Asians suck according to Harvard

A True Open Forum; Share/Discuss whatever you like
User avatar
Vutulaki
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 1:36 am
Reputation: 1629

Asians suck according to Harvard

Postby Vutulaki » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:29 am

As a freshman applicant to Washington & Lee University just after the middle of the last century, I had an interview with Frank Gilliam, its legendary, long-time dean of admissions (he could recognize and call by name any student or former student who attended during his 30+ year tenure). Naively — from a small town in Alabama, I knew little and understood less — I asked him whether W&L had a quota on Jewish admissions.

With no hesitation or reservation, he replied (this from memory, but it’s close to verbatim), “Of course we do. If we didn’t, if we accepted applicants on the basis of nothing more than academic qualifications, within one four-year turnover the student body here would be about 75% Jewish from within about a hundred miles of New York City and W&L is not that kind of college.” (I attended W & L — perhaps I was expected to provide an early, as yet unnamed form of “diversity” to the 90+% of the students who weren’t Jewish. I liked W & L but transferred after one year.)

I thought of Dean Gilliam when I first read about Harvard’s original turn to “holistic” assessment of applicants in the 1920’s as a way of putting a ceiling on Jewish admissions. You can read a nicely documented discussion of that policy in the Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) complaint (pp. 10-27) in federal district court in Boston accusing Harvard of now treating Asians the same way.

SFFA’s legal filings — its complaint, along with its expert reports by Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono (original report and rebuttal of the response by Harvard expert, Berkeley economist David Card) and its recently filed memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment — are nothing short of masterful.

They reveal that Harvard’s intricate, massive “diversity” edifice is an emperor with no clothes.

Racial Balance

The essence of SFFA’s argument is that to establish and maintain a pre-determined racial balance, Harvard awards massive preferences to black and Hispanic and penalties to Asian applicants. It uses various tools, as summarized in the summary judgment memo, “to manipulate the process so that it achieves essentially the same racial balance year over year. If, at the end of the admissions process, Harvard has admitted more (or less) of any racial group than it did the year before (what it deems, in violation of Title VI, to be “too many” or “too few”), then it reshapes the class to remedy the problem.” If “too many” or “too few” of whatever groups enroll one year, adjustments are made in admissions the following year.

“Harvard’s remarkably stable admissions and enrollment figures over time are the deliberate results of systemwide intentional racial discrimination designed to achieve a predetermined racial balance of its student body,” the SFFA complaint charges. “No factor or criteria for admission — other than racial balancing — could explain … the overall consistency of Harvard’s admissions, enrollment, and overall student body figures across all racial groups.”

Related: Asian Americans Move Against Harvard

The intended and actual effect of this racial manipulation on Asians is dramatic. “An Asian-American applicant with a 25% chance of admission … would have a 35% chance if he were white, a 75% chance if he were Hispanic, and a 95% chance if he were African American.”

Asians v. Whites

Most of the controversy over racial preferences has focused on the preferential treatment of blacks and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics. This is understandable since the preferences are so significant, but the SFFA lawsuit brings to the fore the fact that Asians, not whites, are the primary victims.

This has long been known to those who follow the issue closely. For example, after the passage of Prop. 209, the proportion of whites entering the University of California and California State University systems fell from 40% in 1997 to 34% in 2005 and the proportion of Asian Americans accepted at Berkeley increased from 34.6% to 42%.

As Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and a colleague demonstrated in their 2009 book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, if selective colleges eliminated racial preferences in admissions, “Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students.” Black students, they found, receive preferences worth 450 points (out of 1600) on the SAT compared to Asian-American applicants, but Asians must also score 140 points higher than white applicants to have equal chances of admission.

Thus the charge that critics of racial preferences are intent on helping whites, such as this typical accusation in SLATE that the purpose of the SFFA lawsuit is “exploiting [racial] fears for the benefit of white applicants,” is absurd.

Indeed, one of the strongest aspects of the SFFA filings — and again, one that will surprise many who have not followed this issue closely — is the extent to which Harvard treats Asians much worse than whites. In fact, the first reason SFFA offered for why summary judgment should be granted is that “Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants. Incontrovertible evidence shows that Harvard’s admissions policy has a disproportionately negative effect on Asian Americans vis-a-vis similarly-situated white applicants that cannot be explained on non-discriminatory grounds.” [Summary Judgment Memo, 1]

Related: Harvard Sued Over Asian Admissions

A few examples:

“It is obvious that if Harvard evaluated Asian Americans and non-Hispanic whites equally, non-Hispanic white admissions would drop significantly, possibly to the point where Asian-American enrollment and non-Hispanic white enrollment would be roughly comparable. Although this would cause Harvard’s overall level of racial diversity to increase, not decrease, Harvard nevertheless continues to use racial balancing to keep white enrollment more than twice as high as Asian-American enrollment. [Complaint, 70-71]
About three-quarters of whites on the waitlist were ultimately admitted v. about half of the Asians. [Arcidiacono Report, 31-32]
“At least for applicants in the top half of academic indexes, Asian-American admit rates in any decile are roughly equivalent to white admit rates for one decile lower.” [Arcidiacono Report, 42-43]
“Randomly drawing from those in the top academic index decile would results in over 50% of the admitted class being Asian American, compared to their current share of approximately 22%. Over the six-year period, this would result in an increase of 1563 Asian-American admits in the baseline dataset.” [Arcidiacono Report, 45]
“If they had been treated like white applicants, an average of approximately 44 more Asian Americans per year would have been admitted to Harvard over the six-year period the experts analyzed.” [Summary Judgment Memo, 10]
Stuyvesant High School in New York City, about 70% Asian, regularly sends about 10 graduates a year to Harvard, but generally less than half of them are Asian American. “When shown these data in her deposition, Stuyvesant’s Director of College Counseling broke down in tears.” [Summary Judgment Memo, 30]
Blacks v. Hispanics

Not only does the racial balance Harvard requires demand that Asians be disadvantaged compared to whites; it also severely penalizes Hispanics compared to blacks.

Over time, the proportion of black and Hispanic admission and enrollment has remained remarkably stable “despite the fact that throughout this period, the applicant pool of academically strong Hispanic students at Harvard … was substantially larger than the similar pool for African Americans, and the gap became larger over time,” a result obtained only because Harvard awarded “substantially larger preferences for African Americans than for Hispanics. In other words,” the complaint notes, “Harvard has manipulated the size of the actual preferences to ensure it maintained racial balance.” [Complaint, 70]

User avatar
Vutulaki
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 1:36 am
Reputation: 1629

Postby Vutulaki » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:10 pm

This is kinda true, ever seen an Asian (chinky asian) doctor? they never ever have any passion for what they are doing, same with the 3 professors I had in Uni they would just blaber on like drones. The best professor I ever had was an Afghan believe it or not, that kigga was passionate about what he taught and would go to the end of the earth to help people.

User avatar
Vutulaki
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 1:36 am
Reputation: 1629

Postby Vutulaki » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:11 pm

Fuck I lost 3/4 of that post, fuck typing it up again but just take my word for it.

User avatar
Som-Pong
Posts: 7375
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:17 am
Reputation: 3757

Postby Som-Pong » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:40 pm

Don't be racist, shitskin. I should find a way to put you in touch with some smart gooks.

User avatar
Vutulaki
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 1:36 am
Reputation: 1629

Postby Vutulaki » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:45 pm

Define smart

User avatar
Illuminat3d0ne
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:26 am
Reputation: 258

Postby Illuminat3d0ne » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:58 pm

Vutulaki wrote:This is kinda true, ever seen an Asian (chinky asian) doctor? they never ever have any passion for what they are doing, same with the 3 professors I had in Uni they would just blaber on like drones. The best professor I ever had was an Afghan believe it or not, that kigga was passionate about what he taught and would go to the end of the earth to help people.

Normally I agree but one or my Asian doctors is actually the best I have I think
He actually listens to what you say and has an actual passion for helping people in chronic pain
I don't know if you strictly mean GP's because he is a pain specialist but ya, just thought I'd point that out

I have another Asian doctor who doesn't seem as passionate but I think that's his personality more than anything
He listens to what I say and has actually asked me to teach him about medical marijuana
So even he is more open minded than most white drs I've seen

User avatar
Vutulaki
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 1:36 am
Reputation: 1629

Postby Vutulaki » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:12 am

Around here we dont like gooks, Uncle Tong gets a pass but the rest no.


Return to “Anarchy Zone”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 141 guests