College Admissions

Harvard Discriminates Against Asian-Americans, and 'Implicit' Bias Training Won't Fix That

Race-based admissions will likely make a return visit to the Supreme Court.

|

Last week, Judge Allison Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts sided with Harvard University and upheld its race-conscious admissions program.

This was not really a surprise, as existing Supreme Court precedent does permit universities to consider an applicant's race as one criteria for admissions, if narrowly-tailored to create a diverse student body. Burroughs ruled that Harvard's policy falls within those guidelines.

Critics point out that Harvard's approach has allowed admissions officers to engage in blatant discrimination on the basis of skin color. The plaintiff in the Harvard case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc., contended that Asian-American applicants are specifically disfavored under a race-conscious admissions policy, and that this violates federal civil rights law. They presented considerable evidence that admissions officers gave them low ratings on subjective grounds like personality. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs argued, Harvard did everything possible to artificially engineer a campus that was well-represented by students from "sparse country"—the South and the Great Plains—and thus significantly more white than it would have been otherwise.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., plans to appeal the case. It could eventually end up before the Supreme Court, where the new, clear-cut conservative majority may be inclined to revise the previous decisions that limited, but left intact, certain race-based admissions schemes.

One little-discussed aspect of Burrough's decision drew the attention of The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Allison D. Burroughs, a U.S. district judge in Boston, noted in the conclusion of her 130-page ruling that while the university's policy "survives strict scrutiny, it is not perfect." Among her recommendations for improvement? Training to avoid implicit bias for Harvard's admissions officers.

Training to stop bias that is implicit and not overt, commonly known as "implicit-bias training," is a contemporary outgrowth of sensitivity and diversity training. It has been used by both companies and colleges, including on faculty-hiring committees. But its reach into admissions has been limited, and some question how it would be carried out there.

Implicit bias, though, is a very fraught psychological concept. A once beloved tool for measuring the supposedly subconscious biases people have against marginalized groups—the implicit association testdoesn't actually work. There's scant evidence that the workshops and training modules designed to combat implicit bias actually do much good.

But the bigger issue in this specific case is that such training seems unequal to the task of addressing the biases of Harvard's admissions program. These biases are not implicit: They are explicit. Harvard is specifically favoring certain racial groups over others in an effort to make the campus less Asian. This is not a subconscious, invisible, unapparent bias. It's deliberate discrimination, and obvious to all. It's long overdue for a retrial.

NEXT: Audit Finds Cost of Building Supportive Housing in L.A. Exceeds Median Price of a Market-Rate Condo

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. There are a hundred laugable things in this decision. My favorite might be this:

    In terms of burden, it is likely that eliminating consideration of race would significantly disadvantage at least some Asian American applicants, as evidenced by the testimony of the
    amici at trial, all of whom viewed their race or ethnicity as a critical aspect of their life experiences and applications to Harvard. Further, it is vital that Asian Americans and other racial minorities be able to discuss their racial identities in their applications.

    So Harvard has straight up race quotas that makes it much harder to get admitted if you are Asian and the court says that is okay because not considering race would prevent Asian applicants from using the fact that they are Asian as a point in their favor.

    WTF?

    1. Having now read more about this case, all this nonsense says more about SCOTUS than the parties here.

    2. I thought they used to teach logic in law school.

      1. I am not sure but it’s likely logic is now viewed as Eurocentric patriarchy the same as math.

  2. This is another beauty.

    Finally, the magnitude of race-based tips as indicated by the relative academic qualifications of admitted minority students at Harvard is modest. Every student Harvard admits is academically prepared for the educational challenges offered at Harvard, and a majority of admitted applicants from every major racial group scores in the 2 range on Harvard’s academic ratings. [PX623].61 In other words, most Harvard students from every racial group have a roughly similar level of academic potential, although the average SAT scores and high school grades of admitted applicants from each racial group differ significantly.

    So the all have a “similar level” of potential even though all the the Asian and White kids have higher test scores and grades. If having higher test scores and grades are not an indicator of greater academic potential, then why are they considered at all?

    1. It’s like “close enough for government work” – or “close enough for a de facto para-state institution.”

  3. If implicit bias is the issue here, and I’m not saying it is, there is a fairly simple way to fix it: don’t let admissions people see race-relevant information (e.g., name, race, etc.) when going through the applicants. It really isn’t that hard. Implicit bias training hasn’t been able to get out of the lab very well (e.g., various training techniques developed and tested in the lab show small-to-moderate effect sizes in reducing bias and/or racially disparate responses; however, they almost never last more than 24 hours. Moreover, when those lab exercises are put into the real world, the vast majority [all?] fail monumentally…in same cases making things worse). If they idea is that certain racial cues are triggering unconscious bias or whatever, then just remove said racial cues from the task at hand. Quite easy (and also one of the few things that have been shown to actually eliminate any implicit biases…regardless of what they are).

    1. That would seem to be the logical solution. But the judge decided that doing that would prevent Asians from using their race to get admitted.

      No shit. See my quote above.

      1. completely mind boggling. (Note: didn’t see you quote as I was writing my response). lol, I just don’t even know how to respond to this. Do they even see the contradiction here?

        1. I think they are so deep in their own rationalizations that they don’t.

      2. I agree with your entire position in this thread, John.

  4. This is another great one.

    Harvard’s admissions program is conceptually narrowly tailored to meet its interest in diversity. In practice, as more fully discussed above, it does not seem to unduly burden Asian Americans despite the fact that some percentage of Asian American applicants have received lower personal ratings than white applicants who seem similarly situated. The reason for these lower scores is unclear, but they are not the result of intentional
    discrimination.

    The reasons for Asians being declared “less personable” than similarly situated white kids are “unclear” but not due to discrimination because REASONS!! or something.

    1. The Asian grind stereotype exists for a reason.

      1. The Asian grind

        They charge extra for that.

        1. Are you sure you’re not formally known as Crusty?

          1. Crusty the Silly Piggy? That is a horrible handle. As it is, I just realized that it looks like the Artist formerly known as CaTSuP, which is, of course, the most mediocre of all condiments. Maybe I really am one of Kirkland’s clingers.

      2. It would be much better if they could rely on their rich alum parents to get in instead of studying all the time. Unfortunately, that is not an option for them either. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

        1. Now do blacks.

          1. As another commenter noted, you seem to have a particular fixation.

            1. Can’t believe some left wing fanatic on the internet called me racist. Really shook over here.

              1. “left wing fanatic” lol.

                Well, you do manage to shoehorn “but blacks yada yada yada” into everything. If the shoe fits…

                1. ” If the shoe fits…”

                  So you’re saying you are a left-wing fanatic?

                  1. Go ahead and link where I’ve supported socialism. No cite, no argument. You have nothing, again.

                    1. Go ahead and cite where I said you support Socialism. No cite, no argument. You have nothing, again Jeff.

                    2. He won’t be back to admit I never said it. He’s a coward.

                    3. Another game of word play? No thanks.

  5. “This was not really a surprise, as existing Supreme Court precedent does permit universities to consider an applicant’s race as one criteria for admissions, if narrowly-tailored to create a diverse student body. Burroughs ruled that Harvard’s policy falls within those guidelines.”

    If the Supreme Court rules in favor of trans people being a protected class can the Asians just claim to be ladyboys and then skirt the system? (pun intended)

  6. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs argued, Harvard did everything possible to artificially engineer a campus that was well-represented by students from “sparse country”—the South and the Great Plains—and thus significantly more white than it would have been otherwise.

    From the link: Black, Hispanic, and Native American students needed to score an 1100 out of 1600 to attract Harvard’s attention. White students received letters if they achieved a 1310. But Asian males did not earn letters unless they scored 1380.

    Whites are discriminated against the second most and yet Robbie claims the goal was to make the campus “significantly more white than it would have been otherwise.”

    1. In fairness to Soave, he is just stating what the plaintiffs argued. And it appears that Harvard’s desire to fuck Asians is so great that will even admit evil white people in larger numbers than would be admitted under a racially neutral systems to keep the dirty slant eyes out.

      Judging from the facts of this case, Harvard really, really hates Asians. I mean hates them.

      1. Judging from the facts of this case, Harvard really, really hates Asians. I mean hates them.

        Asians upend the whole narrative. Race-blind admissions aren’t supposed to lead to Asian majorities, but there you go.

        1. And ironically, Asians as a group tend to be loyal Democrats and good progressives. So maybe they are happy to see their kids screwed over for the greater good.

          1. Vietnamese used to vote republican, before Trump let Miller start deporting them.

            1. At least you make up for the irrational support of socialism by not being a racist asshole. Oh, wait…

              1. Show me where I supported socialism.

                Not supporting Trump, the lifelong conman who has been legally barred from running a charity ever again is not synonymous with socialism.

                Turn off fox news, grampa.

              2. And how was my comment racist? You got that extra thin skin?

                1. Vietnamese used to vote republican

                  US citizens should be referred to as Americans, you racist twat. A Vietnamese citizen can’t vote Republican.

                  When you say ‘Vietnamese’, you mean: ‘Americans who I am going group together because they or their ancestors were born in a particular area in Asia for no other reason but to differentiate them from the rest of the Americans with Asian ancestry, who must all act in concert because they all look alike’.

                  You really shouldn’t sockpuppet so much, baby Jeffy. Sometimes when you use the wrong voice for the sock you reveal too much.

                  1. I was responding to this comment:
                    >And ironically, Asians as a group tend to be loyal Democrats and good progressives. So maybe they are happy to see their kids screwed over for the greater good.

                    So I specified that within the group known as “asians” a subgroup tended to vote Republican. Sure you could become pedantic in the extreme and an absolute literalist, but that would make you an idiot, right?

                    The outrage culture invades reason comments section. Jesus, you really had to stretch for that one. Make sure to hydrate!

                    1. Nice try. You are backpedaling so fast your straw man may catch fire from the friction.

                      You clearly don’t know shit about Vietnam which makes your smear all the more vile. You go on and on about not picking a side and here you are stereotyping and labeling, peddling the same bullshit you pretend to abhor. Any outrage is simply that a person so incredibly uninformed thinks it acceptable to vomit his ridiculously stupid opinions all over other people’s conversations.

                    2. Actually I know quite a bit about Vietnam, relative to most Americans. I have gone there several times, married into a Vietnamese, sorry American family that is not at all Vietnamese, and read a very long book on the known history of Vietnam. There are only 2 books about Vietnamese history other than just Vietnam War in English, that I could find.

                      Which smear? And what crucial fact am I missing that makes this “vile”? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/2018-vietnamese-americans-found-new-political-prominence-n948121

                      You know what’s vile? Fake outrage.

                    3. Also not my opinion, you vile caricature of a disingenuous alt right troll.

                      The phenomena of Vietnamese Americans switching their voting to support Democrats was widely reported in 2018, and they are credited with being the crucial votes to swing 3 congressional districts to D.

                      Also not my opinion that the Trump admin moved to deport thousands of Vietnamese refugees who have been here since the end of the war. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/15/trump-vietnam-war-refugees-california-gop-orange-county-1066639

                      So what, exactly, is your argument? As another commenter pointed out, you are inconsistent in your application of what is racist, at best.

                    4. Listen Jeff, we know all of that is a lie. Just stop.

              3. Why is “Vietnamese used to vote republican” racist but “Asians as a group tend to be loyal Democrats and good progressives” is not racist?

                I’m not saying either is or isn’t, but why one standard for John and a different one for DOL?

                1. Because I’m not in the Trump fan club.

                  But point taken, I’ll be sure to let all my in-laws know that calling themselves “Vietnamese” is racist. How are my kids going to describe their ancestry now that I’ve been notified that the current term is racist? What a conundrum!

                  1. Why would anybody believe the bullshit you spew. You make up education, job history and military service, now suddenly you have a Vietnamese wife? Actually that would explain a lot if you got her off the internet…

                    1. Wow, who’s actually being racist now, you fucking scumbag?

                    2. Yessss, let the hate flow through you! I can feel it!

                      Making what is clearly a joke based on a common trope about a specific individual is much more racist than stereotyping the politics of the entirety of a racial & ethnic subgroup that no one with a modicum of understanding would label as homogeneous?

                      Fuck me, there is no way I can ever keep up with your system for intersectional victimhood classification. Was the racism against you or your internet bride?

                    3. I never asserted that any ethnic group was homogeneous. I actually argued the opposite after John asserted that Asians tend to vote a certain way.

                      There are people, people who either originated in or their parents originated in Vietnam. They call themselves Vietnamese. Some of them vote. Vietnamese Americans used to vote more Republican than democrat, now it is reversed. That is a fact. If this seems racist to you, then you are an idiot.

                      Asserting that my wife must be mail order because she is of Vietnamese ancestry is racist, yes.

                      “Fuck me, there is no way I can ever keep up with your system for intersectional victimhood classification. Was the racism against you or your internet bride?”
                      I never brought up intersectionality or even racism at all, that was you, snowflake. Pretty funny of you to accuse someone of racism then pretend they are the ones being overly sensitive. Pretty typical cry bully behavior.

                      Let me know if you need anything else explained to you. Try not to be such an internet coward, though. You would not have made a joke about my wife’s ancestry to my face, so don;t hide behind a keyboard and do it here, coward.

                    4. Asserting that my wife must be mail order because she is of Vietnamese ancestry is racist, yes.

                      If that was what I was asserting, I would agree. But what I was clearly asserting was that you could only get a bride by mail order, no prejudice on her part. Maybe you are struggling with the meaning of trope? And, yes, I would make that joke to your face. It was so funny that if we were friends, you would laugh.

                      Pretty typical cry bully behavior

                      I am having a really hard time believing you are not Jeffy. Between the constant ‘I don’t take sides’, ‘Trumpista’, and now ‘bully’ comments, you seem to push all the same buttons.

                      And I am not sure your story stands up. I have a really hard time fathoming that anyone who knows much about the history of Southeast Asia can tolerate the slightest hint of socialism. The atrocities committed in that region were the inevitable conclusion of socialist policies. Collectivism can only survive by subsuming individual will. When individuals resist, they get arrested. When enough resist, the killing starts.

                    5. Once again, please point out where I support socialism.

                      And we aren’t friends, so you would not make that joke to my face. And it was insulting to my wife still, because you still used her ancestry to assert she must be mail order, whether or not it was intended to insult me or her. If I had said I was married to a Canadian you would not have made that joke. Again, for the record, I don’t care about racist jokes. I’m more offended by the blatant hypocrisy and logical inconsistency of accusing me of being racist against my own kin and then making a racial joke about them.

                      As far as my identity, believe whatever you want. I’m not Jeff, or anyone else. If you go around saying the same dumb crazy shit to several people, you will likely get similar responses.
                      “The birds are all cameras!”
                      “Sir, that’s crazy.”
                      “That’s what the last guy said. You must be him in a mask!”
                      For the record I don’t think I “sound” much at all like Jeff, and the only similarity between he and I that I can tell is that he does not support Trump and is accused of being someone else’s “sockpuppet”. (A term I’ve only seen used on this site, interestingly.) But how bad must your arguments be if you cannot refute my arguments and have to instead assert (without evidence) that I must be lying. I would gladly share my linkedin profile, or whatever evidence was needed to end the whole sideshow, were it not certain that some of the cretins on here would try to use that information to my disadvantage.

                      I’m sure you aren’t a Trump supporter, you just do all the same things as one:
                      1. accuse any non supporter of socialism
                      2. actually claim you are offended when I point out that trump deports Vietnamese refugees
                      3. accuse non supporters of all being the same person

                    6. And we aren’t friends, so you would not make that joke to my face.

                      This right here is why we can never have an intelligent discussion. These things are not mutually exclusive. Yet you claim they are. I can argue without setting up straw men to change the subject. Yet you choose not to. You are the problem.

                      Speaking of straw men…

                      you still used her ancestry to assert

                      You need to revisit the rules of argument. You don’t get to define my assertions. That would be yet another fallacy.
                      All you can logically claim is what you inferred.

                    7. We can’t have a discussion because you are inconsistent to the point of lunacy. You are extra sensitive to the plight of Vietnamese Americans, but also don’t call them that because that’s racissss, but also here’s a funny race joke about your Vietnamese family, and also you are a socialist, and also Trump 2020!

                      Fuck off, coward.

                    8. inconsistent to the point of lunacy
                      This is a nonsensical statement which you make no effort to demonstrate. They appear consistent to me.

                      Vietnamese Americans, but also don’t call them that because that’s racissss
                      Straw man. You said ‘Vietnamese’ at 5:01, not using ‘Vietnamese Americans’ until many posts later at 6:50 which I never objected to since you had already acceded the point (albeit sarcastically) that your family is American at 6:46. I also explained my reasoning for why ‘Vietnamese’ is a poor descriptor for a non-homogenous group, which point you acceded at 7:11.

                      here’s a funny race joke about your Vietnamese family
                      Straw man in front of a straw man. My joke was directed at you. You previously claimed my joke was about your wife, now it is about your entire family. Can we just assume that means the in-laws too and not just the kids, so the lie doesn’t need to get bigger?

                      and also you are a socialist
                      What I said was, “irrational support of socialism”. Support may be provided out of ignorance rather than belief. So, another straw man.

                      and also Trump 2020!
                      Do you own stock in a scarecrow factory? You seem to be committed to piling up straw men to defend your poor arguments.

                      But I saved the best for last:

                      You are extra sensitive to the plight of Vietnamese Americans
                      By my own admission. However, the article that you linked notes that those facing deportation are, criminal aliens from Vietnam with final orders of removal — these are non-citizens who during previous administrations were arrested, convicted, and ultimately ordered removed by a federal immigration judge. So, you misattributed the deportation orders to current administration.

                      Which makes your original post a… wait for it… straw man.

                2. 1) I never said it was less racist.

                  2) John doesn’t pretend not to pick sides.

                  3) John didn’t call me a racist and a liar just last week for stating that everyone needs to get educated that race is not a valid scientific classification and get the fuck over the past.

                  1. John didn’t call me a racist and a liar just last week for stating that everyone needs to get educated that race is not a valid scientific classification and get the fuck over the past

                    Fair enough. I’ll let DOL answer for himself on that one.

                    1. Except I never said that.

                    2. Sure you did I saw it.

                    3. Link it then, bitch ass old man.

                    4. Like I jump to do what socks tell me lolololol

                    5. “bitch ass old man.”

                      I LOVE kicking socks so hard that they abandon the sad mewling “reason used to be so goooood I’m here for debaaaaate” lie they tell lolol

                      I win Jeff.

                  2. Except I never said that.

                    It could be that you and Charles are experiencing a failure to communicate.

                    I don’t have a horse in that race – you guys need to work that out yourselves.

                    1. Just stating it for the record, lol. I think he thinks that everyone not on the Trump train are the same person.

                    2. I think he thinks that everyone not on the Trump train are the same person.

                      Jeffy? Hihn? Are we playing ‘Whose Sock is This Anyway?’ If you are not actually Jeffy you do a great imitation.

                      Here is what the outrage is over. I never mentioned Trump. Not once. I never do. All you TDSers are the ones with the singular fixation on everything Trump. You see him behind everyone that disagrees with you. Even people who despise him.

                      I couldn’t possibly have taken offense at your comment? It couldn’t possibly be that having gotten to know people very well who had to deal with the aftermath of the Vietnam War, I am more than a little sensitive when people pretend that Vietnam is of a singular culture? That there are many allies and innocents who were left behind when the US fled that deserved better? That their are Vietnamese who were so evil that they purged villages and destroyed families even after the war had ended?

                      Deciding who should be allowed refugee status from that entire region is complex. Simply pointing at Trump and the Republicans and spouting the opposing talking points is just plain offensive. And more than a little racist.

                    3. “Here is what the outrage is over. I never mentioned Trump. Not once. I never do. All you TDSers are the ones with the singular fixation on everything Trump. You see him behind everyone that disagrees with you. Even people who despise him.”

                      Then why did you target me for fake outrage racism and not John? I am out of lockstep with most of the Trumpists in here, and they are by and large, a vile, viscous bunch who frequently resort to personal attacks and wild conspiracies instead of addressing the argument. Admit it: it’s because I hurt your feelings over Trump.

                      And if you are so, so sensitive to the plight of Vietnamese refugees, then why do you carry water for a man that targeted them for deportation after the last 7 presidents were happy to let them remain? Why don’t you argue the fucking point instead of devolving into ad hominem?

                      Oh, and I’m sorry I offended you by pointing out the real actions that republicans have taken. Sorry to make your safe space less safe for you. Here is your coloring book and puppy pictures.

                      “It couldn’t possibly be that having gotten to know people very well who had to deal with the aftermath of the Vietnam War, I am more than a little sensitive when people pretend that Vietnam is of a singular culture?”

                      Is this the part where I, in turn, accuse you of lying about your life experience? Maybe now you can see how impossible it is to have a conversation if you have to call the counter party a liar every fucking time they tell you the smallest possible detail about themselves?

                      “Deciding who should be allowed refugee status from that entire region is complex. Simply pointing at Trump and the Republicans and spouting the opposing talking points is just plain offensive. And more than a little racist.”

                      Here’s your chance, Mr. sensitivity. Argue why those Vietnamese refugees should be deported. No comment? I thought not.

                      Now make another racist joke about my family, Mr. Sensitivity. You’ve really set a new record for inconsistency here. Call me a racist with one breath then make a blatantly racist joke in the next. C’mon, let’s see those real colors again, you hypocritical fuck.

                    4. “Then why did you target me for fake outrage racism and not John?”

                      “STOP PICKING ON MEEEEEEEE I DID IT BUT PICK ON OTHER PEOPLE TOOO WAAAAAAAHHH”

            2. Highly unlikely to be eligible to vote if you are deportable.

              1. That’s right, but eligible voters are highly likely to stop voting republican when republicans deport their grandma who fled to the USA in ’75.

                https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/donald-trump-deport-vietnam-war-refugees/577993/

                1. Sure Jeff, backpedal harder.

                  1. That’s not a back peddle. What’s it like living so far up your own ass?

                    Let me know when you have a single substantive thing to say. So far coming up goose eggs.

                    1. Sure Jeff backpedal then insist you aren’t.

                2. From a link within your link:
                  “Last year, the administration began rounding up long-term immigrants from Vietnam, Cambodia and other countries and preparing to deport them. Some of the targeted immigrants had green cards but had not been naturalized as citizens, and the vast majority of them had at some point committed crimes — roughly 7,700 of the 8,000 or so of the Vietnamese immigrants who were classified as deportable, according to the Department of Homeland Security.”

                  Note: “…and the vast majority of them had at some point committed crimes…”
                  Some granny you picked there…

                    1. Well 26% of Americans have a criminal record now, so color me unconvinced that they suddenly deserved to be deported because they were a criminal risk. I see more xenophobia and nativism, not any concern for the safety of Americans. But in all sincerity, thanks for arguing the point.

                  1. De Oppresso Liber
                    October.8.2019 at 10:45 pm
                    “Well 26% of Americans have a criminal record now, …”
                    Great misdirection! And 26% =/= “vast majority”, even given the US propensity to stuff people in jail.
                    ——————–
                    “But in all sincerity, thanks for arguing the point.”
                    You are more than welcome. But if you wish to be treated as an adult, act like one. Picking BS data to support TDS is going to get called always.
                    Trump is miles from ideal, but call him on his faults, not the made-up BS from the legacy media.

      2. Do we have any evidence they argued that? Robby didn’t link anything.

        Even if they did argue it, it’s obviously an argument targeted for a white cat lady judge, not a good-faith academic analysis.

        And it appears that Harvard’s desire to fuck Asians is so great that will even admit evil white people in larger numbers than would be admitted under a racially neutral systems to keep the dirty slant eyes out.

        They definitely hate Asians but I haven’t seen any evidence that flyover whites have been the beneficiary.

        1. If you read the decision, Harvard admits to having outreach programs and considering geographic factors to admit more students from rural areas, which as a group are predominantly white. So, the Plaintiffs argue that there are all of these outreach and special programs that benefit every other race except Asians.

          1. Flyover whites have been known to under-apply to elite institutions for a century. That’s why we have the SAT. Having an outreach program isn’t proof of preferences.

            1. No. What is proof is the fact that fewer whites would be admitted under race neutral criteria than are now. Not many fewer but some fewer. Under an objective formula, you end up with a majority of Asians, a large plurality of whites, and a smattering of other races.

              1. The analysis I’ve seen has the white share slightly increasing in an SAT only model.

                1. I am just going by the claims made in the case. Maybe whites are getting screwed too. Regardless, it is pretty clear that Harvard has less of a desire to screw them than they do Asians.

                  1. This is the recent study I was thinking of.

                    https://1gyhoq479ufd3yna29x7ubjn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CEW-SAT-only-Admission.pdf

                    Currently,
                    enrollment at the nation’s selective colleges is 66 percent White, 19 percent Black and Latino, 11
                    percent Asian, and 5 percent other races. But if we distribute seats to only students with the highest
                    scores on the SAT and ACT, the White share of enrollment jumps to 75 percent, the Black and Latino
                    share drops to 11 percent, the Asian share falls to 10 percent, and the share of other races and
                    ethnicities remains 5 percent.

                    1. Two points:

                      This is looking at the top 200 colleges, so it theoretically would significantly over-estimate the white % at top schools.

                      ” the Black and Latino share” Notice they’re hiding the black %. Evidence for what I said downthread about the real worry of ending aff-action.

      3. It’s like some Chinee put poo poo in their Coke or something

    2. Whites are discriminated against the second most and yet Robbie claims the goal was to make the campus “significantly more white than it would have been otherwise.”

      Robbie didn’t make that claim, the plaintiffs did. The point being that there seems to be a special outreach program for ‘under-represented’ white people, but Asians are being told they need to take one for the team and be happy that other people who physically resemble them are benefiting.

      1. The point being that there seems to be a special outreach program for ‘under-represented’ white people

        Does there? It sure looks like the special outreach program was much more for blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans.

        1. From the article:

          Meanwhile, the plaintiffs argued, Harvard did everything possible to artificially engineer a campus that was well-represented by students from “sparse country”—the South and the Great Plains—and thus significantly more white than it would have been otherwise.

          I’m sure there are more than one outreach program. That said, my experience observing these things has been that despite all the lip-service, they don’t really have outreach programs for blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans, just lowered standards.

          1. Sorry, I’m not taking the Reason bloggers word for it.

            That said, my experience observing these things has been that despite all the lip-service, they don’t really have outreach programs for blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans, just lowered standards.

            You’ve never known any blacks with 1300+ SATs.

            1. Sorry, I’m not taking the Reason bloggers word for it.

              Again, Robbie didn’t make the claim. He is summarizing the plaintiffs’ position.

              You’ve never known any blacks with 1300+ SATs.

              I have, actually. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I was saying. I was talking about outreach programs.

              You seem to have a fixation here that is preventing you from understanding the points people are making.

              1. He is summarizing the plaintiffs’ position.

                Yes. And I have no confidence he’s doing it well.

                I have, actually. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I was saying. I was talking about outreach programs.

                I don’t believe you. If you did you’d know the HYPS “outreach” is more like what Nick Saban does with five star WR’s.

                You seem to have a fixation here that is preventing you from understanding the points people are making.

                What point do you think I’m not understanding?

                1. Yes. And I have no confidence he’s doing it well.

                  Mmmkay. What do you think he’s getting wrong in his summary of the plaintiff’s position?

                  I don’t believe you.

                  Hmm. You probably don’t see this as clear evidence of bigotry. But if you’re just going to bat away anything that doesn’t confirm your theory, discussion seems pretty pointless, doesn’t it?

                  What point do you think I’m not understanding?

                  That the plaintiffs are arguing that there’s an outreach program for under-represented white people when there aren’t comparable programs for Asians.

                  The mere suggestion makes you flip your shit so hard you can’t even hear people telling you this is Robbie summarizing the plaintiff’s argument.

                  You’ve shown a singular focus on turning the discussion to your perception that black people are inferior, even though this doesn’t really have anything to do with the topic at hand, and you’ll immediately deny the veracity of any evidence to counter this perception of yours.

                  “Nice weather today, huh?”
                  “BLACK PEOPLE AREN’T SMART ENOUGH FOR HARVARD!!1!”

                  1. This is great. He did the exact same thing to me up thread. I made a comment about Asian students, and his response was “now do blacks”.

                    1. Bo?

                    2. And then you cried and didn’t. Because.. Well you know why Jeff.

                    3. “And then you cried and didn’t. Because.. Well you know why Jeff.”

                      I didn’t because I had nothing to say on the matter and it was obvious race baiting, you old fool.

                  2. Mmmkay. What do you think he’s getting wrong in his summary of the plaintiff’s position?

                    There’s a ton that could go here, but here’s one that’s probably wrong. ” Harvard did everything possible to artificially engineer” You really think “everything possible” is how the plaintiff’s described flyover white recruitment?

                    You probably don’t see this as clear evidence of bigotry. But if you’re just going to bat away anything that doesn’t confirm your theory, discussion seems pretty pointless, doesn’t it?

                    I’ve been having these discussions for twenty years. The thing you claimed is nearly always a lie.

                    That the plaintiffs are arguing that there’s an outreach program for under-represented white people when there aren’t comparable programs for Asians.

                    It’s always been clear to me that Robby claimed that. I don’t believe it’s more likely than not to be a fair summary.

                    1. My belief, having had these discussions for twenty years, is that the primary institutional support for affirmative action is preventing HYPS from looking like Cal Tech and State U from looking like the high schools in upper class suburbs. The mess with the Asians and the flyover whites is collateral damage. I have a lot of evidence for that belief. If you have an alternative explanation, I’d love to hear it.

                    2. You really think “everything possible” is how the plaintiff’s described flyover white recruitment?

                      You’re still not understanding. They are offering the flyover recruitment as an example of “everything possible.”

                      And this is the hill you choose to die on? That Robbie (you assume, for no reason) is misrepresenting the robustness with which the plaintiffs characterized Harvard’s diversity efforts? And this is great big gotcha why?

                      I’ve been having these discussions for twenty years. The thing you claimed is nearly always a lie.

                      You assume.

                      I work in the building department of a major university. I deal with engineers, architects, professors and researches on a near-daily basis. Many of them are black. 1300+ on the SAT is not uncommon.

                      If this problemetizes your worldview, I’m sure you’ll decide this is a lie, too.

                      Like I say, “if you’re just going to bat away anything that doesn’t confirm your theory, discussion seems pretty pointless, doesn’t it?”

                      My belief, having had these discussions for twenty years, is that the primary institutional support for affirmative action is preventing HYPS from looking like Cal Tech and State U from looking like the high schools in upper class suburbs.

                      You mean, they want more black people? And you think this is some great revelation? You think this is some secret that you-and-only-you have uncovered?

                      lol

                    3. They are offering the flyover recruitment as an example of “everything possible.”

                      I don’t believe they described flyover white recruitment as “everything possible.” That’s an absurd characterization. If they did, they’re terrible lawyers.

                      And this is the hill you choose to die on?

                      You’re the one who keeps bringing it up. My OP was poorly worded and it’s fair to think I didn’t grok Robby was summarizing. Since then, it’s you obsessing over that.

                      Why are you not just telling me the stories your black 1300+ SAT coworkers told you about college application/recruitment?

                      You mean, they want more black people? And you think this is some great revelation?

                      No, I mean they want to hide the fact that there would be close to zero blacks. For example the Georgetown study I linked below goes out of their way to hide that fact for no obvious reason.

                    4. You’re the one who keeps bringing it up.

                      Your misinterpretation of what Robbie said is what we’re talking about. It’s not something I “just keep bringing up.”

                      Robbie pointed out that the complaint references Harvard’s outreach program to middle-American white people and framed it as an active effort to make Harvard more white.

                      You decided that he’s lying and cited some SAT thresholds. I noted that lowering SAT thresholds for certain groups is different from doing outreach, and doesn’t have anything to do with the plaintiff’s argument here.

                      And then you lost your shit and went off on your determination to believe that no black person could get better than a 1300 on their SAT.

                      No, I mean they want to hide the fact that there would be close to zero blacks.

                      I think they suspect the number would be less than 13%. There were blacks in college before affirmative action, why do you think there would be “close to zero” now?

                    5. Robbie pointed out that the complaint references Harvard’s outreach program to middle-American white people and framed it as an active effort to make Harvard more white.

                      This is the last time I do this subject … Robby claimed that. He didn’t link or quote anything. I have two issues 1) I doubt Robby is accurately summarizing the plaintiffs position 2) this is what I talked about with John: To whatever extent Harvard is trying to be more white, they’re doing it less than with NAMs.

                      That’s it. I’m down with this topic. If you still think I’m like quadrupley illiterate, fine.

                    6. You decided that he’s lying and cited some SAT thresholds. I noted that lowering SAT thresholds for certain groups is different from doing outreach, and doesn’t have anything to do with the plaintiff’s argument here.

                      You claimed that. I’m telling you that you’re wrong. At least when I was in high school in the not-Atlanta-or-Charlotte South in the 90’s, HYPS was actively recruiting blacks with 1300+ SAT scores and some sent form letters to whites and Asians with 1500+ SAT scores. Oklahoma did offer every National Merit a scholarship though LOL

                      And then you lost your shit and went off on your determination to believe that no black person could get better than a 1300 on their SAT.

                      Why do you say stuff like this? Call me a fixated racist all you like, but I’m clearly the one here familiar with the data.

                      There were blacks in college before affirmative action, why do you think there would be “close to zero” now?

                      SAT 1400 is well into the 99%. SAT 1500 is almost unheard of. Meanwhile for whites and especially Asians, 1500 is a basic prereq for HYPS, even for legacies is my understanding. There was a recent story of kid with ACT 34 that got admitted into every elite college (20 something for 20 something).

                      Or just look at any Cal Tech class.

                    7. By “actively recruiting” I mean that my friend, who got 13xx SAT and was not a straight A student, got personalized letters and phone calls. They arranged advice for the interviews etc. like he was a power forward or something. From a diversity POV he was a prize: black working class, flyover, normal African American family history.

                  3. “BLACK PEOPLE AREN’T SMART ENOUGH FOR HARVARD!!1!”

                    Actually John claimed that. I pointed out that their grad rates are slightly better than average according to some googled source.

                    1. ““BLACK PEOPLE AREN’T SMART ENOUGH FOR HARVARD!!1!”
                      Actually John claimed that. I pointed out that their grad rates are slightly better than average according to some googled source.”

                      Could be wrong, but John may have intended irony.
                      Regardless, it does not matter. Making judgements based on skin-color or ethnicity, as Harvard is doing here, is inherently racist.
                      I know D-U-M, dumb, Ashkenazic Jews, equally dim Asians. And some really, really bright blacks.
                      And not a one of them has to answer to what others of the same ethnicity accomplish or fail to.

                    2. You would’ve made a great kindergarten teacher.

  7. I’m not naive – Harvard is still a desirable place to go, especially if you’re going to take advantage of their scientific and medical training and connections to powerful alumni. That and their historical reputation (which are related factors) will let them so far manage to manage with residence halls with retarded residents – who may or may not be the same students, as well as extra foolishness. It’s like a rich guy who’s becoming a tad eccentric and wasting some of his money, but not enough to stop him from being rich. Nobody flees from the rich eccentric (at least not right away) simply because (s)he has a few weird habits.

    That’s what’s wrong with the cargo-cultism of the Rev. Kirklands and their ilk – they think that if Harvard is doing something, that thing they’re doing must be connected to their excellence.

    Racial preferences, for example. No need to prove that racial preferences are good, simply prove that Harvard is good, and Harvard does racial preferences, and voila, innocence by association. It worked with Justice Powell in the Bakke case.

    1. The difference between Harvard and, say, Evergreen and Missouri is like the joke about the difference between eccentric and crazy – about a billion dollars. The difference is a big endowment and powerful reputation which draws in good people.

    2. The Harvard worship of half wits like Rev Kirklands is good example of people not understanding causality. Do graduates of Harvard as a group do very well? Sure they do. But they are as a group, richer, better connected, and more academically successful than most groups. They should do well. The fact that they do doesn’t mean that Harvard had anything to do with it. How much actual value do these students get? The answer is not much. Even the vaunted “connections” are overrated since many of the students come from families that would give them connections anyway. If you know many people who come from middle class families who have gone to places like Harvard, you find out that the “connections” that come with such a degree are largely oversold and are mostly connections that kids from rich and connected families would have had no manner where they went to school. The implication always is that you can get these connections where you would not have had them before by going to Harvard. The reality is that is in most cases not true.

      1. Hmmm…a chicken-and egg problem…

  8. God forbid Harvard (and other institutions of higher indoctrination) allow the best and brightest into their hallowed halls.
    Common sense might rear its ugly head so hard working and the more gifted might be able to succeed faster, and we all know what that leads to.
    Thank God for discrimination against the hard working and the gifted!

    1. No one wants their kid to have to go to school with a bunch of dirty zipper heads.

      signed

      The Harvard Admissions Staff.

    2. God forbid Harvard (and other institutions of higher indoctrination) allow the best and brightest into their hallowed halls.

      There would be almost no blacks at any top schools without affirmative action. There wouldn’t even be many at second tier state schools. That’s why this is so important to these people.

      1. But the ones who were there would never have their worthiness questioned. And the ones who were not would not be stuck in a school they are not qualified to attend.

        1. If Richard Sherman can graduate from Stanford, blacks with 1200-1300 SAT’s will excel in studies majors and the like.

          1. Some can. But if you look at the graduation rates, not that many.

            1. https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/166027/harvard-university/graduation/

              According to this blacks have the highest graduation rate at Harvard, although they’re all right at 96%.

              1. Read your link again; fail.

                1. Asian 96.21%(279/290)
                  Black (Non-Hispanic) 96.61%(114/118)
                  Hispanic 95.81%(160/167)
                  White 96.51%(719/745)

                  What’d I fail?

  9. one criteria for admissions

    should be knowledge of the word “criterion”.

  10. There’s scant evidence that the workshops and training modules designed to combat implicit bias actually do much good.

    Hey, … isn’t this statement a microaggression?

    1. Nice! Now remember to say that at the interview.

  11. This just in:

    Trudeau rumoured to be in talks to suppress career-ending sex scandal.

    Less than two weeks ahead of federal elections that have already been looking conclusively grim for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, rumors of an explosive sex scandal are percolating at the highest echelons of Canada’s media establishment.

    Ottawa’s longest-tenured political observers had been expecting a career-ending expose in Saturday’s edition of The Globe and Mail — but that story never came. Sources are now telling The Chronicle that Trudeau is in private talks with the principal source of that piece to suppress explosive sex allegations that, if made public, would likely force Trudeau to resign his office.

    Believe all accusers.

    1. I love how the dogged non partisan hard nosed media up there never managed to notice Trudeau’s stint as Prime Minister Alladin when he was running for Prime Minister in the first place.

    2. Sure, but did he do the deed in brown face, while wearing a turban?

      1. I don’t think we are living well enough for that to be true. But, God would it be glorious if it were.

      1. You don’t want to know…

    3. Sounds like Trudeau liked to play ‘find the snitch’ back when he was a substitute at Hogwarts.

    4. Trudeau worked as a substitute teacher at the private school from 1999 until an abrupt and poorly explained departure in June of 2001. At the time of his departure he hired his father’s lawfirm, Heenan Blaikie, to represent him in the matter.

      1. I hope for Trudeau’s sake the girl was at least hot.

      2. Don’t stand so close to me

        1. Darn it, I should have said “don’t stand so close to me, eh?”

            1. The French version is banned.

      3. “Trudeau worked as a substitute teacher at the private school from 1999 until an abrupt and poorly explained departure in June of 2001. At the time of his departure he hired his father’s lawfirm, Heenan Blaikie, to represent him in the matter.”

        Not suspicious at all!

  12. “Harvard did everything possible to artificially engineer a campus that was well-represented by students from “sparse country”—the South and the Great Plains—and thus significantly more white than it would have been otherwise.”

    So Harvard Yard is crawling with crackers?

    1. That’s where Skull and Bones gets its recruits, or is that Yale?

  13. Um – – – bad news for Harvard, and the democrats;
    If you look at the color of a person’s skin, and base decisions about that person on that color, you are a racist.

  14. Harvard’s a private school, they should be allowed to admit whomever they want. State colleges should have entirely race blind admissions — no names or pictures on the applications, just a number.

    1. CE
      October.8.2019 at 7:33 pm
      “Harvard’s a private school, they should be allowed to admit whomever they want….”

      *IF* Harvard took zero taxpayer money, I would agree 100%. I’m betting my tax money goes to Harvard in amounts which are far above zero.

    2. State schools shouldn’t exist.

  15. “….Harvard’s admissions program is conceptually narrowly tailored to meet its interest in diversity….”

    Diversity rooted in race and not ideas.

    Harvard, folks, is a racist institution run by regressive wokesters.

    1. “…Diversity rooted in race and not ideas…”

      I live in SF; ‘diversity’ has to do with skin color, period. You can be purple, but so long as you hate Trump, you’re in good shape!

  16. The important thing is ignoring Asians entirely in all racial math calculations like we’ve been doing for six decades because it might tend to show a difference in how intelligent folks are. I mean, when you are factoring who is more likely to kill another human being, or who is more likely to lead a positive life, and contribute to our society.

  17. There’s this hilarious Japanese Historical Manga that basically explains how Japanese immigrants have to play stupid. If they don’t, less intelligent races will hate them.

    It’s amazing how in 2019 after we’ve pretended intelligent Asian people simply don’t exist in America, and their race doesn’t matter, it’s still just about not offending less intelligent races. I mean, they are defining that. Asian folks are just going “Fine, we are used to this nonsense. We’ve been subjugated for 50 years in America. I guess were just were not black enough” said the Asians.

  18. Since when has libertarianism supported anti discrimination laws?

  19. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made $97,999 so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It’s’ really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it , …… Read More

  20. Among her recommendations for improvement? Training to avoid implicit bias for Harvard’s admissions officers.

    Training to avoid bias as you’re engaging in systemic racial discrimination?

    By the way, do all Asians think alike? Is that why adding just the right amount to the mix automatically equals diversity? That is very much a racist idea. But maybe Harvard is just going for optics. That’s not at all racist.

  21. Harvard admitted David Hogg.

Please to post comments