'm positive my involvement with the guitar and church, as well as my personal essays and letters of recommendation, helped me get into my school. Moving along though...

Here's my big question for the conservatives: Why do you think people who live in smaller-population states should have more electoral votes per person? Why do you think people in small-pop states should have more senators per person? I think that if you consider why our government gives greater weight to the voices of people who are living less common lifestyles (as there are fewer people living rural lifestyles than urban), then you might glean some insight about why institutions give more weight to applicants (with scores in a certain range) who've had the less common life experiences.

[Opposite Day]

Howdy folks. I've thought a lot about the lawsuit and of course weigh arguments on both sides. First, I'm compelled to toss in a factoid from a friend who has worked in the Yale admissions office for a few years. He reports that if they were to go just based on SAT scores, an incoming class would be something like 80% Asian; the white legacy students who get in not because of their performance but because the schools need their parents to write large checks would cover the next 15% as they do currently; and then there would be 5% room left for everyone else. Again, that's if they went just based on entrance exam scores. Surely you folks recognize a high schooler features more evidence of proclivity to be an important, productive, unique contributor to their college class than just their standardized test scores. Hence, Harvard's defense includes discussion of "personal score." I'm positive my involvement with the guitar and church, as well as my personal essays and letters of recommendation, helped me get into my school. Moving along though...

Here's my big question for the conservatives: Why do you think people who live in smaller-population states should have more electoral votes per person? Why do you think people in small-pop states should have more senators per person? I think that if you consider why our government gives greater weight to the voices of people who are living less common lifestyles (as there are fewer people living rural lifestyles than urban), then you might glean some insight about why institutions give more weight to applicants (with scores in a certain range) who've had the less common life experiences.

Because we are a union of states, each with its own laws, and the states electoral votes are proportional to their population. Not sure how that's an analogue for the racial preferences dems always champion.

But what's the rationale of denying fruits of the hard work and achievement of Asian students? Asian privilege? Are are we just saying that that the good hair comes with giant brains that give them an unfair advantage?

[Grumpy_Polecat]

Because we are a union of states, each with its own laws, and the states electoral votes are proportional to their population. Not sure how that's an analogue for the racial preferences dems always champion.

But what's the rationale of denying fruits of the hard work and achievement of Asian students? Asian privilege? Are are we just saying that that the good hair comes with giant brains that give them an unfair advantage?

Slight correction:

The electoral votes are not in proportion. The reason for this is that the HoR Population was capped in order to keep it from growing into an unmanageable size. Some time in the past year (I think) I posted a thread and an article discussing this very point. Yet it remains that the '2 Senators per State' rule has never been any different. What changed in their regard is the manner in which they are elected.

PS: If anyone can find my earlier thread, I have been searching for it in vain for a while and I'd like to revisit it since the EC is still a 'Hot Topic' and I can't find the cited article.

[Opposite Day]

Huh. I did not know that.

[Tom Hicks]

Harvard better be careful or they will be getting compared to Trump U.

[stratosaurus]

Is there a race that hasn't accused another of racism? It's like an epidemic of accusers trying to find ANYTHING to whine & complain about. It's become a world of poor pitiful persecuted people.

[Grumpy_Polecat]

Is there a race that hasn't accused another of racism? It's like an epidemic of accusers trying to find ANYTHING to whine & complain about. It's become a world of poor pitiful persecuted people.

It's kind of harsh when you say it that way. But there is something deeper which many seem unable to confront.

When Affirmative Action laws first took place we had bonifide institutional racism in this country. Surprising as it might seem, 'Meathead' --the stalwart liberal-- from All in the Family faced the reality of not getting a job because of affirmative action laws. Yet today, the institution of racism really does no longer exist. Racism exists and it always will to some extent, but it is no longer woven into the fabric of society. We have grown beyond that as a people.

As a result it makes affirmative action laws a rather moot point, much the same as the 'no bouncing pickles law' in CT.

Equal is equal. Being treated differently because of a presumed disadvantage is not equal. (BTW, I do know that Golf includes handicapping, which is its own form of affirmative action. So I hope nobody brings that up. It is still unequal.) The difference is when a person or group or class or race is being specifically denied an opportunity because of the their race, or class. I see no evidence that this is an extant situation at this date and time.

Arcades, this is partly in answer to your last post.

[arcadesonfire]

Because we are a union of states, each with its own laws, and the states electoral votes are proportional to their population. Not sure how that's an analogue for the racial preferences dems always champion.

But what's the rationale of denying fruits of the hard work and achievement of Asian students? Asian privilege? Are are we just saying that that the good hair comes with giant brains that give them an unfair advantage?

Can I come live in your United States? You must’ve had Presidents Gore and Hillary rather than GWB and Spanky.

Why does the first part of your answer matter to the federal government? Why must Montana and California each get two Senators despite CA having a far larger population? ... I was always taught that it related to 1. Avoiding a tyrannical majority, 2. Ensuring that people of population-wise minority lifestyles/industries/socioeconomic positions get to voice the wisdom they’ve gathered with as much gusto as those in the majority circumstances, because the different lifestyles would likely provide different desires and different insights, and finally, 3. Maintaining some manner of the states’ original sovereignties.

Am am I way off on that? The people from whom I learned the most about the start of the US were my HS US history teacher—a Republican—and my father—a Republican, “objectivist,” NRA member.

So so it seems to me that if Harvard wants to mix up their classes and gain input from students covering a wide range of experiences and cultures, then a manner of “affirmative action” helps fulfill that goal.

Furthermore, to base entrance totally on test scores would be completely out of line from where admissions offices have been for at least my whole life. You’ve gotta write those letters, master those extra curriculars, work to serve your community, and prove that you are an all-around interesting, unique, and capable person, alongside having a brain that’s talented itself.

So the real question we’ll see in court was whether the plaintiffs had all the same credentials and were systematically downgraded, or if they didn’t have the goods in other categories like people who were admitted.

Theres a good interview on All Things Considered tonight with an Asian Harvard student who will be on the stand in Harvard’s defense. She said a popular phrase on campus has been “merit is meaningless without context.” Considering child psychology and how opportunities differ so widely among kids of different backgrounds, I think that’s awfully worthy to consider. (Though not exactly parallel, I’ll always be affected by my earliest memories of elementary school math. I could finish the homework with the correct answers and put my head on the desk before the teacher finished the lesson, and before many students even began to struggle for the answers. I myself did not merit anything. It was just happenstance that I did better than them.)

[Opposite Day]

Can I come live in your United States? You must’ve had Presidents Gore and Hillary rather than GWB and Spanky.

Why does the first part of your answer matter to the federal government? Why must Montana and California each get two Senators despite CA having a far larger population? ... I was always taught that it related to 1. Avoiding a tyrannical majority, 2. Ensuring that people of population-wise minority lifestyles/industries/socioeconomic positions get to voice the wisdom they’ve gathered with as much gusto as those in the majority circumstances, because the different lifestyles would likely provide different desires and different insights, and finally, 3. Maintaining some manner of the states’ original sovereignties.

Am am I way off on that? The people from whom I learned the most about the start of the US were my HS US history teacher—a Republican—and my father—a Republican, “objectivist,” NRA member.

So so it seems to me that if Harvard wants to mix up their classes and gain input from students covering a wide range of experiences and cultures, then a manner of “affirmative action” helps fulfill that goal.

Furthermore, to base entrance totally on test scores would be completely out of line from where admissions offices have been for at least my whole life. You’ve gotta write those letters, master those extra curriculars, work to serve your community, and prove that you are an all-around interesting, unique, and capable person, alongside having a brain that’s talented itself.

So the real question we’ll see in court was whether the plaintiffs had all the same credentials and were systematically downgraded, or if they didn’t have the goods in other categories like people who were admitted.

Theres a good interview on All Things Considered tonight with an Asian Harvard student who will be on the stand in Harvard’s defense. She said a popular phrase on campus has been “merit is meaningless without context.” Considering child psychology and how opportunities differ so widely among kids of different backgrounds, I think that’s awfully worthy to consider. (Though not exactly parallel, I’ll always be affected by my earliest memories of elementary school math. I could finish the homework with the correct answers and put my head on the desk before the teacher finished the lesson, and before many students even began to struggle for the answers. I myself did not merit anything. It was just happenstance that I did better than them.)

Huh. Well as GP pointed out, I guess it's not perfectly proportional, but it is proportional in that states with high populations have more electoral votes. I'm not sure if perfect proportionality would have fulfilled the dream of a Gore or Hill presidency though. Still not sure what that has to do with racial preferences though.

...which I noticed you didn't really make an argument for. Broad criteria that include more than test scores? Nothing objectionable there. Evaluating candidates in as comprehensive a manner as possible? Sounds good. "Diversity" also sounds good, but it also pops the cork on all kinda of bias. And of course whenever the left uses the term, we know the mean racial diversity. Having slots exclusive to liberals, conservatives, fat, skinny, rich, poor, etc. would is problematic enough, but making it racial seems like about the worst way to divide people to me.

[yumpy]

Harvard tries to slime out of accusations of racism?

Imagine that.

Fat old white men are panicking.

Prophetic,