You do note the part where you said that discrimination based on race wasn’t racial discrimination, yes?
I mean, I think that Haberdash went a bit overboard, but the pro-AA side is doing the same thing for the same reasons as the anti-Semites who didn’t want too many Jews upsetting the holistic racial balance of the Ivy League around the turn of the century. Either you’re advocating racial discrimination, or they weren’t back then.
Well, as we know, Jews are significantly over-represented among high-scorers, high-achievers, in prestigious universities, in income and other financial indicators, etc. Therefore it would be racist NOT to discriminate against them.
No, I didn’t say that.
It can’t be the case that “Harvard doesn’t discriminate against Asians” and “it’s good for them to discriminate against Asians.” The pro-racism argument in this thread is incoherent.
I’ve noticed that pretty much all pro-racism arguments are incoherent.
Dude, you said it right there. You’re saying that racial discrimination in admissions is quite different than racial discrimination.
Now, you might mean that racial discrimination is good when it’s preserving the diversity of the Ivy League schools from those pesky [strike]Jews[/strike] Asians and not otherwise, but that is what you are saying. You are saying that it is a good thing that a school is going “OK, you people of this race! It’s not that we don’t like you in small numbers, but what we really want are students of this race over here, so we’ll take them over you when you are otherwise equal scholars!”
This is goddamn surreal. Racial discrimination is discrimination based on race. It does not magically stop being racial discrimination because you think it’s for a good cause.
“Asians are selfish” – the attribution of negative characteristics to an entire race – is not racist according to you, I presume?
The beneficiaries of the Asian quota at Harvard are rich white people.
At what point in time do you believe there was affirmative action in favor of Asians at Harvard?
Especially those who are correct in making that claim.
When the goal of “having a racially diverse campus” only arose after Harvard noticed Asians taking spots that used to go to whites, and is implemented in a manner that changes on an annual basis to achieve the end of creating a formula that caps Asian enrollment, then it becomes as hollow as “holistic criteria.”
But only the other people can do The Bad Thing! No good leftist can do The Bad Thing, therefore it’s not racist when he supports it.
No I didn’t. Still don’t know what words/phrases you’re referring to in my post.
No, I said that AA is not necessarily racial discrimination.
I believe we’re having this discussion in English. If you’d like to use idiosyncratic definitions of words, you’ll have to share them with the rest of the class.
When did Asians benefit from affirmative action?
I’ll go on the record of opposing quotas while being for Affirmative Action, in general. I think racial quotas are, in fact, racial discrimination (and I don’t think Affirmative Action is).
I thought I was clear that I was speaking of Affirmative Action, and not racial quotas. If this was unclear, I apologize deeply.
I guess so. See post #240.
“Over-represented” and “discriminated against” aren’t mutually exclusive.
African-Americans are overrepresented in the NBA. If the NBA were to institute a policy, “African-Americans must jump 10% higher and run 10% faster than Asians in order to get into the NBA,” chances are the NBA would still be predominantly black. But it would be discrimination.
Same for university admissions. Asian-Americans are overrepresented at elite U.S. universities. And yet Asian-Americans have to score higher on standardized testing than other racial groups. It’s discrimination.
Yeah - sorry, I thought you were supporting quotas - I get it. My bad.
Ultimately, what causes everyone to fight about AA/merit is that you can only fit so many people into a population of 100%. Increase one race’s representation by 5% and other races are bound to take a hit. Its a zero sum situation.
It would be discrimination if it were true. It isn’t. It’s a specious claim that is one of the weaknesses of their case. The reality is that everyone admitted to Harvard has to have high test scores – that’s the minimal condition to even be considered. There are enormous numbers of other standards and criteria that are applied on top of the minimal requirements. It turns out that when all those criteria are applied, the Asians who end up getting admitted have higher test scores than the average. As I already said, Grutter v. Bollinger determined in 2003 that such an outcome is neither discrimination nor any kind of “thinly veiled quota system”. And comparisons with anti-Semitism in the 1920s is not just specious but downright absurd.
Grutter found that using a racial multiplier is legal.
That doesn’t address your claim that Harvard uses no racial multiplier, or any claim about whether it’s moral. It’s irrelevant.
And it’s comparable because, unlike any argument for “rectifying past discrimination” by applying racial multipliers to benefit blacks, the Harvard system’s intent and effect is to handicap a racial minority for the benefit of rich whites. It’s much closer to the Jewish quota than the Michigan system.
And it’s just a coincidence that in order to be admitted, statistically, Asians have to score 450 more points on SAT than blacks, right?
Ah I see. Just a coincidence. 450 points. Everyone has high scores - it’s just that Asians have to have much higher to get admitted.