It has been an open secret for quite some time (at least since my childhood) that prestigious colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford discriminate against Asian applicants for the simple reason that they “score too high” and “if we took all of the qualified Asian applicants, we wouldn’t have room for other minorities.” (As far as I know, Caltech is the only famous school that does’t discriminate.)
As usual, the Asians just sucked it up and worked harder, but it only seemed like a mater of time before the Tiger Moms decided that “enough is enough”–hence the lawsuit.
Harvard’s official excuse is “Asians are boring,” which is utter bullshit; some of the most interesting people I know are Asian. From the NYT:
Harvard has testified that race, when considered in admissions, can only help, not hurt, a student’s chances of getting in.
But from The Economist:
This graph is a little tricky to understand. It shows the percent of each race’s applicants admitted to Harvard, sorted by academic ranking. So 58% of black applicants with the highest academic ranking–folks with perfect SATs and GPAs–were admitted, while only 12% of Asian applicants with identical SATs and GPAs were admitted. (For some reason, Harvard takes some percentage of students who aren’t really academically stellar, even though it receives plenty of top-tier applications.)
Vox managed to admit how much highly prestigious colleges hate Asians: they get 140 points deducted from their SATs, while Hispanics received a 130 point bonus and blacks a 310 point bonus. (Note, old data but the situation hasn’t changed much.)
From The Guardian:
Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than other races on traits like likability, kindness and “positive personality”.
We need a word for this. I’m calling it “optimist privilege.” It’s time to stop optimists from oppressing the pessimists.
The pessimists are more likely than optimists to be correct, anyway.
Asian-Americans currently comprise 19% of admitted students at Harvard; if evaluated fairly, based on extra-curriculars + academics, they’d be 29%, and if admitted on pure academic merit, they’d be 43%. (Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the percent that Caltech, which does take students on merit, accepts.)
Timofey Pnin on Twitter calculates an even higher Asian acceptance rate if Harvard picked only from its top academic performers–51.7%
Now, many people–such as former defender of liberty, the ACLU–believe that ending Affirmative Action at Harvard would “primarily benefit white students” (the horror! We wouldn’t want to accidentally help white people in the process of being fair to Asians,) but by Timofey Pnin’s data, white admission rates would actually fall by 6%.
Unfortunately for Harvard, ending Affirmative Action would drop their black and Hispanic shares to nearly invisible 0.9% and 2.7%, respectively. Unfortunately, admissions, as currently practiced is a zero-sum game: making room for more Asians means admitting fewer of some other group.
Make no mistake, while the lawsuit is aimed explicitly at Harvard, all of the top schools do it. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were community colleges discriminating against Asians.
It’s easy to imagine a scenario where colleges are caught between a ruling that they have to take Asians in proportion to their academic rankings and a ruling that they have to take blacks and Hispanics in proportion to their population demographics.
(Of course, the biggest affirmative action boost is given to legacies , 33.6% of whom Harvard admits, and jocks [86% acceptance rate for “recruited athletes”].)
To those confused about why Harvard would bother taking anyone who isn’t in the top decile of academic performance–their bottom decile students are rather mediocre–the answer is that Harvard goal isn’t to educate the smartest kids in the nation. (That’s Caltech’s goal.) Harvard’s goal is to educate the future leaders of America, and those future leaders aren’t 50% Asian. (Harvard probably likes to flatter itself that it is enhancing those future leaders, but mostly it is attaching its brand name to successful people in order to get free advertising to boost its prestige, rather like companies offering endorsement deals to racecar drivers. It’s not Verizon that made Will Power win the Indianapolis 500, after all–awesome name, btw. Not only does Will have will power, he’s got wheel power. *badum tish*)
Even if Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics score abysmally on the SAT and ACT, some of them will go on to be major leaders, movers and shakers. (Though trends for Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are rather worrying.) Asians, meanwhile, continue to blow everyone else out of the water (there may be some merit to the argument that test scores should be adjusted to account for test prep, which Asians invest in heavily.)
I don’t know how the case will turn out. Perhaps the courts will realize the issue with colleges having to take applicants based on actual qualifications–or perhaps they will decide that blatant discrimination by an institution that receives tons of public funding is a violation of the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
Personally, I don’t care whether Harvard or Yale continues educating the “future leaders of America and the World,” but I do feel loyal to my Asian friends and desire that they be treated fairly and justly. In general, I think college admissions should be based entirely on academic merit, as any other standards simply skew the system toward those most inclined to cheat and game the system–and the system, as it stands, puts horrible and worthless pressure on high-achieving highschool students while delivering them very little in return.
16 thoughts on “Cathedral Round-Up: the Harvard Discrimination Lawsuit”
I’d settle for college admissions based on whatever metric the college felt like, as long as the metric was public and objective. Tell me I was rejected because my admissions score was 45 and the admission threshold this year was 52, and here’s the rubric.
[…] Source: Evolutionist X […]
Harvard and its ilk are the strongest of the forces discriminating against Asians. Smash them and the dam breaks.
The question becomes whether strong Asian cultural influences in the elite are a good thing. The Cathedral of tomorrow would be very different.
Well, Harvard and women. I’m not sure which is stronger.
I agree that the Cathedral of tomorrow would be a different place.
The concerns of average women don’t set the agenda of power. It’s just a personal problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Half those Harvard “white” students are Jews.
A hundred years ago, Ohio State University on had 7,000 students (or so). Today it has over 60,000 (55,000 FTE). If Harvard and the other Ivies expanded each had 60,000 students, the problem would go away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mind if I play Devil’s Advocate? https://www.bitchute.com/video/vBWgN4IxwS77/
Do the Asian scores count the ones still overseas? I know cheating on those kind of tests is rampant over there…..wonder if they use that angle to deflect some heat.
And by Asian do they mean Orientals or Hindus? I’ve notice most folks don’t object to much to Oreinatls so the PC crowd likes using the Asian term to church up all the trash from that continent. Ie say Asian and folks typically think of Koreans, Japs etc etc while the PC folks mean hajjis, hindus etc etc
I tried to rely on Asian-American data. Obviously if Harvard took Asians from China they could fill the entire school. There are a lot of people in China.
Hopefully people have their categories straight and are only putting East Asians in the Asian bracket.
There is so much dishonesty in the world, some intentional, some driven by feel good PC bullshit, I never trust the veracity of these sorts of things unless they confirm to what I see.
Which is its own kind of shitty but that’s the world today
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would think Harvard typically uses American racial categories. Such as “Hispanic” and “Pacific Islander”, but not U.K. style “Asian” for Pakistanians.
But who knows what they really do behind closed doors! When the Pope and the EU push talking points and slogans of the Democratic Party of America then geography doesn’t make as much difference. :/
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s the thing about trust. Once it’s broken it is broken and all these intuitions have broken the bonds of social trust
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) Why should American universities admit more Asians than Chinese universities admit Americans? The mission of American universities must be to make the next generation of Americans better than their foreign peers. In places like San Francisco you already barely see a white face at Tech companies. I have never met anyone from, say, VW or KY in the Bay Area. So much for diversity.
2) “a scenario where colleges are caught between a ruling that they have to take Asians in proportion to their academic rankings and a ruling that they have to take blacks and Hispanics in proportion to their population demographics” sounds like a very good explanation of the goal behind it. Namely, to significantly reduce the share of Americans in all of this.
Because America has a larger Asian pop, percentage wise, than China has American population. It’s probably a good idea for smart Americans to go to school, regardless of what’s happening in China.
San Francisco tech companies use H1B visas to get cheap labor; it’s an issue, but it’s separate from how American students are being treated by universities.
You’re not going to find a lot of WVians in the Bay Area because WV has the lowest white-IQ of any state in the nation and has a significantly different culture.
While I side more with the Asians here, there is vice to go around. Resentment is unseemly.
You have to ask: Why do you want Harvard? For the same reason everyone else does – the brand? So you can have the cachet and instant admittance to the rank of the privileged? Why are you, specifically, entitled to enter the elite? Why should they let you in?
The “public funds” is a canard. It’s how to get a lawsuit going. But the resentment would be there if Harvard were all private but equally as desired.
I am tempted to say to those who complain about unfair admissions (or hiring practices at STEM): it’s not fair, but many things aren’t and people who were discriminated against in the past, in worse ways and degrees, did much more with much less, so stop whining that you have to go to State U where you SATs guarantee you a spot. You can still have a pretty good deal; and maybe you can go and make something of your own instead of treading the beaten path.