Affirmative Action

Rejected for Being Asian: Students Sue Harvard, UNC Over Race-Based Admissions

|

Harvard
Wikimedia Comons

Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are facing lawsuits over their race-based admissions schemes, which hold Asian and white students to higher standards because of their skin color.

The lawsuits were filed Monday by a group of interested parties, including two unnamed college students who were rejected from Harvard and UNC. According to Inside Higher Ed, the Harvard applicant is of Asian ethnicity: He had a perfect ACT score, two 800s on SAT II subject exams, and was valedictorian of his high school. He didn't get in.

Remarkably, Harvard has managed to keep its Asian student population constant over the years, while universities that don't consider race as an admission factor have seen more and more Asians gain admittance. According to Inside Higher Ed:

What Harvard calls a holistic approach to admissions (in which applicants are reviewed individually, with a range of criteria considered) is actually a disguise for racial balancing in a system where Asian Americans are held to higher standards for admission, according to the lawsuit. As evidence, the lawsuit says that the racial demographics of Harvard's admitted class, first-year enrollment and total student body have remained stable over the last several years. …

"In light of Harvard's discriminatory admissions policies, [Asian Americans] are competing only against each other, and all other racial and ethnic groups are insulated from competing against high-achieving Asian Americans," the lawsuit reads.

The Supreme Court has previously upheld racial considerations in university admissions, but the recent Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin decision in 2013 further limited the permissible uses of affirmative action. Plaintiffs believe UNC's admissions system would fail the Fisher rationale. It's also conceivable that the Court would rule affirmative action entirely unconstitutional if presented the right kind of case.

Who can defend abject racial discrimination against Asians? Harvard's administrators and some of its faculty can. One professor even had the gall to suggest that discriminating against Asians is good for Asians. According to Fox News:

"Asian-American students benefit greatly from attending the racially and socio-economically diverse campuses that affirmative action helps create," Julie Park, assistant professor of education at the University of Maryland and author of the book "When Diversity Drops," told FoxNews.com.

I should think Asian-Americans would be better served by a non-discrimination policy. All student applicants should have the same right to a colorblind evaluation of their academic merits. With any hope, the sinister justifications offered by Park and others are becoming less compelling to the voting public, as well as the courts that will adjudicate lawsuits like this one.

Advertisement

NEXT: Most States Project Prison Populations to Keep Growing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, yes but… Harvard is a private institution. Shouldn’t they be allowed to accept or reject whoever they want for whatever reason they want?

    1. Private as in ‘takes no taxpayer money’?

      1. Yeah, that’s the kicker. Yes, Harvard may be private, but if they take funds from the government then they’ve implicitly agreed to follow certain guidelines. Diversity requirements are part of that.

        1. If Title IX can require Ivy League schools to deny due process to men accused of sexual assault, then the government can foist diversity of look requirements upon the schools. (That’s if you believe either predation is constitutional.)

          Of course, if you extend the same rationale to saying that accepting federal monies requires schools to be absolutist when it comes to the 1A and 2A too, people will look at you as though you have two heads.

    2. Harvard? Yes. UNC? No.

      1. Harvard, as a private university, should be able to admit anyone they want for any reason, and to deny admission to anyone.

        The University of North Carolina should have to follow the admissions guidelines set up by the state of North Carolina. But no state or federal government forms should be allowed to ask anyone what their racial background is, due to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    3. Just as soon as they start self-financing like Hillsdale.

  2. In what way are these kinds of proggie race policies not bad for everyone involved? Not bad for our society? Our country? Holding back asians because others can’t compete with them is nearly as bad as giving someone a pass because they are black. These policies guarantee that asians and blacks will not attain their full potential.

    Progressivism is insanity.

    1. No, it’s sociopathy. It’s the belief that all other people are just pawns in your game and that if the pieces would just go where you tell them, a perfect machine society can be achieved. How your plans effect individuals doesn’t matter, they’re just pawns. If your plans fail and terrible consequences result? Oh well, back to the drawing board.

      This is how progs can continue to express support for regimes that have killed millions and say shit like “they just didn’t do it right!” Because for them, it’s like playing a game of SimCity.

      1. No, it’s sociopathy. It’s the belief that all other people are just pawns in your game

        I thought that was the definition of sociopathy.

    2. The asian kid can probably do just fine at Stanford or UCLA or MIT or any institution he ends up attending.

      The black kid, otoh, might not display the “merits”* on paper that other kids do, but he might run with an opportunity to attend a prestigious institution.

      *there are not enough scare quotes on the internet to properly qualify this concept.

      1. “”””””””””””””””””””merits””””””””””””””””””””!

        Not enough?

        1. Hey, it’s even properly balanced.

          Cudos, but it’s not enough.

        2. Two superscript lemniscates on either side of the word is the closest we can possibly get.

          1. ?merits?!

            Couldn’t find the superscript.

        3. Some of those aren’t scare quotes.

      2. Or the black kid might end up at a school that he’s not quite qualified for and drop out instead of pursuing the same degree at a less strenuous school. Thus ensuring that everyone in this situation loses.

        1. Most schools over-enroll freshmen in anticipation of a certain percentage of them washing out.

          1. Harvard doesn’t.

      3. “The asian kid can probably do just fine at Stanford or UCLA or MIT or any institution he ends up attending.”

        It’s interesting thinking about the difference in where they wind up. Sure, the Asian kid isn’t being pushed down more than a tier by AA, but the black kid is moving up from, say, Occidental to Columbia by AA

      4. “Meritonin.”

    3. “Asian-American students benefit greatly from attending the racially and socio-economically diverse campuses that affirmative action helps create,” Julie Park, assistant professor of education at the University of Maryland

      Progtards gonna progtard …

      1. Asian-American students benefit greatly from attending

        Which hardly seems to answer the complaint that Asian-Americans aren’t being allowed to attend.

  3. “Asian-American students benefit greatly from attending the racially and socio-economically diverse campuses that affirmative action helps create,”

    Diversity of appearance is celebrated in academia has the highest virtue. A beautiful, multi-colored, multi-cultural tapestry of men, women, whites, blacks, latinos, Asians, Semites, Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered, Gender Fluid, Gender Queer, Gender Neutral, all thinking the exact same things.

    Meanwhile, diversity of thought is being stamped out with the full force that colleges can muster.

    1. “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.” – Thomas Sowell

      1. Wrong kind of diversity, Tom! Sowell needs to understand that diversity is only skin deep.

    2. The term for that is LETELU: Looks Exotic, Thinks Exactly Like Us.

      1. I like that. Consider it appropriated. The KOCHTOPUS thanks you for your hard work.

  4. Julie Park sounds Asian.

    If Harvard didn’t take public moneys, we would be okay with them using whatever criteria they see fit for admissions, right?

        1. 2003 Ph.D., Sociology, University of Southern California. Dissertation: “The Socioeconomic Progress of Southeast Asian Immigrants Across the United States.”
          2001 M.A., Sociology, University of Southern California.
          1998 M.Pl., Urban and Regional Planning, University of Southern California.
          1994 B.A., Sociology, University of California, Davis. Honors Thesis: “The Educational Attainment of Korean American Women.”

          Sociology is such nonsense.

    1. I would be okay with it even if Harvard does take public money. There shouldn’t be socio-engineering strings attached to education funds.

    2. My best friend is a white guy named Park. When he got to school, a group of Koreans showed up looking for him

  5. He had a perfect ACT score, two 800s on SAT II subject exams, and was valedictorian of his high school. He didn’t get in.

    So? Scoring perfectly on tests does not qualify you to get into a school – especially Harvard and other ivy leagues.

    1. Yep. Once you are looking into the top of the top tier of schools every application is a crapshoot.

      1. Meh, it’s only Harvard, grads from that school are pretty useless.

        1. Oh, there are loads of Harvard grads who go on to be productive members of society. Just not the well known ones.

          Of the Harvard grads I know well, one was the president of a SUNY college, one is an alcoholic unreconstructed-hippie plumber (he was actually president of the Hasty Pudding club), one is a strange yet brilliant musician, inventor and music box expert who never quite got his life together and another weaves basket bottoms for a living.
          Maybe I’m not supporting my claim very well.

          1. My sister is doing pretty well, but she’s not famous.

            1. No comment.

              Actually I didn’t go to Harvard. I went to the school that gave the world Joss Whedon, Michael Bay and Bill Belichick.

              1. Which one are you?

                I’m guessing Bill Belichick. Which, if so, we have a Super Bowl to talk about.

                1. No, I’m Michael Bay and I want to apologize for all of the silly movies I have made.

                  1. That would be delicious if true. Michael Bay, a reason poster, that apologized for his crap. I need something like “I’ll be in my bunk” for this fantasy but non-sexual.

        2. Some famous Harvard grads (limiting myself to the currently alive):

          Mira Sorvino.

          Natalie Portman.

          Yo Yo Ma.

          Tommy Lee Jones.

          1. Rashida Jones

            *flashes of Quincy*

    2. I wonder how the “test challenged” are handled once they start taking college classes.

      1. I doubt anyone who is test challenged makes to the ivy leagues. By that time, either they’ve figured out how to jump through the academic hoops, or they haven’t.

        1. Non-Ivy, then.

          “Could I do another diorama project instead of taking the final exam?”

          1. “Could I do another diorama project instead of taking the final exam?”

            “This is a programming course, kid.”

            1. “Checkout this jig I made to massproduce papermache #’s and semicolons.”

    3. Scoring perfectly on tests does not qualify you to get into a school – especially Harvard and other ivy leagues

      Yes – subjective criteria like “after-school activities” is one means of meeting whatever internal racial quotas they’re after.

      There is *no way* that every accepted applicant has perfect test scores.

      1. Nope. But my freshman orientation did have an announcement of how many applicants with perfect scores they rejected.

        1. Are you a Harvard grad, waffles?

          1. Nope, but I went to an institution with a very high opinion of itself.

      2. I once read that no black student in the US had an LSAT score higher than mine the year I took it. I didn’t get accepted by Harvard Law, but no doubt the black people who did were presidents of their respective Black student Unions and had other, vastly more impressive things in their records.

        I also once saw a chart — perhaps it was for U of Mich — showing that merely being black gave an applicant 4x the “admission criteria points” that a perfect SAT did.

    4. Scoring perfectly on tests does not qualify you to get into a school – especially Harvard and other ivy leagues.

      Yeah, “holistic” admissions means they want their students to be so busy with extra-curricular activities that they sleep through their morning classes.

    5. It does if you’re black, of course. he wouldn’t have to have close to those numbers were he black

  6. I should think Asian-Americans wold be better served by a non-discrimination policy.

    Why should you think that? Never mind, it doesn’t matter what you think. Harvard, and every other school, should be allowed to accept whomever they want.

    If the public money that goes to Harvard bothers you, then we should stop giving Harvard, and every other school, public money. The solution is to stop raiding the public trough, not micro-managing higher ed.

    1. Why should you think that? Never mind, it doesn’t matter what you think. Harvard, and every other school, should be allowed to accept whomever they want

      If you want to get rid of the entire CRA, I doubt you will get much argument from this board. Since the CRA still exists and is applied ruthlessly to every other sector of society, I fail to see why Harvard should get a pass because discriminating against Asians and Whites by a big private university is different somehow.

      And UNC is a public school. It should not be able to discriminate based on race under any circumstances.

      1. And UNC is a public school. It should not be able to discriminate based on race under any circumstances.

        *

        *Unless it helps the basketball team.

      2. Q: Should we allow heroin to be sold in vending machines in the public schools?

        A: There should be no public schools.

        1. THIS!!!

        2. But we do. So as long as we do they don’t to discriminate.

          1. This. This ain’t no perfect world, friends. The government’s got its hands into education, so until we manage to wrench them free, they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate like this.

            1. No sale.
              Not a perfect world as pretext for lowering the heal on your jackboot is not cromulent libertarianism.

              1. That is retarded Warren. Your argument boils down to “I don’t think we have public schools, so if we do have them they shouldn’t be held to any kind of standard of behavior we would expect from every other branch of government”

                That is stupid. I don’t think we should have welfare. But since we have it, I wouldn’t support it being given only to white people.

                1. Piffle. I never said there shouldn’t be any standards. And I absolutely reject classifying higher education as a branch of government.

                  There is no reason to require schools to accept student’s based on some standard you approve of over those the administrators of the school approve of. Nobody’s rights are being violated here. Getting into a particular school is simply not an unalienable right.

                  BTW the CRA doesn’t work that way. The CRA is for the benefit of under-represented groups. In no other walk of life has it been used to prevent over-represented groups to continue to be over-represented.

                  1. And I absolutely reject classifying higher education as a branch of government.

                    If its being run by and supported by the government, it is absolutely a branch of government. Those schools were built by the state as a benefit for the state’s citizens. They are just another public benefit.

                    There is no reason to require schools to accept student’s based on some standard you approve of over those the administrators of the school approve of.

                    Yes there is. It is called the equal protection clause. If the state runs it, they can’t used standards based on race or religion.

                    1. The government supports the auto industry, does that make Ford a branch of government?

                      If we took everything you just said seriously, it would require that they accept ALL applicants. If you’re not willing to go there, then some applicants have to be rejected and basing who gets in on “”””merit””” over group affiliation does nothing to make the world a better place. The people in charge of the school should be the ones who decide the criteria.

                    2. The government supports the auto industry, does that make Ford a branch of government?

                      If Ford had been founded by the government and run as a government entity and supported by tax payers so that people would have access to cheap, reliable cars, damn straight it would.

                      Sorry but giving a bailout is not the same as founding the institution, chartering it in law and running it.

                      Try again Warren.

                    3. The government runs Harvard? That’s news to me.

                      The government runs Amtrak. But wasn’t founded by the government. What about the USPS? What about AT&T?

                    4. We are not talking about Harvard. We are talking about UNC. The government of the state of North Carolina most certainly founded and chartered it.

                    5. What century was that?

        3. That’s similar to the feminist argument that chicks shouldn’t be armed for self-protection, because ideally men shouldn’t be all rapey in the first place.

      3. Since the CRA still exists and is applied ruthlessly to every other sector of society, I fail to see why Harvard should get a pass

        To not apply it as mercilessly as it’s applied to the private commercial sector strikes me as a potential violation of 14A’s equal protection.

        1. Under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, no government form should even be allowed to ask anyone what their racial background is.

    2. The fact that Harvard wants it and might be better for it has no relevance to the (correct) claim that Asians would be better off if they could more easily get into Harvard.

  7. The Fox News story on this included this priceless defense of discriminating against Asians.

    “Asian-American students benefit greatly from attending the racially and socio-economically diverse campuses that affirmative action helps create,” Julie Park, assistant professor of education at the University of Maryland and author of the book “When Diversity Drops,” told FoxNews.com

    Asian Americans benefit greatly from the diversity at schools they won’t be attending because they can’t get admitted. I guess Asians should just wake up every day feeling good about the diversity in all of those colleges that wouldn’t admit them.

    1. Once again, we see the self-contradictions of progressive thought. Here’s another: we are told that race and gender are just social constructs, and now people with XY chromosomes and penises can simply “self-identify” as female and demand to be treated as such. Well, if race is also a social construct, how can progressives say it’s fine if Joe Chang says he’s female to get into the women’s restroom, but it’s not if he “self-identifies” as black or Native American to get into Harvard?

      1. You were saying the children of immigrants are somehow ‘undesirable’ the other day. because, like, they’re dumb and use medicaid.

        Does that change when they’re super-smart, over-achieving, outperforming the rest of the population by a mile?

        just curious

        1. Of course it does. I never said or meant to imply that all immigrants are undesirable, it’s just that our present system seems to prefer the undesirable. If you are educated and want to get here legally, it’s an expensive and time-consuming pain in the ass. But if you’re a Honduran peasant or gangster, hey, just sneak across the border and we won’t deport you, and your kids and maybe you can get welfare. I doubt if there are a lot of kids of Asian immigrants on welfare.

          The other factors are that there are few cultural problems coming from Asian immigrants. SF and some other cities have some Asian gangs, but that’s about it. But there’s no talk of making the US an English/Chinese bilingual nation, and no revanchist movement claiming that part of the US “really” belongs to Japan or whatever, and no violent Asian religions who think it’s their destiny to rule the world. (Yes, there are Muslims in China, and Pakistan is technically Asia, but you know what I mean.)

          1. Then your issue seems to not be with ‘immigration’ per se, and rather how it is currently being (not) done.

            I’d be perfectly open to increasing access to educated, credentialed, professional people from abroad, while making low-skilled labor more restricted and given temporary work permits.

            The point being that talking about “Pro vs. Anti-Immigration” is meaningless unless you speak to the details of how it is applied. And which makes much of that CIS data you cited previously utterly useless in that discussion, because their whole schtick is to elide any distinctions in effort to make *any and all* immigration seem to be ‘net negative’

            1. My concern is also with the amount. If you have too much, especially from one nation/culture, it causes social friction, hinders assimilation, and degrades the host culture, especially if the immigration comes from cultures with huge problems. If millions of Swiss or Japanese moved here, it would be less of a problem than the same number from some Third World dump.

              1. “millions of Swiss”

                That would empty my masters’ land – do not!

        2. So, were you trying to ask a stupid question and make Papaya look good, or what?

      2. Genius. My kids are doing this when college application time rolls around.

        1. I really wonder, what is to stop anyone from checking off the “black” box on applications? Who is to say you aren’t? There are plenty of people who identify as black who could “pass” as white. As far as I know people get to identify their own race and there is no legal definition of races.

          1. Nothing stopped Elizabeth Warren from checking off “Native American” based on “family lore.”

            1. Well, there you go. Everyone just start checking off the wrong race on every form that asks for race. And try to breed with someone of a different race. Those are probably the best ways to get past all the race bullshit.

              1. My friend’s brother, upon receiving an “early admission,” when to visit the University of Michigan to check out the campus. Upon arrival, he found some counselors and students affiliated with the Black Student Union there to meet him. This baffled him, as he was not black, but rather half white / half Asian.

                He informed the similarly confused people greeting him that he was not black, and told them that there must have been some sort of clerical error in his admissions file.

                Then, a couple weeks after returning home, he got a letter from the University apologizing for “mistakenly informing him of his acceptance,” and that instead he was still being considered for acceptance.

                1. *went to visit

                  5 am carelessness.

          2. I still check “native American” whenever it’s available. Cause I was born here. QED.

            1. Yeah, can’t really say you are lying there.

            2. Yes, if it asks nationality, the correct answer is American. If is asks race, the correct answer is human. If you go back far enough, we are all African Americans.

          3. I’m telling my daughter to check “Hispanic/Latino”

            There’s literally no standard for that. “Black” at least assumes you had a black ancestor in the past thousand years.

        2. I knew a (definitely very white) girl in college who changed her name to something Spanish sounding (I think it might have been her mother’s maiden name) to help with college admissions.

      3. Search tumblr. Trans-racialism is a thing. It’s mostly white girls trying to claim they aren’t white.

      4. Harvard has quite a history of accepting people’s utterly implausible self-identification as a “minority”, because Harvard benefits from inflated diversity numbers.

        Yeah, I’m looking at you, Sen. Warren.

        1. RC,

          I would imagine saying you are gay and mentioning your struggle coming out of the closet and being accepted in your admissions essay would buy you some cheap points in the admissions race.

          Since sexual orientation is not something that an admissions’ board could ever confirm, I really can’t see why any student wouldn’t claim to be gay in their application.

          Also, ethnic groups like Native American and Pacific Islander are not always obvious in an application picture. If I am a Korean, how the hell does Harvard know that I am not a Pacific Islander? They won’t be able to tell by the picture. And my name only tells who my father was. So again, why not cheat the system and check the block? What is the worst that can happen? They figure you out and don’t let you in? We were unlikely to get in anyway.

          The thing that would end this horseshit quicker and more effectively than even a court order is applicants lying and gaming the system in large numbers. If that happens, the admissions officials would be unable to properly award the AA benefits.

          Kids need to be applying as transsexuals who struggle for acceptance from the local tribe.

          1. I would love to see things get to the point that universities tried to come up with “race tests” to try to stop people from gaming the system.

            1. I wouldn’t be surprised if they haven’t already done that. Seriously, what would they do if a white person just checked the “African American” block? They could accuse him of fraud but he could use the Warren defense of “that is what my mother always told me”. And who is to say they are wrong?

              The whole system depends on the honesty of the applicants. Other than being on a tribal roll, there is not card that certifies you are a member of a minority.

              If people ever started lying in large numbers, these colleges would have to demand genealogies as proof and would end up engaging in just the kind of race tests the Nazis did.

              1. I imagine a test in which involves asking about your favorite rappers and see how low and baggy your pants are….

                1. KRS-1: 10 points
                  Drake: 1 point
                  Method Man: 5 points

                  Will Smith: negative 500 points

                  1. How many points do I get for the RZA?

              2. Not to mention you can be “African American” and still be white. I have an acquaintance who was born in Durban, South Africa, and he’s one of the whitest people I know.

                1. Well “descendants of American slaves” takes too long to say and black is too general. I think African American is a useful term as it generally refers to a genetically and culturally distinct group (if you take it to mean descendants of slaves in America). But too many people use it as a euphamism for “black”.

            2. Just one drop, Papaya. Just. One. Drop.

              (returns to rocking chair on front porch of plantation whilst sipping from mint julep)

          2. “Application picture”? Is that common?

            1. It is Zeb. For a long time they banned application pictures because they were used to discriminate. Now they embrace them because they need to know who is who.

              Think about that for a moment.

              1. How do they not get called on this shit?

                I guess the race card is a powerful weapon.

              2. Such pictures just call for a touch of Photoshop. “But the skin tone and facial proportions reflect my inner self-identification as a racial minority!!”

      5. The funny thing is that race is far more of a social construct than gender. Gender is partly socially constructed, but has a whole lot to do with biological sex. Race is a pretty arbitrary way of categorizing people based on a few superficial characteristics.

        I think that everyone should just start lying about their race at every opportunity.

      6. Native American worked for Elizabeth Warren…

  8. “Asian-American students benefit greatly from attending the racially and socio-economically diverse campuses that affirmative action helps create,” Julie Park, assistant professor of education at the University of Maryland and author of the book “When Diversity Drops,” told FoxNews.com.

    And Professor Park is Asian, so she ought to know.

    Seriously, when did “diversity” become a thing?

    1. Seriously, when did “diversity” become a thing?

      I’m pretty sure it became a “thing” in order to serve as an intellectual prop for obviously-racist “affirmative action” policies. Arguing against AA thus became “hating diversity” which begat “you are a monster”.

      1. That, plus it’s another cudgel for the left to use against their political opponents, whites, and the US in general.

    2. Diversity is good. Too bad college administrators are mostly only interested in the most superficial kind of diversity. It would help a lot to get some more intellectual and political diversity in academia.

      1. Actually, diversity is not simply “good.” It has downsides, one of which is decreased social trust.

        1. Well, I was mostly taking a dig at the silly notion of diversity that colleges use.
          The multiculturalism kind of diversity can cause problems, as you say.
          Anyway, what do I know about social trust. I live in the woods for a reason.

  9. Affirmative action, is, by definition, racist. How it’s been upheld as long as it has is dumbfounding.

    1. I tell you how, because it is the white elite descriminating against non elite Asians and whites. So since the white elite run the courts generally, it gets a pass.

      That is really all that is going on here. Poor blacks don’t benefit from these programs. Upper middle class and upper class blacks benefit. And they benefit at the expense of middle class whites and Asians.

      Affirmative actin in higher education is nothing but rich white people ensuring that the universities are filled entirely with people of their class. Affirmative action allows them to substitute fellow upper class black students for middle class Asian and White students. They want diversity not having to attend school with middle class hillbillies, rednecks and immigrant Asians.

      1. Now just a minute, John. That’s some damn fine generalization. I worked with lots of poor and homeless kids — nearly all kids of color — and the ones who managed to graduate high school and get admitted to a university no doubt benefited from AA.

        1. I mean at places like Harvard. At other schools, yes. But those homeless kids were not going to Harvard most of them. The black kids going to Harvard and benefiting from its affirmative action are by and large children of the elite.

    2. The shortest path to eliminating racism is by imposing counter racism which is racism by definition, but the right kind of racism.

      1. Speaking of shortest paths…

        A Harvard feminist’s real problem with Asian men is that they are only capable of microaggression.

        1. What? I remember the Va Tech massacre as anything buy microaggression. Oh, a dick joke!

        2. They do have the smallest penises.

          1. “Chinese penis
            Short and thick.
            Chinese penis
            do the trick!”

    3. It’s the right kind of racism.

    4. “Affirmative action, is, by definition, racist. ”

      That’s incorrect. Racism is the idea that some people are inferior because of their race. Most proponents do not think anyone is inferior or superior, they think some people are disadvantaged because of their race.

      1. That’s one definition. There are others in use as well. Such as “treating people differently based on race”.

        If you don’t like that use of “racist”, substitute “racially discriminatory”. AA is definitely that.

        1. The problem is that when I google ‘discrimination’ I get ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.’ Proponents don’t think they’re being unjust, they think they are taking race into account because society has taken it into account in disadvantaging these groups. The way they see it, to not take it into account given that would be the disservice.

          1. Nobody who discriminates ever thinks they are being unjust. They think they are protecting blacks from whites, or protecting whites from blacks, or protecting Germans from Jews, or whatever.

            1. But some people who discriminate certainly think ‘I will not do business with this person because I think they are inferior/wish them ill’ while others do so thinking ‘I will do business with this person because I think they are unfairly disadvantaged/wish them well.’

              1. But some people who discriminate certainly think ‘I will not do business with this person because I think they are inferior/wish them ill’ while others do so thinking ‘I will do business with this person because I think they are unfairly disadvantaged/wish them well.’

                Which is more dangerous? The discrimination that means that people who hate you won’t interact with you, or the discrimination that means that you’re being pushed along by people who deny your agency and nanny you? I’d prefer the former, myself (and have experienced both the former and the latter)

              2. And both are unjust, because justice only works on an individual level (see Hayek). “Positive” injustice is still injustice towards those not being given special treatment.

            2. Or simply that there are genetic differences between the races that make some more civilized than others, leading naturally to different rights and expectations regarding the law.

              /Teddy Roosevelt and the other Social Darwinist Progressives

            3. In this case they are protecting white kids from competition with Asian kids. And progs are okay with that?

          2. You seem to have glossed over the “prejudicial” qualifier. Placing demerits on an individual for the bad acts of a group they are a “member” of merely due to skin color seems to be pretty clearly prejudicial.

          3. I didn’t say they thought they were being unjust.

            And “discrimination” is generally a neutral term (and that was my intent in using it). Lots of discrimination is perfectly just and not prejudicial at all. That is the sense in which I was using it.

          4. There really is not much practical difference between disadvantaged and inferior. Both much collectived assumptons based on the racial charatristics of the parties involved. It essentially presumes the guilt of racism of on the part of the people making the selection. It is racist in that regard at the very least. Also the concept of disadvantaged minority would seem to be highly questionable under any honest notion of equal protection.

      2. That’s incorrect.

        See 2

        rac?ism noun \?r?-?si-z?m also -?shi-\

        : poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

        : the belief that some races of people are better than others

        Full Definition of RACISM

        1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

        2: racial prejudice or discrimination

        Standing by for your admission of error.

  10. The UNC students weren’t actually rejected, or were they just mistakenly enrolled in the football team classes that don’t actually meet.

    1. Okay, that is funny.

    2. I was waiting for this.

  11. JD posted this at the tail end of the MLs:
    http://chronicle.com/article/H…..d-8/150051

    How U. of San Diego Added 8 Female STEM Professors

    Typically science-position ads are written tightly and prescriptively, but we wanted to try something different. …and their approach to, and experience with, mentoring female students and students from underrepresented backgrounds.

    We were gender-neutral during the application process, but if the choice was between two equally qualified junior-professor candidates, women were chosen.

    Being gender-neutral during the application process means nothing.

    1. If you are a white male and would like to have a career in academia, you better win a fucking Nobel Prize or be the son of a Senator. Otherwise you are fucked and will be lucky to get an adjunct position.

      1. For graduate school in STEM fields, being a white male makes you a minority, so a lot of schools will be excited to make their program more diverse by accepting a white male. White females are even better.

        1. My one semester of grad school: 2 american guys, 3 chinese guys, 1 turkish dude, 1 iranian dude and 4 chinese girls.

          1. Sounds HAWT!

        2. I deal with a lot of academics in STEM fields for my job and it does seem like they are all Chinese or Indian (well not all, maybe half). And the ones who insist on calling me on the phone are always the ones with the thickest accents.

      2. I think it’s difficult for anyone to get a tenured position in academia these days. Most colleges & universities are hiring “assistant profs” or “adjunct profs”, keeping them around for a couple years, then cutting them loose. The only people I see with a shot at tenure are people already well-known in their fields, which the college can use for marketing purposes. Then, once you enroll, you come to find out that Famous Physicist or Famous Author only teach grad students.

    2. You can either be gender-neutral, or you can break every tie in favor of one and only one gender.

      You can’t be both.

      1. If they are actually only using gender as a tie breaker, then it’s at least better than giving extra points to one gender or the other.

  12. if diversity is sooo important, when will they allow the IQ deficient in?

    1. They let Obama into Columbia and Harvard Law. So there is that.

    2. They did – as Diversity Coordinators.

    3. So much this.

    4. Does Harvard not have education majors?

    5. That does seem like the logical endgame of affirmative action. Better representation for the stupid in elite schools and organizations. Stupid people have no more control over their stupidity than people do over their race. Why should they be discriminated against?

  13. The only admission requirement should be cash up front. Solves student loan problem and race baiting. You’re welcome.

    1. But not the diversity problem, since the experience of seeing cash-strapped students is negated.

    2. I really can’t fully agree, as I financed my education, and my family was too dirt poor to front the bill (even if it had been back at the cost ratios from the 60’s/70’s)

      1. It could be a lot cheaper. With Internet based learning you could eliminate the need for large auditoriums and dorms. The top experts would make more because they could lecture thousands of students and have satellite TA’s for assisted learning. Students could pay a lower fee but still have access to top minds. Diversity is something I think you get by living in a diverse community, not some temporary artificial environment.

        1. Are you saying that I could learn more about Thai culture by traveling to Thailand? Instead of just going to the Thai Student Association potluck?

          1. To be fair, you’re more likely to find a Thai who could speak English well enough to explain the culture at the TSA potluck.

            1. Will there be Thai women at this potluck?

      2. I would expect private loans would be OK. You would just have to demonstrate that you’re a good risk.

    3. Maybe not cash up front, but they really should be more picky about who qualifies for a student loan.

      You should almost send your application to the bank instead of the university, so that the bank can determine how risky an investment you are.

      1. “The ROI on an underwater basket weaving degree will never repay the tuition loan.” – Real bankster.

      2. Right. Then colleges could just ask for your bank pre-approval letter like a car dealer. I like it.

    4. You are forgetting that the reason for universities is not to prepare you for a career, but to brainwash you. That’s how they view their existence. To make sure that you leave there a prog.

      1. Depends on where you go. I went to University of Florida and University of North Florida and the SJW stuff wasn’t too prevalent.

        1. At RIT I noticed that the Faculty was far to the left of the student body interms of Ideology. The usualy student reaction to their ’causes’ – “Get back on topic or shut up, we’re paying you here.”

          1. Nice.

  14. Lol, hoisted on their own racist petard.

  15. As far as the UNC case goes, the kid should have spent more time working on his jump shot and less time reading. Come to think of it, the same goes for the Harvard kid. Jeremy Lin didn’t seem to have problems getting into Harvard.

    1. Stanford didn’t recruit Lin though, and he played high school basketball in Palo Alto. And was the California player of the year.

    1. What I see there is a long list of bullshit majors that just scream “Don’t pay any attention to what I say because I’m talking out of my ass”.

      1. I went to vanderbilt shortly after this woman…. and she mentions an ‘affirmative action’ program that was ongoing there at the time in her blog

        “”Posse” = if you’re not familiar with the program, as the website says, “‘Posse started because of one student who said, “I never would have dropped out of college if I had my posse with me.”… Basically schools chip over a bunch of $ and annually fund about 8-10ish full rides to outstanding students from urban areas every year. [i.e. they bring actual ‘groups’ of students from the same few urban high schools]

        Vanderbilt was the first Posse host site back in the day (1989)* and a lot of my fav people in undergrad were Posse scholars.

        The idea is that by sending a group (or posse, if you will) of students from underrepresented backgrounds to this foreign environment (a traditionally White campus..), you can boost retention because they can help support each other, etc. They also have staff who work with them during their college careers (posse trainers)….

        So they’re basically selecting super talented students who will go on to be campus leaders, positively affect the campus culture, etc”

        notable = the people in these programs? Did not ever mingle with the general population. Or even the white kids from NYC like me. They basically had a school-within-a-school for themselves.

        1. That’s ridiculous. I just have no words.

          1. Also notable = the Ethnic and Gender studies programs were chock-a-block with these ‘commissioned minorities’

            And you couldn’t have sequestered them from the general populace harder if you tried. I mean, even their building was hidden in a corner of the campus behind the cafeteria. The generally-conservative campus culture @ Vanderbilt was entirely unaffected by the presence of token minorities OR these academically dubious majors.

            interestingly, the ‘affirmative action’ students didn’t mingle much among the actual black/latino students who got in on their own and were paying their own fare.

            There was an incident my first year where some of these imported urban-students were completely freaked out by the fact that some kids from different parts of the south would wear confederate flags on shirts, or hang the flag in their dorm windows. They chained themselves to a dorm entrance in ‘protest’.

            All the southern black kids laughed at them and called them Yankee fools. it was not quite the unified stance against oppression they had hoped.

        2. “In order to increase diversity, we need not just blacks, but groups of blacks who will sit together in the cafeteria.”

          1. That’s what black fraternities are for.

          2. I think the argument is rather: for diversity we need blacks, and enrolling an retaining blacks rests partly on their being other blacks at the school for support, identification, etc.

            1. They don’t want diversity. They want the appearance of diversity. Diversity implies integration into the whole. What they are doing is perpetuating tribalism.

              1. I think they want diversity of culture and they think race and ethnicity are indicators of that. I’m not sure they’re totally wrong about that, though to be sure it’s a pretty blunt instrument.

            2. see my above comment about how there were plenty of southern black students at the school who wanted nothing to do with the “Free-Lunch” black kids from LA/Chicago

              ‘Culture’ is not just race. This comes as a surprise to some people.

              1. Think of a school like the University of Minnesota. It has 6,528 students from foreign countries. It’s diverse by its very nature. Why would it need more diversity?

                http://www.oir.umn.edu/student…..rent/12883

        3. I also graduated from Vanderbilt. I am minority but I was not apart of posse. From my experiences, I don’t remember the “general population” trying to mingle very much with blacks on campus either. I do remember when the “general population” posted a bunch racist things on a website called juicy campus about not really wanting black people there. If you are going to tell the story, tell the entire story. Interestingly, I am completing my graduate studies at Harvard now.

    2. Sociology, English, and Women’s Studies

      The tripartite of professional progressive ejumacashuns?

    3. A degree in Organizational Change?

      WTF?

      1. That’s the beauty of college these days. You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit.

      2. It’s a thing that happens when psychology and B-school make a baby.

        1. Typically the objective is to maximize the collective efforts of all people involved in the change and minimize the risk of failure of implementing the change.

          Oh. Sorta like control theory, then?

        2. Holy crap. That’s biz-speak consultant hell.

          We are living in a field which is a whole (The quantum principle) Most of our day-to-day assumptions are still based on classical Newtonian mechanics, which usually are applied in the work with organizations. For example, most people would assume that if A is true, B is false. We base our work on quantum mechanics which teaches us that if A is true, B is equally true, and that A could not exist without B. Observers (or consultants, or leaders) are always part of a field, which they influence but by which they are influenced themselves instantly.

          1. We base our work on … if A is true, B is equally true

            Cool! Easiest course I ever took!

        3. As other examples, poor change management most likely played a part in the plane crash that killed John Denver, and was questioned in modifications to the fishing vessel in the book The Perfect Storm that may have made the ship less stable.

          So poor decisions equals bad change management? This is what makes me nuts about most modern business books. It’s overly complicated and wordy bullshit designed to dress up simple problems and incur more overhead costs.

          Most often, the answer is painstakingly simple. Follow the rules: fuel the plane before you take off, and make sure any new controls can be reached from the pilot’s seat. Instead, they want you to cover every problem with more and more paper and useless, time-wasting exercises.

          Case in point: I have in my possession a five page form that must be filled out prior to using a power tool (drill, grinder, etc…) at a well-known national laboratory. Before the form was discontinued, the technicians would pre-fill the forms, make copies, and keep them in their desks,so they didn’t have to spend a half hour checking boxes every time they needed to drill a hole.

      3. Is that like majoring in revolution or coups? Cause that could be interesting.

        1. From HM’s link, it seems to be a major in bullshitting.

  16. Who would want to go to Harvard? Overpriced, shitty PC education. I got by just fine at my shitty State School. Just got $35k from the kid toucher this afternoon. I think I’m doing just fine.

    1. Are you on the football staff at Penn State?

      1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how old should you be to stay away from Penn State?

  17. Typically the objective is to maximize the collective efforts of all people involved in the change and minimize the risk of failure of implementing the change.

    Gosh, I wonder how the typical outcome compares to that objective.

  18. We base our work on … if A is true, B is equally true

    There’s your trouble.

    1. Moral relativism is quantum physics. It’s all perfectly clear now.

  19. What are they saying about black intelligence? That it’s so deficient they need to force schools to take them? Ahhhh those colorblind progressives.

    1. No, their argument is that blacks are disadvantaged, not inferior.

      1. Which I think is true. Problem is that a lot of disadvantaged people just aren’t equipped for college out of high school. So AA helps middle class black kids who aren’t particularly disadvantaged far more than the truly disadvantaged.
        If they wanted to help disadvantaged people, they should look at economic status, not race. And push for things like school choice and vouchers that might actually help some of the disadvantages kids be properly prepared for college.

        1. And push for things like school choice and vouchers that might actually help some of the disadvantages kids be properly prepared for college.

          Cannot be said enough.

        2. I think you’re on to something here, but proponents of AA think middle class blacks are disadvantaged too (relative to their white counterparts).

        3. That’s a really good point. If the goal is help the disadvantaged, then why wait until college to do it?

          Could it be something having to do with a certain union having a strangle hold on education K-12?

          1. Yeah, it just might.

            Waiting until kids are 18 to give them a hand up is totally stupid. Sorry, but if you went to a failed school and never developed any good study habits or writing skills, you just aren’t going to do well in college unless you are exceptionally self-motivated and smart.

      2. No, their argument is that blacks are disadvantaged, not inferior.

        Lot’s of groups can qualify as “disvantaged”. But scarcely any of them qualify for preferential treatment. You don’t help a “disadvantaged” group by lowering the standards, that is unless your goal is to keep them reliant on life’s low hanging fruit. It’s racist and unjust.

  20. No hat tip? I linked this in the AM links.

    1. You have to e-mail it to them for that.

  21. “Asian-American students benefit greatly from attending the racially and socio-economically diverse campuses that affirmative action helps create,” Julie Park, assistant professor of education at the University of Maryland and author of the book “When Diversity Drops,” told FoxNews.com.

    Does this work just as well if you replace “Asian” with “Jewish”? I ask what Harvard is doing now looks a lot like its old Jewish quota, just aimed at a different ethnic minority.

    1. It doesn’t look like the old Jewish quota. It is the old Jewish quota. The old line white people at Harvard don’t want their school full of Asians just like their grandparents didn’t want it full of Jews.

      1. I think the current systems are actually kind of mirror opposites of the Jewish quota systems.

        The way the Jewish quota system worked was, in response to ‘too many Jews’ Harvard set a limit at 15%, that is, the ‘disfavored’ group could get no more than 15% of the admissions, the favored group got the rest. In today’s systems the aim is to keep some groups from falling below a certain % (the ‘critical mass’).

        1. In other words the Jewish quota system was designed to keep the whites from falling below 85%.

          There is no difference.

          1. For a long time SCOTUS had what was considered the ‘Catholic’ seat on the bench. One Catholic justice, and when they left they were replaced by another Catholic justice. Was it a way to keep the number of Protestant justices from falling below 8? No, It was a system to make sure the number of Catholic justices never fell below a certain number (1).

            1. Again, it was a system to make sure the Protestant justices never grew to more than 7.

              x + (1 – x) = 1

            2. Oh, the Protestant justices on the Supreme Court have done more than fall below 8.

              Nowadays, they caucus in the Bermuda Triangle with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.

              1. And so Eddie has stumbled onto the difference…

                1. That once you’ve established a Catholic seat it’s only a matter of time the Protestants are all gone?

                  1. I’m sure the Asians are reassured by comparing their representation at universities to Protestant representation on the Supreme Court!

                    Bless your heart.

        2. Here, the response to “too many Asians” is to limit the number of Asians. The fact that they are taking the Asians’ spots and giving them to blacks or Hispanics rather than other white people seems beside the point. And it certainly is besides the point if you are an Asian on the receiving end of it. I can’t see why any Asian student who doesn’t get in because of this policy should feel any different than a Jew who was a victim of the Jewish Quota. Its the same thing in both cases.

          1. The only difference is that there is no explicit quota for Asians. But the effect is the same.

          2. It’s the difference between limiting a group to a percent and reserving a certain percent to a group. Let’s say the critical mass of blacks is 10%. Asians could be whatever percent of the 100 except 91 (because it would cut into the 10% reserved for blacks).

            I will agree about the feeling of injustice. In fact, my primary opposition to affirmative action is that it violates the basic, inborn feeling we all have that we should not be passed over or denied something based on some criteria that has nothing to do with our efforts. It cannot help but exacerbate racial and ethnic tensions.

            1. Yes, the Asians do get a guaranteed percent, that is true. But that is like saying rich men and poor men alike are free to sleep under bridges. If the day ever comes where Asians are less competitive than other groups, than that guaranteed percent will mean something. As of right now, it is meaningless and no different in meanness or effect than the old Jewish quota.

            2. I will agree about the feeling of injustice. In fact, my primary opposition to affirmative action is that it violates the basic, inborn feeling we all have that we should not be passed over or denied something based on some criteria that has nothing to do with our efforts. It cannot help but exacerbate racial and ethnic tensions.

              It’s not a feeling of injustice. It is injustice. It’s hypocrisy at it’s very best. Racial discrimination is wrong or it isn’t, it isn’t right for one group and wrong for another. It certainly shouldn’t be illegal for one group and legal for another group and then also legally required to boot.

    2. And now a joke:
      Jewish kid: hey dad can I borrow 50 bucks?
      Jewish dad: 40 BUCKS!?! What do you need 30 bucks for?

      Thank you

  22. Any college that doesn’t take taxpayer money and is not recognized by government established acredidation bodies, should be allowed to use any criteria they want.

    It is ok to have Whitie College
    It is ok to have Blackie College
    It is ok to have Coolie College
    It is ok to cherry pick the applications and have whatever mix you want.

    …so long there’s no government funding.

    Private Membership should be allowed to discriminate.

    As far as Public colleges or colleges that receive government funding, ALL Admission criteria outside of the Entrance Examination should be removed. That includes race, public service, charity, prior grades, sports accomplishments, etc. ONLY the respective college’s entrance Exam should matter.

    Applicants can come in or go online and take the test. The only identifier the colleges will see is the SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. If there are 100 open seats, the TOP 100 scores get in.

    1. I agree Alice. It is like HBCs. I don’t see a problem with them. If black people want to have their own colleges good for them. The problem is when the state gets involved.

      The other problem is that is not how the laws are written. Private schools that accept federal funds have to by law promise not to discriminate. If you want to get rid of that law and let places like Bob Jones University have access to federal funds just like Harvard, then do it. But until then, I don’t see why courts should ignore the law.

      1. Private schools that accept federal funds have to by law promise not to discriminate.

        I’m not saying you’re wrong, but one could state with the same validity that schools that accept federal funds are actually required to discriminate.

    2. I sort of disagree Alice. But only because a poor black kid from a lousy neighborhood who gets close to achieving what a white or Asian does is likely someone with more potential than the white or Asian who beat him slightly. A runner in a 100 m dash who runs .1 second slower than another who has to run tires for the first ten metres is likely the faster runner, even though the score might not indicate that.

  23. How come this post accumulated 201 comments? I thought the issue was clear-cut: a policy of discrimination against a group of people based on racial features is morally and ethically wrong. So what’s the controversy?

    1. Good question VATO.

      The answer is that white americans would be shut out of premium colleges by asians and foreigners.

      And, as per libertarians, that’s a good thing.

      1. Let me re-state that:

        It is a good thing that we don’t discriminate among the applicants. Not that white admission to the premium colleges would go down.

    2. Because the debate is not about if it is right or wrong. The debate is about should it be legal. And that is a different question entirely.

      1. Exactly.

        Affirmative Action addressed the issue of discrimination against blacks and the systematic dumbing down of black people for centuries. Even thought there was affirmative action for college admission, there was no affirmative action in passing the Medical Boards, the Bar, or the CPA. Oddly enough, black people were able to pass them even though less qualified than some white kids in college admission. So let’s get rid of it.

        1. Re: Alice Bowie,

          Affirmative Action addressed the issue of discrimination against blacks

          Actually, it didn’t, AB.

          What AA does is simply make seemingly discriminatory actions subject to legal action. That is all it does.

      2. Re: John,

        Because the debate is not about if it is right or wrong. The debate is about should it be legal.

        Yes, I know. That is why I differentiated the issue by mentioning “policy”.

  24. This whole thread reminds me of the summer I worked in a movie theater in San Diego. One of my native Californian co workers (i.e. never been anywhere but up to LA and down to Cabo), asked me if my college (American University) was “mostly black like Georgetown”. I think I just started at her for a minute and just said “Yes. Yes, it is.”

  25. my roomate’s step-aunt makes $64 hourly on the internet . She has been fired for nine months but last month her income was $19433 just working on the internet for a few hours. check this ….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

    1. Are these spam ads designed to filter out people who are good at math?

  26. It isn’t 100% unreasonable to say an inner city kid, probably black, with slightly lower SAT scores, and slightly less achievement compared to a white kid or an Asian from a very privileged background is likely to be brighter and have more potential.

    Sort of like a hockey player with a +10 rating on a losing team is arguably better than a player with a +12 on a championship team.

    But, putting quotas on Asians? That is stupid.

    Why would Harvard dumb itself down on purpose? Why would they not take the best and the brightest.

    1. “slightly”?

      1. Yeah, more like taking the local “cage fighting” champ over Anderson Silva.

        1. As I’ve pointed out before and suggested above, The difference between black and white students at selective colleges is about the size of the difference between Occidental and Columbia.The difference between Asian students and black students is more like Columbia and Directional State U

  27. Harvard can be a private institution. Nevertheless the whole world watches it and it would be really silly to act like this. Besides, rejecting someone over his race is unacceptable. Yes, I support to sue Harvard. I hope that this guy will be able to win this case. It will set an example for the rest of the world. It is one thing to have your essay papers of a poor quality, but racism is in the US?.it is a trouble.

  28. Colleges and students can benefit from having an admissions policy that values a diverse student body. I went to Wesleyan (Connecticut) in the ’70s. Someone from Idaho had a much better chance of getting in than someone from Connecticut. Similar situation for foreign students. Nothing wrong with that.

  29. Usually teachers think that all Asians or other not native English-speaking students use
    cheap essay writing service to complete their education at least at the minimum level. But I know asians as very persistent and hardworking people so they usually achieve good results themselves.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.