There is a plethora of "diversity" internships that not only advertise to specific gender/races but also are stated to explicitly target certain gender/races in their job ads that the ACLU can go after.
Is this different from software companies specifically targeting women and certain races? Some companies even have specific internships that are dedicated to women and certain races.
When software companies do that, it's usually seen as a "legitimate" way to increase the number of certain gender and races at the company.
I'm guessing that the poor students that are academically decent enough for Harvard are mostly Asian with some children of European immigrants and a few of African immigrants.
I think that Asians are even more represented in the set of poor students that can academically fit into Harvard than the set of upper middle class and above students that can academically fit into Harvard.
Or it works in Harvard's preference by potentially hiding the academic disparities of the different ethnic groups studying at Harvard.
If everyone's score is truncated at 800 on a test out of 1200, then you can't tell the difference between a group that averages 800 vs one that averages 1100
It annoys me how every official statement from institutions supporting affirmative action doesn't seem to acknowledge that racial discrimination is happening and is actively harming individuals.
Any reasonable person would at least acknowledge the trade-off between racial discrimination and racial diversity.
It most definitely is a moral issue when students are racially discriminated against. There is a trade-off between racial diversity and racial discrimination.
What you're saying here is that non-Asian leaders who are individually worse leaders take the spot of Asian leaders who are individually better leaders because the race of non-Asian leaders makes them better leaders.
It's not low hanging fruit by any means. I'm guessing it would raise the Asian American population by 10s of % at all the top tier schools.
The set of students who are both poor and almost meets Ivy League standards is most likely very Asian. IIRC, universities have made the argument that financial affirmative action would not work for racial diversity (implicitly because few poor students who do well are black or Hispanic). Generally, this set is competing with the privileged black and Hispanic students who under perform compared to their socioeconomic background. Removing affirmative action would displace almost exclusively rich Hispanic and black elites with a mix of poor Asians and some rich Asian/white elites.
> To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment
During "lopping" time, they use ethnic stats and ethnic profile to downgrade people from "admit" to "waitlist" or "deny", so it can be characterized as "negative treatment".
> As the admissions process winds down, the dean and the director of admissions review the pool of tentatively admitted students and decide how many need to be “lopped,” by having their status changed from “admit” to “waitlist” or “deny,” the court papers say.
Anker usually are the only sellers on their item listings so I buy electronics from them on Amazon because their items won't be conmingled. Otherwise, I go to Best Buy and pay the premium for the quality control.
Not knowing English before computers and smart phones is a huge setback. That cripples all aspects of life, including your ability to help your children with schooling, doing taxes, interacting with any basic service or business, understanding laws, literally everything.
I'd like to see the argument that African Americans faced conditions harsher than not knowing English justified.