Asian-Americans Suing Harvard Say Admissions Files Show Discrimination(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Asian-Americans Suing Harvard Say Admissions Files Show Discrimination
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/harvard-asian-admission.html
138 comments
> blatant discrimination against Asians at universities
So you mention "knowing what the data says" -
* Asian Americans represent 5.6% of the US population[1].
* The most recently admitted class at Harvard was 22.7% Asian American.
Is that "blatant discrimination"? If it is, at what percentage would it not be?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_American... [2]: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/3/29/harvard-regular-...
So you mention "knowing what the data says" -
* Asian Americans represent 5.6% of the US population[1].
* The most recently admitted class at Harvard was 22.7% Asian American.
Is that "blatant discrimination"? If it is, at what percentage would it not be?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_American... [2]: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/3/29/harvard-regular-...
If, in a purely merit-based admissions process, they would represent e.g. 30% of the Harvard class, then it suggests discrimination.
But the idea that Harvard admissions is purely merit based is a joke, so this is very hard to pin down.
But the idea that Harvard admissions is purely merit based is a joke, so this is very hard to pin down.
Have you seen how Cal Tech which doesn’t look at race has double the Asian Americans roughly speaking than many other top schools? Just throwing that stat out there doesn’t prove anything about discrimination.
The number of college aged Asian Americans has been growing much faster than the number of Asian Americans admitted to Ivy League schools, which is quite suggestive of discrimination.
Discrimination is an act by one human against another. You can't tell just from looking at ratio of the broader Asian population and Harvard's Asian population whether or not they're discriminating. Human behavior is subtle, and when OP said that blatant discrimination was happening he was pretty obviously not referring to that ratio as the thing that makes it blatant.
Why do you assume that the demographics of college classes should match the demographics of the nation?
Good, there shouldn't be any systemic race based acceptance criteria. It only increases racism and skepticism.
Imagine you have a Hispanic doctor, but you know that the MCAT score for a Hispanic to get into med school is lower than the score an Asian would need. Now you question whether your doctor is as qualified as they should be because of their race, even if they did have an amazing MCAT score.
Affirmative action is blatantly racist from all angles.
Imagine you have a Hispanic doctor, but you know that the MCAT score for a Hispanic to get into med school is lower than the score an Asian would need. Now you question whether your doctor is as qualified as they should be because of their race, even if they did have an amazing MCAT score.
Affirmative action is blatantly racist from all angles.
The government and private organizations have a history of using race to penalize and constrain certain specific groups in the U.S. Many of these race-based policy decisions continue to give compounding returns to groups who benefited from discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, Asians and indigenous people. Until the issue of compounding returns is fixed (i.e. equalized), having a "color blind" attitude will continue to uphold the effects of systemic racism.
Asians have higher incomes, higher educational achievement and longer expected lives than whites in the U.S.
The problem is not "compounding returns", it is genetics and, to a lesser extent, culture.
Until this fact, which most educated people know but are terrified to say aloud, is admitted and reckoned with, no progress will be made. This will hurt non-asian minorities the most.
The problem is not "compounding returns", it is genetics and, to a lesser extent, culture.
Until this fact, which most educated people know but are terrified to say aloud, is admitted and reckoned with, no progress will be made. This will hurt non-asian minorities the most.
Asians are overrepresented among high achievers. That does not mean that the reason for this is because they are Asian. Anyone who has taken Stats 101 can tell you that.
Replace 'genetics' with 'astrological sign' and you see how absurd this argument is.
Replace 'genetics' with 'astrological sign' and you see how absurd this argument is.
The success of asians disproves a general bias towards whites in the US or any sort of "compounding interest" associated with it.
The consensus amongst neurobiologists is that adult IQ is somewhere between 70-80% based on genetic factors. I invite you to read "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" by Richard Haier, and the many studies cited therein.
Comparing this scientific work with astrology is clownish, on par with young earth creationism.
The consensus amongst neurobiologists is that adult IQ is somewhere between 70-80% based on genetic factors. I invite you to read "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" by Richard Haier, and the many studies cited therein.
Comparing this scientific work with astrology is clownish, on par with young earth creationism.
This is a really good point that should not be ignored.
If being color blind upholds, and being color biased upholds. What should we do.
There’s a separate issue that if you think there isn’t systemic racism against Asian Americans then you may want to practice empathizing. So if there’s historic systemic racism against certain groups, isn’t it worse to identify some groups and turn the screws on them? A vengeance based social policy will be difficult to implement as the perpetrators already got theirs out of the education system and it will likely have lots of negative consequences and lead to a worse society.
If being color blind upholds, and being color biased upholds. What should we do.
There’s a separate issue that if you think there isn’t systemic racism against Asian Americans then you may want to practice empathizing. So if there’s historic systemic racism against certain groups, isn’t it worse to identify some groups and turn the screws on them? A vengeance based social policy will be difficult to implement as the perpetrators already got theirs out of the education system and it will likely have lots of negative consequences and lead to a worse society.
I don't know the specifics of what Harvard's history of discrimination is. Let's say that Harvard historically blocked 1000 Asian students from an education. What they should do is open space for 1000 Asian students and stack rank all the students who apply for these slots so the ones who best match the criteria can come in.
I realize I've practically described affirmative action. But there's varying ways to implement this system that avoids certain complaints. Let's say Harvard always admits 5000 students a year, they could add a bonus pool of 1000 students set aside for this. On the other hand if they're concerned about overwhelming their faculty they could admit 4000 students through normal means and 1000 from the special set aside.
One of the objections to this is it's unfair to the 4000 or 5000 students who will now receive a lesser education because of some wrongs that they weren't responsible for.
I'd like to propose it's equally unfair that students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds because of explicit decisions that these institutions made are denied a similar education. In this case should our institutions take no action to avoid upsetting the status quo and maintain a "color blind" ideal, or should they take active actions to rectify historic wrongs that continue to create inequality in the current day?
I realize I've practically described affirmative action. But there's varying ways to implement this system that avoids certain complaints. Let's say Harvard always admits 5000 students a year, they could add a bonus pool of 1000 students set aside for this. On the other hand if they're concerned about overwhelming their faculty they could admit 4000 students through normal means and 1000 from the special set aside.
One of the objections to this is it's unfair to the 4000 or 5000 students who will now receive a lesser education because of some wrongs that they weren't responsible for.
I'd like to propose it's equally unfair that students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds because of explicit decisions that these institutions made are denied a similar education. In this case should our institutions take no action to avoid upsetting the status quo and maintain a "color blind" ideal, or should they take active actions to rectify historic wrongs that continue to create inequality in the current day?
I think the issue is that creating new injustice on the “innocent” isn’t a very good reason. The “someone must suffer and it sucks to be you” creates a negative cycle because in 50 years they now have a case.
It’s like poking out a random person’s eye because racists blinded someone. Yes it helps the person who can now see, but the person who lost their eye will likely be bitter.
The best program I’ve seen is the dedicated funding to expand new positions and try to target the expansion toward underrepresented. So while the ratios are still weird, people aren’t being excluded.
Of course this is the most expensive option, especially in zero sum games like Harvard admissions. It’s easier to target some less visible vulnerable population and reallocate the positions.
I do agree that being truly color blind keeps populations lacking 100 years of opportunity locked in a cycle. But perhaps we can get more precise with targeting based on income, or social determinants, or factors that are not specific to race and are more likely to provide opportunity to need. Of course many populations also share social determinants like income, parents education, country of birth, etc.
It’s like poking out a random person’s eye because racists blinded someone. Yes it helps the person who can now see, but the person who lost their eye will likely be bitter.
The best program I’ve seen is the dedicated funding to expand new positions and try to target the expansion toward underrepresented. So while the ratios are still weird, people aren’t being excluded.
Of course this is the most expensive option, especially in zero sum games like Harvard admissions. It’s easier to target some less visible vulnerable population and reallocate the positions.
I do agree that being truly color blind keeps populations lacking 100 years of opportunity locked in a cycle. But perhaps we can get more precise with targeting based on income, or social determinants, or factors that are not specific to race and are more likely to provide opportunity to need. Of course many populations also share social determinants like income, parents education, country of birth, etc.
Agreed, I think a lot of people at this point are tired of identity divisions period and just want everyone to be treated the same regardless. It comes down to your principles in the end, I'm really hoping the culture moves in this direction though. Even though some minorities will not receive the same successful outcomes, I feel that indiscriminate treatment of people regardless of their race, gender, background at all levels of society and it's institutions is the only way forward as a collectively multicultural population.
Alternatively, I suppose this can help you select a doctor. Especially if board scores are also different based on race.
Of course this isn’t absolute as there are other factors to consider. But this is what I mean by saying these kinds of interventions increase racism. Since in your example this could lead to patients discriminating against Hispanic doctors.
Of course this isn’t absolute as there are other factors to consider. But this is what I mean by saying these kinds of interventions increase racism. Since in your example this could lead to patients discriminating against Hispanic doctors.
>there shouldn't be any systemic race based acceptance criteria.
There shouldn't be any systemic race-based anything.
Unfortunately, however, there is.
There shouldn't be any systemic race-based anything.
Unfortunately, however, there is.
The reason this is a hard problem is how do you fix it when the admissions people are racists?
Part of the reason these policies are based on race and not some other socioeconomic standard was to get around the problem that the people making the admission decisions were racist (or at least biased).
Part of the reason these policies are based on race and not some other socioeconomic standard was to get around the problem that the people making the admission decisions were racist (or at least biased).
I am also against any form of racial/gender etc. preferences positive or negative because it's inherently discriminatory.
But I also think it's a fallacy that one's professional performance is highly correlated with their acceptance scores.
But I also think it's a fallacy that one's professional performance is highly correlated with their acceptance scores.
I don’t actually question, because she still went to 4 years of medical school, exams, residency, etc...
Racists probably question.
Racists probably question.
I agree, but know they still had to get through med school same as anyone else.
now imagine the same resume being sent out to a number of companies: one with a white sounding name and one with a black sounding name. And imagine finding out that the same resume with the white sounding name gets more call backs? I'm going to assume it's the same thing if you replace white with east asian or south asian.
Now imagine the same thing again, but this time in the interview where one candidate has a mid western accent, and the other a deep southern one.
People use race as a proxy for class. But it isn't the only thing. And the more people pretend race is the deciding factor, and not class, the more shitty laws and rules we have in place trying to fix a symptom of a disease everyone wants to pretend isn't there.
People use race as a proxy for class. But it isn't the only thing. And the more people pretend race is the deciding factor, and not class, the more shitty laws and rules we have in place trying to fix a symptom of a disease everyone wants to pretend isn't there.
Race is still hugely important when it comes to success, even after adjusting for class. See:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-...
A quote from the first article:
> “One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-...
A quote from the first article:
> “One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”
I've yet to meet any of these mythical post racial liberals.
And your own sources disprove your claim. Black women earn more than white women. At best you're showing that sexism matters more than racism. But it's only sexism when it happens to women, just like it's only racism when it happens to blacks.
At any rate, anyone who claims race trumps class has not been paying attention: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833...
Unless of course you think the US has suddenly become racist against middle aged white men? Instead of the simpler explanation that race was a good proxy for class from 1940 to 1980 and has completely broken down since, but people whose livelihoods depend on it peddle it like economists paddle trickle down economics.
And your own sources disprove your claim. Black women earn more than white women. At best you're showing that sexism matters more than racism. But it's only sexism when it happens to women, just like it's only racism when it happens to blacks.
At any rate, anyone who claims race trumps class has not been paying attention: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833...
Unless of course you think the US has suddenly become racist against middle aged white men? Instead of the simpler explanation that race was a good proxy for class from 1940 to 1980 and has completely broken down since, but people whose livelihoods depend on it peddle it like economists paddle trickle down economics.
> I've yet to meet any of these mythical post racial liberals.
It seems that you are one, since you're claiming that class matters more than race. I.e. you claim that race doesn't matter very much, which suggests that you are post-racial.
> Black women earn more than white women. At best you're showing that sexism matters more than racism. But it's only sexism when it happens to women, just like it's only racism when it happens to blacks.
If the issue was purely of sexism you'd see white males and black males with the same socioeconomic backgrounds have equivalent social mobility because "race doesn't matter". But article [1] refutes that with a chart that clearly shows a huge difference in social mobility between white males and black males of the same background.
Sexism is when men aren't paid the same amount as women. That's not the same as a trend between males that shows differences in pay which disappears when looking at women. In other words, people are less racist towards black women compared to black men. That's a problem with racism, not sexism (unless you're suggesting that we should be more racist towards black women so that we aren't as sexist towards black men).
> anyone who claims race trumps class has not been paying attention: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833....
This article doesn't support your point. In particular, it supports a claim that mortality rates are rising for middle class white males because their prosperity has decreased in the last few years. It doesn't even control for background. That is different from my point, which says that when controlling for background, race affects socioeconomic mobility.
In fact, your sources support my claim. The NPR article mentions how middle class blacks haven't felt an increase in mortality rates. That suggests that there's something different about people from different races - maybe that middle class blacks barely had an increase in prosperity to begin with.
It seems that you are one, since you're claiming that class matters more than race. I.e. you claim that race doesn't matter very much, which suggests that you are post-racial.
> Black women earn more than white women. At best you're showing that sexism matters more than racism. But it's only sexism when it happens to women, just like it's only racism when it happens to blacks.
If the issue was purely of sexism you'd see white males and black males with the same socioeconomic backgrounds have equivalent social mobility because "race doesn't matter". But article [1] refutes that with a chart that clearly shows a huge difference in social mobility between white males and black males of the same background.
Sexism is when men aren't paid the same amount as women. That's not the same as a trend between males that shows differences in pay which disappears when looking at women. In other words, people are less racist towards black women compared to black men. That's a problem with racism, not sexism (unless you're suggesting that we should be more racist towards black women so that we aren't as sexist towards black men).
> anyone who claims race trumps class has not been paying attention: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833....
This article doesn't support your point. In particular, it supports a claim that mortality rates are rising for middle class white males because their prosperity has decreased in the last few years. It doesn't even control for background. That is different from my point, which says that when controlling for background, race affects socioeconomic mobility.
In fact, your sources support my claim. The NPR article mentions how middle class blacks haven't felt an increase in mortality rates. That suggests that there's something different about people from different races - maybe that middle class blacks barely had an increase in prosperity to begin with.
I am a socialist, not a liberal.
As for the controls in your article it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women. That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor.
Unless you want to explain how the US is racist towards white women and black men? But not white men and black women.
As for the controls in your article it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women. That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor.
Unless you want to explain how the US is racist towards white women and black men? But not white men and black women.
> I am a socialist, not a liberal.
Potato, potahto.
> it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women.
No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races.
> That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor.
No. Maybe black men are often profiled as criminals or untrustworthy, but the same is not true for black women. That alone would still be evidence of racism - just not as much towards black women.
To prove that class is the only effect and not some other factor like race you'd have to show that, controlling for class, outcomes are equal. But these articles do control for class and find that outcomes are drastically different. This must mean that class is not the only driver of outcome. It's possible that the real reason isn't because of race - maybe it's actually because every black male in the country for some reason keeps having their memory corrupted by random cosmic rays. But it's still abundantly clear that there's something else contributing to outcomes besides class, and the most obvious (and most likely) is race.
In any case, your original contention (that class is the only driver) still falls.
Potato, potahto.
> it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women.
No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races.
> That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor.
No. Maybe black men are often profiled as criminals or untrustworthy, but the same is not true for black women. That alone would still be evidence of racism - just not as much towards black women.
To prove that class is the only effect and not some other factor like race you'd have to show that, controlling for class, outcomes are equal. But these articles do control for class and find that outcomes are drastically different. This must mean that class is not the only driver of outcome. It's possible that the real reason isn't because of race - maybe it's actually because every black male in the country for some reason keeps having their memory corrupted by random cosmic rays. But it's still abundantly clear that there's something else contributing to outcomes besides class, and the most obvious (and most likely) is race.
In any case, your original contention (that class is the only driver) still falls.
>Potato, potahto.
Oh good. When do we get google nationalized? And a wealth tax? And when do we close the stock markets? Also when do the trials for crimes against the people start, we'll only need to arrest 95% of all politicians. And of course we will be disbanding the mercenary army and replacing it with a conscription army where everyone has to spend 3-5 years. There's a few hundred more things that need to be done. But since all liberals are socialists we shouldn't have a problem with any of them.
>No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races.
You have variables race and gender, the variables can take on two values each. The claim is that race is more important than gender. Call it the function f that maps race r ={w,b} and gender g = {m,f} to an arbitrary value: f : r,g -> R.
Since we can just look at the values from the graph we can see that the outcome function f has the following property: f(b,m) < f(f,w) < f(f,b) < f(m,w)
So the suggestion that race is the primary cause of worse outcomes is clearly wrong since black women are better off than white women and black men. Similarly the idea that sexism is the cause is also wrong since black men are worse off than every body and white men are better off than everybody.
So you can either admit that race and sexism have no explanative power and accept the fact that class is the predominant factor with some interesting but ultimately trivial second order effects, or you can start doing gender studies and talk about the white male patriarchy and how it keeps everyone down.
I'm guessing you'll pick the second since it helps the capitalists stay in power and you have been exposed to their propaganda you whole life.
Oh good. When do we get google nationalized? And a wealth tax? And when do we close the stock markets? Also when do the trials for crimes against the people start, we'll only need to arrest 95% of all politicians. And of course we will be disbanding the mercenary army and replacing it with a conscription army where everyone has to spend 3-5 years. There's a few hundred more things that need to be done. But since all liberals are socialists we shouldn't have a problem with any of them.
>No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races.
You have variables race and gender, the variables can take on two values each. The claim is that race is more important than gender. Call it the function f that maps race r ={w,b} and gender g = {m,f} to an arbitrary value: f : r,g -> R.
Since we can just look at the values from the graph we can see that the outcome function f has the following property: f(b,m) < f(f,w) < f(f,b) < f(m,w)
So the suggestion that race is the primary cause of worse outcomes is clearly wrong since black women are better off than white women and black men. Similarly the idea that sexism is the cause is also wrong since black men are worse off than every body and white men are better off than everybody.
So you can either admit that race and sexism have no explanative power and accept the fact that class is the predominant factor with some interesting but ultimately trivial second order effects, or you can start doing gender studies and talk about the white male patriarchy and how it keeps everyone down.
I'm guessing you'll pick the second since it helps the capitalists stay in power and you have been exposed to their propaganda you whole life.
Now imagine that you both may actually be talking about orthogonal issues....
The thing about GP's statement is that it's premised on the idea that it doesn't work in reverse: i.e. that the existing systemic racism that these policies are intended to offset don't likewise rob us of our best and brightest.
And, of course, that idea itself rests on the notion of an inherent superiority on one-side. To be clear, I don't believe that's part of the conscious thinking, but I do believe this oversight is illustrative of the kinds of blind-spots that tacitly guide a lot of thinking on these issues.
That's an unpopular thing to say but that doesn't make it any less true.
And, of course, that idea itself rests on the notion of an inherent superiority on one-side. To be clear, I don't believe that's part of the conscious thinking, but I do believe this oversight is illustrative of the kinds of blind-spots that tacitly guide a lot of thinking on these issues.
That's an unpopular thing to say but that doesn't make it any less true.
That doesn't mean that having quotas for different races is the right way to solve that though
[deleted]
Only imperfect solutions for an imperfect world
Some data to back up differing MCAT score acceptance rates by race https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/...
I seriously don't understand people who defend race-based admissions. It is, at best, an ends-justify-the-means argument where you're saying some forms of racism and stereotyping are acceptable. I'm aware of the argument that it is to offset systemic racism but it still boils down to assuming someone's life story based on the color of their skin.
I'm very pro-diversity but this is just too high a price to pay. Everyone in the rainbow classroom will look around and know that the bars were different. They just won't say it out loud for fear of social reprisals.
Furthermore, based on my college experiences, the issue with diversity in college isn't even the lack of it. It's the lack of integration. You still end up seeing the various racial groups sticking to themselves. Whatever benefits diversity brings is probably diluted until that is resolved.
I'm very pro-diversity but this is just too high a price to pay. Everyone in the rainbow classroom will look around and know that the bars were different. They just won't say it out loud for fear of social reprisals.
Furthermore, based on my college experiences, the issue with diversity in college isn't even the lack of it. It's the lack of integration. You still end up seeing the various racial groups sticking to themselves. Whatever benefits diversity brings is probably diluted until that is resolved.
Do you think mandating minority majority districts is unethical?
You know what's funny? The entire college acceptance system is biased toward wealthy families. You need to have the right experiences (often bought with money, inordinate amount of time spent by parents, or both). You need to write your own letters, of course, with "help" by parents or professionals. You need to plan your courses years beforehand, again, with help by others. If your parents are working their asses off to make ends meet, you likely won't have much help.
The entire American system is set up to make it as easy as possible for wealthy kids to go to college.
Somehow I've yet to hear one wealthy family objecting "This hurts my kid, because he is completely able to enter college on his own, but thanks to the system it will look like he got in only because he's wealthy! Make the system more fair!"
Anybody who says Affirmative action actually "hurts" disadvantaged kids had better be able to explain the above discrepancy.
I'm OK with Affirmative action.
The entire American system is set up to make it as easy as possible for wealthy kids to go to college.
Somehow I've yet to hear one wealthy family objecting "This hurts my kid, because he is completely able to enter college on his own, but thanks to the system it will look like he got in only because he's wealthy! Make the system more fair!"
Anybody who says Affirmative action actually "hurts" disadvantaged kids had better be able to explain the above discrepancy.
I'm OK with Affirmative action.
This is an interesting argument, but the article doesn’t say this at all. The complaint isn’t that affirmative action helps recipients, but that it hurts Asian Americans.
I suppose there are some people arguing against you, but it may be more productive to argue the point at hand.
Or at least we can all nod and agree that the net gain to recipients of affirmative action outweighs any negatives. And move on to the lawsuit’s question of “Why should Asian Americans suffer?”
I completely agree with your point about wealth being very important. But it’s not a good analogy to affirmative action based on some races. I’ve spent a bit of time in Ivy League schools and it’s still wealthy minorities who are the main benificiary of affirmative action. So wealth is a given for admission regardless of if you’re pro-AA or anti-.
I suppose there are some people arguing against you, but it may be more productive to argue the point at hand.
Or at least we can all nod and agree that the net gain to recipients of affirmative action outweighs any negatives. And move on to the lawsuit’s question of “Why should Asian Americans suffer?”
I completely agree with your point about wealth being very important. But it’s not a good analogy to affirmative action based on some races. I’ve spent a bit of time in Ivy League schools and it’s still wealthy minorities who are the main benificiary of affirmative action. So wealth is a given for admission regardless of if you’re pro-AA or anti-.
But it sounds like all your complaints are about classism. Why not then look classism straight in the eye, rather than punishing young Asians looking to get into college?
So if Harvard systematically discriminates against certain races in their admissions process can lying about your race on an application be considered an act of civil disobedience? What's the difference between an Asian who wants to go to college saying they're black to get in and black children that wanted to go to white only schools during the civil rights movement? Why should either be denied an education based on their race? And then, if you're not ok with people lying about their race to gain admission what punishment should befall those that do lie? What should be done to those who commit race fraud?
There was an Indian-American guy who did this to become a doctor.
https://nypost.com/2015/04/12/mindy-kalings-brother-explains...
https://nypost.com/2015/04/12/mindy-kalings-brother-explains...
What’s interesting about this is the difficulty of testing of someone is lying. Race isn’t purely genetic, so how do you call someone who is 40% Asian, 20% African, 40% European ancestry who looks “black” from identifying as African American?
What’s the threshold?
I really wanted the Rachel Dolezal to get into a court case somehow just to see what the legal ruling is.
If someone who is 99.99% ashkenazi and 0.01% African truly believes she is black, who is a Harvard admissions person to contract them?
Logically, this follows to a pretty weird place. With trends in census showing increase in multiracial populations, I hope it becomes a moot point before society goes full retard with “racial impurity” tests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
What’s the threshold?
I really wanted the Rachel Dolezal to get into a court case somehow just to see what the legal ruling is.
If someone who is 99.99% ashkenazi and 0.01% African truly believes she is black, who is a Harvard admissions person to contract them?
Logically, this follows to a pretty weird place. With trends in census showing increase in multiracial populations, I hope it becomes a moot point before society goes full retard with “racial impurity” tests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
I'd imagine you wouldn't be lying. You'd be "identifying" as black. And while you're at it, identify as a black woman. It would throw the whole system into chaos (until people start profiling based on names).
Pretty sure they don't care about the box you check. They're just looking at your name and maybe your extracurriculars.
I like to check random boxes. Given the precarious definition of race one could probably argue they belong to any race.
I like to check random boxes. Given the precarious definition of race one could probably argue they belong to any race.
While I am not against the idea of Affirmative Action as a whole, some more thought needs to be put into fairly creating its classifications.
Discussions about breaking down ethnic data into more granular countries and incorporating more socioeconomic factors need to be more strongly considered before implementing something like this.
Eg. The median Indian American isn't the same as the median Vietnamese American. And neither are the opportunities for kids growing up in two different cities in America.
Discussions about breaking down ethnic data into more granular countries and incorporating more socioeconomic factors need to be more strongly considered before implementing something like this.
Eg. The median Indian American isn't the same as the median Vietnamese American. And neither are the opportunities for kids growing up in two different cities in America.
Vietnamese American is bimodal, with a strong classification dependence on time of emigration.
The most racially discriminatory policy at Harvard remains the alum/legacy system.
Why so? I'm not sarcastically asking, I genuinely want to know.
Because of the demographics of alums I’m assuming
Also athletic recruiting. No one cares about sports. Just these two are 40%.
This maybe offtopic so I apologize in advance but when people say "Asian-Americans" does it include South Asians as well or just East Asians? As a south asian this has caused me a lot of confusion while talking to people in bay area
In social situations, "Asians" generally refers to East Asians. However, most official demographic-checklists don't have an option for "South-Asian", and expect them to self-identify as "Asian". Hence, much of the evidence you see from the above lawsuit, likely applies to South Asians as well.
I love when forms mix racial terms and have the options “Asian” and “Caucasian.” Mixing races based on recent geographic origin with races based on morphology can lead to broad interpretation. South-Asians are actually Caucasian if you believe in the racial theory that has three races- caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race) because they were big on bone structure over skin tone.
But for the most part these racial distinctions are all pretty hokey and you can check whatever you want. I’m not sure why it’s more valid to classify by skin tone vs hair color vs hand width or whatever. I can understand the unjust classification within certain cultures in isolation because it probably closely associated with certain classes or religions.
But classifying a black-skinned Indian South Asian and a brown-skinned Ethiopian (both also Caucasian) makes no real sense. Even from a social justice persective as which background has it worse off?
Is a light-skinned African-American have more or less systematic oppression than a dark-skinned South Asian? Or a dark-skinned AA vs a light-skinned SA?
There’s all sorts of interesting and confusing scenarios. I’m not sure what to do nor what is right, so I largely just muffle up and/or wait for the loudest shouting groups to figure it out.
Things did not go well for an immigrant friend of mine who was white South African who signed up for an African American law program. But when the all white engineering team won the state championship challenge for minority schools, that was fine. It was a weird quirk in my country where the program was for schools with majority minority students. But most schools had almost entirely Asian and white teams because the schools had small non-minority populations.
But for the most part these racial distinctions are all pretty hokey and you can check whatever you want. I’m not sure why it’s more valid to classify by skin tone vs hair color vs hand width or whatever. I can understand the unjust classification within certain cultures in isolation because it probably closely associated with certain classes or religions.
But classifying a black-skinned Indian South Asian and a brown-skinned Ethiopian (both also Caucasian) makes no real sense. Even from a social justice persective as which background has it worse off?
Is a light-skinned African-American have more or less systematic oppression than a dark-skinned South Asian? Or a dark-skinned AA vs a light-skinned SA?
There’s all sorts of interesting and confusing scenarios. I’m not sure what to do nor what is right, so I largely just muffle up and/or wait for the loudest shouting groups to figure it out.
Things did not go well for an immigrant friend of mine who was white South African who signed up for an African American law program. But when the all white engineering team won the state championship challenge for minority schools, that was fine. It was a weird quirk in my country where the program was for schools with majority minority students. But most schools had almost entirely Asian and white teams because the schools had small non-minority populations.
When people in the US say "Asian" conversationally, they usually mean "East Asian". The admissions process uses the more formal definition, which means an American who can trace his/her ethnicity to any country in Asia (including India, etc).
In the US, "Asian" without further qualification generally means East Asian. (In the UK, "Asian" extends to both East Asian and South Asian.)
Does anyone have any solid basis for the degree to which this discrimination is happening (specifically scope and severity)? I'm curious to know if this is something that is impacting a large number of potential students in a significant way or is only a minor factor amongst many others when determining acceptance.
Anecdotal evidence as an Asian male: way back when I was in high school, I applied to a particular brand name university in the US.
In my class, I had the best or second best admissions profile. The rest weren't really even close.
I was not accepted by this university, but fellow students from much more desirable demographic groups (from an affirmative action perspective) were. They were all wealthy, quite possibly from wealthier families than my own. And they had different skin color and/or gender.
These were students who couldn't even handle AP calculus (and if you knew the name of this university, you'd be shocked), let alone match my extracurricular activities, test scores, etc.
One of them had enough self awareness and integrity to apologize to me, and openly blamed affirmative action for her being accepted instead of me.
The others let it get to their heads.
I was not accepted by this university, but fellow students from much more desirable demographic groups (from an affirmative action perspective) were. They were all wealthy, quite possibly from wealthier families than my own. And they had different skin color and/or gender.
These were students who couldn't even handle AP calculus (and if you knew the name of this university, you'd be shocked), let alone match my extracurricular activities, test scores, etc.
One of them had enough self awareness and integrity to apologize to me, and openly blamed affirmative action for her being accepted instead of me.
The others let it get to their heads.
Similarly, my school only had one Ivy League acceptance. The student was from an extremely wealthy family and had tutors and camps and essay consultants. They had mediocre extra curricular, 70% sat/act and 3.5gpa and were accepted. The valedictorian has amazing everything but was Vietnamese and was turned down from every Ivy League. Sad because his family was really poor and he was a real bootstrap puller, etc.
From a cosmic justice standpoint, the valedictorian is now pretty wealthy 35 years later and the ivy leaguer never worked and lived off family and spouse money.
From a cosmic justice standpoint, the valedictorian is now pretty wealthy 35 years later and the ivy leaguer never worked and lived off family and spouse money.
There really needs to be more press on the experiences of Asians when dealing with college apps - reading that made me feel gross; it's sickening to me that that's considered okay by so many people.
There would be if people cared. No one does. The only people not surprised by any of this is Asians. I not only had to be better than my peers to get into Cornell, I had to be MUCH better. So it goes. It could be worse...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
Asian enrollment percentage at Caltech (strictly meritocratic admissions) doubled with a doubling in the absolute size of the college-age Asian population; on the other hand the percentage Asian enrollment at all the Ivies stayed approximately the same.
Assuming Asians didn't stop applying to the Ivies in direct proportion to their population increase, at best this looks like reverse disparate impact; at worst, race-based quotas or admission standards.
Asian enrollment percentage at Caltech (strictly meritocratic admissions) doubled with a doubling in the absolute size of the college-age Asian population; on the other hand the percentage Asian enrollment at all the Ivies stayed approximately the same.
Assuming Asians didn't stop applying to the Ivies in direct proportion to their population increase, at best this looks like reverse disparate impact; at worst, race-based quotas or admission standards.
There is a great deal of societal value in empowering minority communities. And creating a diverse campus is a major starting point to developing a diverse and prosperous community.
We know from hard data that students from some communities are at an inherent disadvantage in the education system. From family environments to poverty to the mental strain of everyday racism to school funding to parental involvement, some students are at a severe disadvantage. Even when of equal intelligence, maturity and potential.
What universities do is account for these disadvantages in the mix. Is the system perfect? No. But it's good for our collective society, even if a few overachievers have to settle for Yale.
We know from hard data that students from some communities are at an inherent disadvantage in the education system. From family environments to poverty to the mental strain of everyday racism to school funding to parental involvement, some students are at a severe disadvantage. Even when of equal intelligence, maturity and potential.
What universities do is account for these disadvantages in the mix. Is the system perfect? No. But it's good for our collective society, even if a few overachievers have to settle for Yale.
But Asians aren't one of the protected minorities.
> We will continue to vigorously defend the right of Harvard, and other universities, to seek the educational benefits that come from a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions
Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.
Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.
Seems like a situation where Harvard is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.
So maybe it should do the fair thing.
[deleted]
>maybe it should do the fair thing.
The "fair thing" is the matter of perspective that's being debated.
The "fair thing" is the matter of perspective that's being debated.
Is it really debatable on whether or not discriminating against individuals/groups makes things fair for other individuals/groups? At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group. Meanwhile you've re-enforced the idea that it's institutionally acceptable to discriminate against groups of people for physical attributes they have no control over.... an idea I thought we were all supposed to be moving away from.
>Is it really debatable on whether or not discriminating against individuals/groups makes things fair for other individuals/groups?
I don't think that comment could be any more centered at the heart of this debate. Thanks.
The problem with your reasoning though, is that it starts in the middle. It wipes away history and fast-forwards us to a state of egalitarianism that doesn't exist. That is, it really just begs the question by assuming the very reality we seek to create.
So, where we agree is that any sort of consideration of race is lamentable. Where we depart is in the idea that we address that fact by discounting the history that got us here and also ignoring that we're actually still here.
In other words, this idea that we just do nothing and hope that people will suddenly stop discriminating completely offloads the burden of unfairness to those who have already been systematically and inter-generationally disenfranchised/disadvantaged; and so can least afford such a laissez-faire approach. It's easy to say "hey, let's just all love one another". But, what are generations of systematically disenfranchised people supposed to eat while we're waiting patiently for our society to get there?
Which leads to...
>At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group
No fun answer here, but here's what it comes down to: Yes, individuals in the latter group may experience some "unfairness". But, as a whole, which group can best weather a bit of "unfairness"? Is it the group that has other options because they won the birth lottery or those who are hanging on by a thread due to a host of complicated historical reasons that essentially boil down to their complexion? This is a cold truth and it churns my stomach to posit it, but it's the hard reality of the reasoning.
I want to qualify my "birth lottery" comment though. Because, what is incorrect is the idea that every member of the majority has these tremendous advantages simply by being a member. What I'd really like to see is a system that acknowledges people's station in life and history, irrespective of race.
For instance, if we were to say that coal-miners in West Virginia are having a rough go of it and set aside some educational opportunities and jobs specifically to transition those folks, I think most of us can get behind that. And, we would accept as the cost that "a Kid in the Suburbs" might lose a scholarship as a result.
Affirmative action is no different. A harder irony is that it is deliberately ginned-up racial animus that has birthed much of the discrimination that created the need for affirmative action and simultaneously generated resentment for those who benefit from it.
I don't think that comment could be any more centered at the heart of this debate. Thanks.
The problem with your reasoning though, is that it starts in the middle. It wipes away history and fast-forwards us to a state of egalitarianism that doesn't exist. That is, it really just begs the question by assuming the very reality we seek to create.
So, where we agree is that any sort of consideration of race is lamentable. Where we depart is in the idea that we address that fact by discounting the history that got us here and also ignoring that we're actually still here.
In other words, this idea that we just do nothing and hope that people will suddenly stop discriminating completely offloads the burden of unfairness to those who have already been systematically and inter-generationally disenfranchised/disadvantaged; and so can least afford such a laissez-faire approach. It's easy to say "hey, let's just all love one another". But, what are generations of systematically disenfranchised people supposed to eat while we're waiting patiently for our society to get there?
Which leads to...
>At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group
No fun answer here, but here's what it comes down to: Yes, individuals in the latter group may experience some "unfairness". But, as a whole, which group can best weather a bit of "unfairness"? Is it the group that has other options because they won the birth lottery or those who are hanging on by a thread due to a host of complicated historical reasons that essentially boil down to their complexion? This is a cold truth and it churns my stomach to posit it, but it's the hard reality of the reasoning.
I want to qualify my "birth lottery" comment though. Because, what is incorrect is the idea that every member of the majority has these tremendous advantages simply by being a member. What I'd really like to see is a system that acknowledges people's station in life and history, irrespective of race.
For instance, if we were to say that coal-miners in West Virginia are having a rough go of it and set aside some educational opportunities and jobs specifically to transition those folks, I think most of us can get behind that. And, we would accept as the cost that "a Kid in the Suburbs" might lose a scholarship as a result.
Affirmative action is no different. A harder irony is that it is deliberately ginned-up racial animus that has birthed much of the discrimination that created the need for affirmative action and simultaneously generated resentment for those who benefit from it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
eh, in AI we called it 'overfitting', which means you optimize so much for one dimension/set of problems, that you end up with a one dimensional trait distribution.
Asian-Americans score great in standardized tests, (for both genetic and cultural reasons), but high SAT scores soon becomes a problem of 'overfitting', where SAT scores are a great indicator of success in life, they are still only one dimension of success indicator.
If you create a system where it accepts/rejects candidates only on one dimension (SAT scores), you will soon end up with a flawed system. Also, spending all your time in studying standardized tests, will make you overfitted in one dimension. Real life is not one giant standardized test.
AI 102
As for colleges they should have a transparent admission criteria, as right now it is very subjective and will be obviously been seen as flawed.
Eg.
30% is SAT Scores
30% is your high school gpa
20% is you curriculum and activities
20% is other shit we think is important, etc...
then you will know where you stand
Asian-Americans score great in standardized tests, (for both genetic and cultural reasons), but high SAT scores soon becomes a problem of 'overfitting', where SAT scores are a great indicator of success in life, they are still only one dimension of success indicator.
If you create a system where it accepts/rejects candidates only on one dimension (SAT scores), you will soon end up with a flawed system. Also, spending all your time in studying standardized tests, will make you overfitted in one dimension. Real life is not one giant standardized test.
AI 102
As for colleges they should have a transparent admission criteria, as right now it is very subjective and will be obviously been seen as flawed.
Eg.
30% is SAT Scores
30% is your high school gpa
20% is you curriculum and activities
20% is other shit we think is important, etc...
then you will know where you stand
You think Asians are getting into good universities solely on their SAT scores? Universities de-emphasized the SAT decades ago, so your entire point is moot.
>"Generally speaking, the SAT is not very important," said Marilyn McGrath, director of undergraduate admissions at No. 1 ranked Harvard College.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/admiss...
>"Generally speaking, the SAT is not very important," said Marilyn McGrath, director of undergraduate admissions at No. 1 ranked Harvard College.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/admiss...
> You think Asians are getting into good universities solely on their SAT scores? Universities de-emphasized the SAT decades ago, so your entire point is moot.
From my experience, both being an Asian and being surrounded by them, Asians are good at getting into universities/jobs/whatever because they very consciously try to play the "game".
It could be SAT scores, algorithm questions, vocabulary, ability to play an instrument, etc.
All of my friends knew or at least thought they knew what universities cared about, and then got extra schooling to prepare exactly those things. Some people even hire people to help them write their essays who I guess are "experts" at writing applications.
From my experience, both being an Asian and being surrounded by them, Asians are good at getting into universities/jobs/whatever because they very consciously try to play the "game".
It could be SAT scores, algorithm questions, vocabulary, ability to play an instrument, etc.
All of my friends knew or at least thought they knew what universities cared about, and then got extra schooling to prepare exactly those things. Some people even hire people to help them write their essays who I guess are "experts" at writing applications.
This doesn't just apply to Asians. Almost anyone getting into a top college (who isn't a legacy, under-represented minority, or recruited athlete) is adopting a very intentional strategy to design their application, starting well in advance (usually around mid-to-late middle school). College admissions at top schools is an arms race between stricter admissions criteria and prospective students designing themselves accordingly, nearly irrespective of who they are.
Is that really true? I feel like there are people who are actually just passionate about things early on and have ample opportunity to explore those passions. I believe those kinds of students are able to make it into top schools as well even though they aren't studying for the sake of getting into them..
Or maybe I am naive
Or maybe I am naive
I see your point: "Asians are getting discriminated not just by SAT scores, but even if their extra-curriculum activities were high...."
If that is true, then the suit has merit.
If that is true, then the suit has merit.
That's what we end up getting when we fall for the fallacy of "diversity". It leads to unsolvable problems since there's an infinite series of variables necessary to enforce diversity, and no solution will ever be considered fair on all of those. So yeah, it's completely bullsh*t if anyone thinks hard about it for more than 2 minutes.
I guess that's what you get when academia falls for identity politics (yet again).
I am also Asian.
> Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.
But the thing is, it's not meaningless right? Diversity has been shown to be good for performance, or at least I assume that's why they care.
I'm very curious how this will turn out. In my mind, the question is now whether it's still considered discrimination even though it's no longer a case of "all else being equal".
> Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.
But the thing is, it's not meaningless right? Diversity has been shown to be good for performance, or at least I assume that's why they care.
I'm very curious how this will turn out. In my mind, the question is now whether it's still considered discrimination even though it's no longer a case of "all else being equal".
It’s interesting. I took some classes on this and there is research showing the value of diversity in problem solving. [0]
But making the leap that this somehow means that skin/gender diversity equates to higher performance is quite a leap.
The instructor’s argument went something like this. “A bunch of studies show diversity improves outcome. A bunch of studies show people are racist against these populations. Therefore since having more of this population increases diversity, we need program XYZ.”
The class was infuriating, because the instructor kept using these studies as evidence and then directly linking it to a call for increased representation through positive discrimination for a few select minorities. Many questions were flippantly dismissed as “they’ll get their turn.” Of course this frustrates the different minorities who also wanted to be included.
I never got stuck on the logical leap of “If A then B. If C then D. Therefore A = D.”
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-011-9250-x
But making the leap that this somehow means that skin/gender diversity equates to higher performance is quite a leap.
The instructor’s argument went something like this. “A bunch of studies show diversity improves outcome. A bunch of studies show people are racist against these populations. Therefore since having more of this population increases diversity, we need program XYZ.”
The class was infuriating, because the instructor kept using these studies as evidence and then directly linking it to a call for increased representation through positive discrimination for a few select minorities. Many questions were flippantly dismissed as “they’ll get their turn.” Of course this frustrates the different minorities who also wanted to be included.
I never got stuck on the logical leap of “If A then B. If C then D. Therefore A = D.”
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-011-9250-x
The term "diversity" is being used in very different ways. The article you posted drfines it based on skill and knowledge:
> By diversity, we mean differences in how agents build problem representations which allow them to access various solutions. We deploy the concept of diversity along two dimensions: knowledge amplitude, which accounts for the level of available knowledge allowing access to poorer or richer problem representations (compared with complete problem representations), and knowledge variety, which pertains to the differences in the constituents of agents’ representations.
So it just further demonstrates the logical gap between A=B and C=D, since the studies didn't even show A=B, they showed E=F
> By diversity, we mean differences in how agents build problem representations which allow them to access various solutions. We deploy the concept of diversity along two dimensions: knowledge amplitude, which accounts for the level of available knowledge allowing access to poorer or richer problem representations (compared with complete problem representations), and knowledge variety, which pertains to the differences in the constituents of agents’ representations.
So it just further demonstrates the logical gap between A=B and C=D, since the studies didn't even show A=B, they showed E=F
Exactly. This my frustration with the professor and the course. I couldn’t tell if he was stupid, misleading, or obliviously enthusiastic.
Diversity has been shown to be good for performance
Of phenotype and national origin? Has it really?
Of phenotype and national origin? Has it really?
Welcome to the first step in being white.
Having grandparents who were treated as subhumans by the grandparents of the people who are now telling you that you are too privileged to be treated equally.
But if you move to the middle of no where in the deep south, in 20 years, you might not get police beating you as violently when they arrest you, if you're rich.
And you're racist if you bring that up.
Speaking as an Eastern European.
Having grandparents who were treated as subhumans by the grandparents of the people who are now telling you that you are too privileged to be treated equally.
But if you move to the middle of no where in the deep south, in 20 years, you might not get police beating you as violently when they arrest you, if you're rich.
And you're racist if you bring that up.
Speaking as an Eastern European.
>Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil
Welcome to being (situationally) white. You had a good run, but you've been on track to join the jews in assimilation limbo for quite some time.
Welcome to being (situationally) white. You had a good run, but you've been on track to join the jews in assimilation limbo for quite some time.
Qualified white gentiles are massively under-represented in the ivy league because white jews are massively over-represented. So the victimology is a little off in your comment. Look into Ron Unz's analysis on this matter. Jews are astoundingly over-represented (beyond any quantifiable qualification) at many elite colleges.
I think you're reading my comment with a bit too much scope placed on postsecondary education.
My point is about being treated as white when it's convenient, and being treated as non-white when convenient. All depending on the biggot's current goal at any one point in time. It's the limbo state for any group that assimilates but retain distinguishing characteristics that make them stand out from the pool of caucasians (a group that used to have deep seated strife over country of heritage, but now are treated as one due to their more amorphous distinguishing characteristics).
My point is about being treated as white when it's convenient, and being treated as non-white when convenient. All depending on the biggot's current goal at any one point in time. It's the limbo state for any group that assimilates but retain distinguishing characteristics that make them stand out from the pool of caucasians (a group that used to have deep seated strife over country of heritage, but now are treated as one due to their more amorphous distinguishing characteristics).
If you want to expand the scope it gets even worse. Why is Christianity so marginalized in the public square in a majority Christian country where even today most immigrants are Christian?
You really have no point. You were trying to evoke some fist shaking gentile mad at them thar jews and gooks. It doesn't exist, and in fact the gentile is getting steamrolled.
You really have no point. You were trying to evoke some fist shaking gentile mad at them thar jews and gooks. It doesn't exist, and in fact the gentile is getting steamrolled.
You were trying to evoke some fist shaking gentile mad at them thar jews and gooks.
Jesus Christ dude, quit putting words in my mouth.
Saying "welcome to being white" wasn't saltiness, I was making a glib comment Asians have assimilated enough, they're going to get treated more like white people (e.g. "diversity" in tech (and now, apparently, higher ed) changing from "less whites" to "less whites and Asians").
I don't think my posts harbor any resentment toward Asians or the Jewish, I was trying to be sympathetic toward them by hedging my glib blanket comment and acknowledging the fact they're exposed to the worst of both worlds as bigots' prerogative will treat them in whatever context that best serves their end.
I should have bailed when you said "victimology" and name dropped Unz.
I'm not here to break out my A Beautiful Mind corkboard and reinvent tolerance from first principles. I was just commiserating with a point that it sucks to be on the receiving end of "the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity".
Jesus Christ dude, quit putting words in my mouth.
Saying "welcome to being white" wasn't saltiness, I was making a glib comment Asians have assimilated enough, they're going to get treated more like white people (e.g. "diversity" in tech (and now, apparently, higher ed) changing from "less whites" to "less whites and Asians").
I don't think my posts harbor any resentment toward Asians or the Jewish, I was trying to be sympathetic toward them by hedging my glib blanket comment and acknowledging the fact they're exposed to the worst of both worlds as bigots' prerogative will treat them in whatever context that best serves their end.
I should have bailed when you said "victimology" and name dropped Unz.
I'm not here to break out my A Beautiful Mind corkboard and reinvent tolerance from first principles. I was just commiserating with a point that it sucks to be on the receiving end of "the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity".
Let's be honest, this isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Harvard has previously discriminated against Jews, and is now discriminating against Asians for the exact same reasons. I'm all for lending a helping hand to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But using race is a punitive factor to punish minorities that are "too successful", is pure racism.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem
By 1919 ... Jews at Harvard tripled to 21% of the freshman class in 1922 from about 7% in 1900. Ivy League Jews won a disproportionate share of academic prizes and election to Phi Beta Kappa but were widely regarded as competitive, eager to excel academically and less interested in extra-curricular activities such as organized sports. Non-Jews accused them of being clannish, socially unskilled and either unwilling or unable to“fit in.”
In 1922, Harvard's president, A. Lawrence Lowell, proposed a quota on the number of Jews gaining admission to the university. Lowell was convinced that Harvard could only survive if the majority of its students came from old American stock.
Lowell argued that cutting the number of Jews at Harvard to a maximum of 15% would be good for the Jews, because limits would prevent further anti-Semitism. Lowell reasoned, “The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense.”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem
By 1919 ... Jews at Harvard tripled to 21% of the freshman class in 1922 from about 7% in 1900. Ivy League Jews won a disproportionate share of academic prizes and election to Phi Beta Kappa but were widely regarded as competitive, eager to excel academically and less interested in extra-curricular activities such as organized sports. Non-Jews accused them of being clannish, socially unskilled and either unwilling or unable to“fit in.”
In 1922, Harvard's president, A. Lawrence Lowell, proposed a quota on the number of Jews gaining admission to the university. Lowell was convinced that Harvard could only survive if the majority of its students came from old American stock.
Lowell argued that cutting the number of Jews at Harvard to a maximum of 15% would be good for the Jews, because limits would prevent further anti-Semitism. Lowell reasoned, “The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense.”
These plots of the Asian enrollment at Ivy League schools converging tightly to 15% even as the Asian fraction of the population has doubled are striking evidence that there is a very well defined quota.
NYTimes: http://reappropriate.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nytimes-a...
Economist: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T5jqm6t78Mo/VsELOqHiXiI/AAAAAAAAQ...
Notably, Caltech has race-neutral admissions, and their Asian enrollment has tracked the increase in the general population.
EDIT: Note that the plots show total number of Asians rather than the Asian fraction of the population, which would be a more appropriate benchmark since the total population is growing. However, between 1990 and 2011 the US population grew by just shy of 25% while the Asian population more than doubled.
NYTimes: http://reappropriate.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nytimes-a...
Economist: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T5jqm6t78Mo/VsELOqHiXiI/AAAAAAAAQ...
Notably, Caltech has race-neutral admissions, and their Asian enrollment has tracked the increase in the general population.
EDIT: Note that the plots show total number of Asians rather than the Asian fraction of the population, which would be a more appropriate benchmark since the total population is growing. However, between 1990 and 2011 the US population grew by just shy of 25% while the Asian population more than doubled.
>But using race is a punitive factor to punish minorities that are "too successful", is pure racism.
Is it racism to punish members of the majority that are "too successful"? I'm not trying to make a point with this question - I am just asking.
Is it racism to punish members of the majority that are "too successful"? I'm not trying to make a point with this question - I am just asking.
[deleted]
> But using race is a punitive factor to punish minorities that are "too successful", is pure racism.
It would seem more "fair" to instead factor in your parents' income or education, or what kind of neighborhood or high school you're from.
It would seem more "fair" to instead factor in your parents' income or education, or what kind of neighborhood or high school you're from.
But then we'd get the rif raff!
No no, much better to start from the upper middle class and work your way up. While making sure you have as much possible visible diversity to hide the fact everyone in the class has exactly the same upbringing.
I went to an ivy league and so many of the minorities were nothing of the sort. Props to the 'African American' who shall remain nameless, but was the grandson of an African general who had killed tens of thousands of women and children, stolen as much money as he could, sent his son off to America before the coup, and had a blond blue eyed former model for a mother. That guy needed all the help he could get because slavery.
No no, much better to start from the upper middle class and work your way up. While making sure you have as much possible visible diversity to hide the fact everyone in the class has exactly the same upbringing.
I went to an ivy league and so many of the minorities were nothing of the sort. Props to the 'African American' who shall remain nameless, but was the grandson of an African general who had killed tens of thousands of women and children, stolen as much money as he could, sent his son off to America before the coup, and had a blond blue eyed former model for a mother. That guy needed all the help he could get because slavery.
Those factors all correlate with your race, though, so this doesn't really change anything - racism by proxy is still racism.
Those factors all correlate with class...it doesn't need to be about race.
Pretty sure the GP was intended to be ironic.
> The leader of Students for Fair Admissions and the architect of the case against Harvard is Edward Blum, a longtime crusader against affirmative action who has recruited plaintiffs, hired sympathetic lawyers and raised millions of dollars from conservative groups to challenge voting rights laws and affirmative action policies, often successfully.
Is this really about discrimination against Asian-Americans?
Is this really about discrimination against Asian-Americans?
Radiolab's More Perfect had a pair of very interesting episodes on Edward Blum:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/more-perfect-plaintiffs/
and
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/architect-edward-blum/
http://www.radiolab.org/story/more-perfect-plaintiffs/
and
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/architect-edward-blum/
Not really, if Asians were actually being treated the same (and the schools admission rates shifted to a higher percentage of Asian students) then people would start bitching about privileged Asians.
Meanwhile Asian people are actually pissed off for the right reasons.
Meanwhile Asian people are actually pissed off for the right reasons.
> Is this really about discrimination against Asian-Americans?
It's not at all. Unsurprisingly, East Asian and South Asian community groups have by and large gone incredibly far out of their way to distance themselves from this lawsuit. It took Blum a comically long period of time even to find people with standing who were willing to participate in it.
You won't find that to be the predominant sentiment on HN, but HN has never been particularly representative of other populations when it comes to political topics, especially race and discrimination.
It's not at all. Unsurprisingly, East Asian and South Asian community groups have by and large gone incredibly far out of their way to distance themselves from this lawsuit. It took Blum a comically long period of time even to find people with standing who were willing to participate in it.
You won't find that to be the predominant sentiment on HN, but HN has never been particularly representative of other populations when it comes to political topics, especially race and discrimination.
Sincere question: what do you mean by "other populations"?
> Sincere question: what do you mean by "other populations"?
HN does not provide a representative view of any group other than "HN readers".
It doesn't even do a great job of representing programmers, or people who work in tech. So if you come to HN and expect the things you read to be representative of any group broader than that, you'll end up pretty far off the mark.
HN does not provide a representative view of any group other than "HN readers".
It doesn't even do a great job of representing programmers, or people who work in tech. So if you come to HN and expect the things you read to be representative of any group broader than that, you'll end up pretty far off the mark.
Thanks? I really don't know why I would have the expectation that the views expressed on HN would be representative of the views of a group other than "People who comment on Hacker News".
Same goes for any other site that people comment on...
Same goes for any other site that people comment on...
Nitpick but it actually represents "HN commenters" because there almost certainly a lot of people who do not comment and those people don't necessarily have the same view as the commenters.
My sense would be they are just implying that HN is overwhelmingly white, which wouldn’t be surprising.
Not OP, but I’ll just observe that HN does have a recognisable political slant. Not everyone on it shares the views of that slant, but if you haven’t noticed it’s presence, it’s probably because you do share those views.
That "recognizable slant" is in the eye of the beholder. On divisive issues, the community is simply divided, as is the society at large—or rather, the societies, since HN is a majority-international site. But that's not how it feels, because of this effect, which a reader pointed out yesterday:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751922
I guarantee you that readers with opposite views to yours have opposite views of HN's "recognizable slant". Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397133 to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16407769. Or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16134205 to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16750306. And so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751922
I guarantee you that readers with opposite views to yours have opposite views of HN's "recognizable slant". Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397133 to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16407769. Or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16134205 to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16750306. And so on.
HN is a majority-international site
Sorry, but is this claim based on pageviews, or the origins of the comments being posted?
It's not like guardian.co.uk/international is in fact international news and opinion.
Sorry, but is this claim based on pageviews, or the origins of the comments being posted?
It's not like guardian.co.uk/international is in fact international news and opinion.
I mean that no country has a majority of the users hitting HN. In terms of posting comments it's a bit more than 50% from the US.
The point, though, is that people coming here are coming from many different countries, so opinion is more divided than it would be from just one. There aren't only political and ideological divides, but national, cultural, and linguistic ones. Understandably—because the information isn't available—people don't take this into account. That unfortunately leads to a lot of misunderstanding and even ill will.
The point, though, is that people coming here are coming from many different countries, so opinion is more divided than it would be from just one. There aren't only political and ideological divides, but national, cultural, and linguistic ones. Understandably—because the information isn't available—people don't take this into account. That unfortunately leads to a lot of misunderstanding and even ill will.
It is heartening to know you do gather information of this granularity.
Why not make it available?
Why not make it available?
where HN community are based
A vague question
The numbers depend on how you measure 'user' and 'location'
Gets a vague answer.
My question was specifically about the commentariat not eyeballs.
I don't think myself as worthy of an answer specifically to me. I think it would be for the best benefit of others if not buried in some obscure thread.
A vague question
The numbers depend on how you measure 'user' and 'location'
Gets a vague answer.
My question was specifically about the commentariat not eyeballs.
I don't think myself as worthy of an answer specifically to me. I think it would be for the best benefit of others if not buried in some obscure thread.
I'm not sure how that's answering my question...?
it can be both
Thoughts 1) a lot of this sounds like a fishing expedition 2) Asian-Americans certainly face discrimination in other walks of life 3) “But what about Asians?” is pretty much like “But what about black-on-black crime?” of conservative talking points trying to deny the reality of race in America.
In short, this is a devious way of disrupting affirmative action and I’m simultaneously impressed and horrified.
In short, this is a devious way of disrupting affirmative action and I’m simultaneously impressed and horrified.
Yea "devious" if you're not Asian. Affirmative action is a garbage policy. It should be predicated directly on financial means instead of race.
I'm Asian, my kids are going to apply to universities in America in a few years, and I'm OK with Affirmative action.
Yes, I know they might have slightly better chance of acceptance if Affirmative action is gone. So what?
Yes, I know they might have slightly better chance of acceptance if Affirmative action is gone. So what?
Yes, affirmative action is unfair. Everything should be based on the wealth of your parents, which is fair.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>sarcasm
>strawman
>strawman
Honestly when you look at the data, its hard to believe there has been no major backlash on a national level until this point, especially when you consider a majority believe there is discrimination against them [3]. One reason could perhaps be the fact that Asians outperform other groups on a variety of positive societal metrics (income, wealth, education). [1,2]
Anyway, whether or not you think we should or should not do anything about it is up to your political tastes, but I for one am at least happy its getting some national attention - given my own personal experience and just knowing what the data says. Admittedly, if the data looked a lot different I would be more inclined to rule this out as bogus.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
2. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
3. https://www.npr.org/assets/news/2017/12/discriminationpoll-a...
4. http://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination...