# Harvard and Princeton Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2012, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636 "2012-02-03T06:06:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/222 "2012-02-16T19:05:13Z")
BTW the data covered by the study was not one single year it was the aggregated information at 10 selective colleges in three years 1983, 1993 and 1997. [http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/nsce.html](http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/nsce.html) ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/223 "2012-02-16T19:16:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If I thought it was conclusive irrrefutable evidence of the discrimination itself, then why do I use phrases like rebuttable presumption and prima facie case? Because you’ve been using language like “whites enjoy a 3 to 1 advantage” and “discrimination can be proven statistically” and that “you’re sure of it” or that such discriminatory evidence is “irrefutable.” You’re backpedaling. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Great so we agree that whites with the same scores are selected three times more frequently. I call it an advantage. We can call it a dispaarity if you like, I have called it a disparity in the past. Yes, it is a disparity. It is, however, not a “3 to 1” advantage. It’s extremely misleading language and you’ve been using it all throughout this thread, backing it up with further claims that indicate you indeed think it’s more than just mere “disparity.” > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Irrelevant? Are you serious? You think that SAT scores and GPA are irrelevant to admission arates because they are not the ONLY criteria used in teh admissions decision? They’re not irrelevant, and nobody has ever argued that. You’re attacking strawmen, here. What has been shown to you via evidence, and many times in this thread, is that scores matter but only up until a certain point, where marginal gains just do not matter all that much due to tail variance. Like the admissions officer from MIT said, it’s not like he goes hyper-circling a 1600 applicant or a 1400 applicant, etc. Scores are more of a pre-screening tool and are rarely used in final decisions. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And how is teh data “clearly in conflict” with the position that white enjoy and advantage over asians? You seem to be saying that the advantage is superficial because… you know… “soft factors” And here you go again pretending like “disparity” really does mean “advantage,” lol. Are you just ignoring the fact that scores lose their meaning at upper ranges? I imagine so, because it’s the only way you can continue arguing your position. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > He is clearly not saying that discrimiantion doesn’t exist, merely that this data standing by itself is not enough to prove that discrimination. Top Universisties havea dmitted to using these “soft factors” in the past to disadvantage Asians. Why is it so hard for you to believe that other universities may still be doing so? And yet you say there’s irrefutable evidence that discrimination can be proven statistically, lol. Just because you can quotemine papers from _over 20 years ago_ doesn’t exactly offer strong proof in today’s climate. Admissions have changed a lot over the years. The reason why the belief of discrimination isn’t there is because there’s no strong data to support it. It’s like asking why some people don’t believe in God. God isn’t necessary to explain anything. Similarly, we need not invoke anti-Asian discrimination to explain any of the data at all whatsoever. Is it possible? Sure. But again, no proof. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Every college pretends that they have this holistic approach, that they treat every applicant as an individual. They pretend to recognize the unique snowflake within but the fact of the matter is that they get tens of thousands of applciations from a self selected group of applicants and they have a few months to to select 5 to 10% of those applicants. They use something called the academic index. They put that acadmeic index on the front cover of the application file. You keep using the same argument that “soft critieria” are the reason for teh white asian disparity and I have asked you time and time again why you think Asians are so deficient in areas outside of grades and SAT scores that it would justify this sort of disparity and your answer has been … YOU KNOW “SOFT CRITERIA”… GEEZ! The answer has been given to you _countless_ times over. 1. Scores aren’t super important at higher ends. Again, everyone at the Ivy level has good scores. 2. Diversity is emphasized. 3. One possible explanation for potentially-disproportional clustering is homogenous data trends in soft criteria within a given race being selected against for the sake of diversity. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean you can ignore it and keep repeating your mantra. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > because numbers like SAT scores and GPA are NTO meaningless to admissions people. Why is it so hard for you to understand this. Call Michele hernandez and ask her how important SAT scores and GPA are. Ask her if there is a difference ebtween 750 SAT scoresa nd 800 SAT scores. Surprise, surprise. I have, actually. Answer: No, not really. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/224 "2012-02-16T19:33:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > First of all you’re wrong and second of all, who gives a shit, how is that relevant on the merits? I gave you direct quotes – YOUR quotes – that explicitly show your inconsistent and misleading use of language. You are backpedaling and trying to weasel your way out of it. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > probably ignore it because I have asked you to cite to “admissions officers have explicitly said that they don’t even bother splitting hairs over upper-threshold” I guess you must have totally glossed over explicit evidence such as [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14773256&postcount=206](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14773256&postcount=206) which I showed you earlier, to which you ignored. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And frankly, why would anyone believe and admissions officer on any of this? Tell you what, call aFORMER admissions officer (they all seem to have set up shop in ritzy beighborhoods to coach kids into ivy league schools) and ask THEM how much the numbers count. Multiple articles talk about this double standard for Asians, I suppose they’re all crackpots too. > > Does it matter at all to you that places like Brown, Berkeley and Stanford have admitted to discriminating against (or disadvantaging or being unfair to) Asians? Here you are outright admitting that you are a crackpot because no amount of evidence will change your mind. Funny how you’ll cling to any bit of evidence, no matter how tenuous, from admissions officers YEARS ago that might be twisted to support your view, but when it comes to admissions officers of today with overwhelming evidence against your position, you ignore it all and claim that they’re not credible sources? If that’s not blatant confirmation bias, I don’t know what is. In other words, you don’t really care about what any citations have to say. You assume primary sources are basically lying to you and that your speculation, in absence of hard evidence, is the right conclusion. This is why I said earlier in this thread that I think you are a crackpot. It’s the same mentality the Obama-birthers have. You can show them ream after ream of evidence, but none if it is considered credible to them… but the moment they’ll see something that might support their warped frame of mind, suddenly it’s rock hard, irrefutable evidence. “It’s all a conspiracy,” etc etc etc. You don’t have enough data to prove discrimination. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/225 "2012-02-16T19:43:31Z")
A better explantion for at least some of the disparity. So my cousin (whose kid is in high school) spoke to one of these counselors and just asked them flat out. If there was a difference in the mids of admissions committees betweenan SAt score of 750 and 800 and the reply was “Of course there is, academics and test scores are the most important criteria” When asked about the apparent double standard applied to Asians. I specifically asked her to mention Espenshade’s study and her reply was multilayered. They said that Espenshade didn’t take geography into account. The gist is: A lot of Asian applicants come from a handful of states where academic competition is fairly high to begin with. So while there is a huge disparity between the average successful Asian applicant and the average successful white applicant the disparity narrowed considerably if you compared the Asian applicants from San Francisco or New York with white applicants from San Francisco or New York. And the lack of diversity in the geography leads to lack of diversity in other areas. If you just look at white applications from Connecticut, they are going to look a lot like each other. The white applicants from Connecticut are not snowflakes but if you mix them up with all the other white applicants from across the country, the lacrosee playing, French speaking, 4.0 2200 SAT white Connecticut student looks a lot less cookie cutter. Asian tennis players don’t have the advantage of being compared to the hockey players from the northern plains or the football players from Texas (well you get the idea) so while people try to be race neutral, you can’t help but notice the similarities between Asian students compared to the diversity presented by a geographically diverse white applicant pool. And you get the impression that Asians are a somehwat homogenous group. A race blind admission policy might help with some of that lack of geographic diversity but in the end, they are still competing with other highly competitive students in highly competitive states. When asked if this explained the disparity they said “probably not” There are other factors but after all is said and done, some people trying to achieve some sort of racial balance and race works against Asians. So there you have it (from someone trying to sell my Asian cousin college consulting services), notions of race balancing probably hurts Asians but not as badly as Espenshade’s study makes out because he doesn’t take at least one pretty obvious objective factors into account. Short of further study, its hard to say exactly how much but you can improve your chances by moving to Nebraska. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/226 "2012-02-16T20:17:07Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yes there is. Do you deny that that whites were accepted at three times the rate of asians with the same gpa/SAT scores? This is irrefutable. And also of little real value to anyone investigating systemic discrimination against Asians. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If I thought it was conclusive irrrefutable evidence of the discrimination itself, then why do I use phrases like rebuttable presumption and prima facie case? Because you got caught overstating the case, and thus, decided to backtrack. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Irrelevant? Are you serious? You think that SAT scores and GPA are irrelevant to admission arates because they are not the ONLY criteria used in teh admissions decision? I am saying a disparity noticed solely on quantitative measures tells us nothing about decision making made on qualitative bases. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And how is teh data “clearly in conflict” with the position that white enjoy and advantage over asians? You seem to be saying that the advantage is superficial because… you know… “soft factors” If your supposition were correct, then we would not see the admissions numbers we saw at UCLA or Berkeley. That is why the data is in conflict. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why do you stop there? He goes on to say “Even though in our data we have much information about the students and what they present in their application folders, most of what we have are quantifiable data. We don’t have the “softer” variables – the personal statements that the students wrote, their teacher recommendations, a full list of extracurricular activities. Because we don’t have access to all of the information that the admission office has access to, it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.” Because this is just elaborating on what he said before, that there is no proof of discrimination. Because he leaves on the possibility that there might be if they had more data is just common sense. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > He is clearly not saying that discrimiantion doesn’t exist, merely that this data standing by itself is not enough to prove that discrimination. Because you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. Is this really such an alien concept to you? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Top Universisties havea dmitted to using these “soft factors” in the past to disadvantage Asians. Why is it so hard for you to believe that other universities may still be doing so? Wrong. Not TO disadvantage Asians. They said it DOES/MAY disadvantage Asians. There is an important difference. Specifically because we know affirmative action, and efforts to achieve financial diversity will lead to fewer Asians being admitted. Those programs were not implemented TO disadvantage Asians, that is just the result of trying to help someone else in a near zero-sum situation. What you seem to not understand is that there is a moral and practical difference between the two. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Now you are just calling me a liar, which is funny because you have no fucking idea whether or not its true. Yep, I am. I do not believe your story for a second. Not only because the story itself is implausible, but because you’ve clearly demonstrated an inability to reason, maintain a coherent argument, or understand basic statistics and logic. Assuming you actually are a lawyer, and presumably above average intelligence, you likely have no problem being completely intellectually dishonest. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > When you applied to college, did you get unsolicited offers of acceptance to colleges with full financial aid? No? Well, I did, I got several of them. Actually, I did get a full scholarship to college. But thanks for playing though. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Rice, was the only one that was from a reasonably good school so I called them and they offered to show me around on their dime. When did I ever “correct” that? Do you realize all of this is being recorded. When you were initially called on your story you responded: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Now that I think about it the letter probably didn’t include the offer of a free plane ride but when I called them, they offered to fly me out (a couple of colleges offered to fly me to their campus but I didn’t really want to visit Texas) and when I asked more about it they said that it was my SATs. Now they may have been reluctant to tell me it was my race or my family income or geography (although I don’t know why they would have trouble getting applicants from NYC) but thats what they told me. [SNIP] > > Well like I said it was almost 30 years ago so I might be misremembering but I am pretty sure they offered me a full ride without my ever having even seen an application and I’m pretty sure they offered to fly me out if I was serious about attending, I certainly couldn’t have afforded to fly out on my own. Geez. It’s like talking to someone with a goldfish memory. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I have asked you time and time again why you think Asians are so deficient in areas outside of grades and SAT scores that it would justify this sort of disparity and your answer has been … YOU KNOW “SOFT CRITERIA”… GEEZ! And you, sticking to your habit of ignoring anything you don’t like, have ignored the fact that the academic index doesn’t really differentiate between scores like the ones we are talking about. That said, there doesn’t need to be any significant difference in the soft criteria. Furthermore, there was plenty of quantitative metrics not included in the study. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > He isn’t saying that discrimiantion is possible, he is saying that teh absence of discrimination is possible. No he is not. Read the goddamn quote: > [@](#): > > Because we don’t have access to all of the information that the admission office has access to, it is possible that the **influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light** if we had the full range of materials. He is not commenting on discrimination. He is saying that the role of, for example, SAT scores, may interact differently than we have modeled if we had all the data. That said, he stated he is confident that the data do not prove discrimination. The fact that you keep wanting to assume it does it you hangup. Let me ask you a question. If the data is so clear that there is discrimination against Asians, then why is the author so reticent to admit it? In fact, he goes out of his way to say it probably doesn’t happen in any systemic way. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We are comparing results based on objective critieria that are inexplicably skewed along racial lines and the answer we get is “soft criteria” It’s not inexplicable. I have explained it to you several times. The marginal utility of SAT scores drops as we approach 2400. Because of that, the expected benefits drop. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It goes from 8 to 6. I think you forgot to click the 10% when you changed the SAT scores. No I didn’t, and no it doesn’t. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > because numbers like SAT scores and GPA are NTO meaningless to admissions people. Why is it so hard for you to understand this. After a certain point, it doesn’t. This has been cited several times. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Or they already got most of this stuff out of their system by the time prop 209 was passed. Occam’s razor. More importantly, does it strike you as plausible at all that across a number of UC campuses, they were told to slowly phase out discrimination (over 2 years) lest they outed as bigots once the changeover comes. They would have had, at most 2 admissions cycles over which to complete this process. That strikes you as plausible? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think we are going to change each other’s minds because you take the lack of discrimination as an article of faith based on shit the alleged discriminators have said. You continue to give them the benefit of the doubt despite the knowledge that some of these institutions have discriminated in the recent past. Or because you are just wrong. As much as you want to bend, contort, and manipulate the data, there is very little proof of your claims. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/227 "2012-02-16T21:24:45Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Yes, it is a disparity. It is, however, not a “3 to 1” advantage. It’s extremely misleading language and you’ve been using it all throughout this thread, backing it up with further claims that indicate you indeed think it’s more than just mere “disparity.” So you disagree with the choice of words? That’s your argument? I used the word advantage instead of a more neutral disparity? > [@](#): > > They’re not irrelevant, and nobody has ever argued that. I was responding to Brickbacon’s use of the word. Take up your argument with him. > [@](#): > > What has been shown to you via evidence, and many times in this thread, is that scores matter but only up until a certain point, where marginal gains just do not matter all that much due to tail variance. Why does the academic index seem to indicate that there is a difference? > [@](#): > > Are you just ignoring the fact that scores lose their meaning at upper ranges? I imagine so, because it’s the only way you can continue arguing your position. The study was talking about scores in the 1300 to 1400 range. The three to one advantage occured at those levels. > [@](#): > > Just because you can quotemine papers from _over 20 years ago_ doesn’t exactly offer strong proof in today’s climate. If you have a more recent study, I’d like to see it. > [@](#): > > The reason why the belief of discrimination isn’t there is because there’s no strong data to support it. Then why do so many people think discrimination is there. And BTW, who believes that discrimination isn’t there. Espenshade doesn’t think his research is proof that it exists (he, like you thinks its possible taht Asians are so deficient on other areas that this disparity could exist without discrimination) but he never says that he doesn’t think it exists. > [@](#): > > Is it possible? Sure. But again, no proof. Yeah, and you don’t think that the study supports that possibility of discrimination? I bet people like you were denying discrimiantion in the 1980s right up until schools finally started admitting discrimination. > [@](#): > > 1. Scores aren’t super important at higher ends. Again, everyone at the Ivy level has good scores. And yet the academic index creates pretty big distinctions between 750 students and 800 students. [quote] 2. Diversity is emphasized.[/qutoe] And one vector of that diversity is race. > [@](#): > > 1. One possible explanation for potentially-disproportional clustering is homogenous data trends in soft criteria within a given race being selected against for the sake of diversity. Other than geography, what are these “soft criteria” in which Asians are so crippled? > [@](#): > > Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean you can ignore it and keep repeating your mantra. Pot calling kettle. > [@](#): > > Surprise, surprise. I have, actually. > > Answer: No, not really. Really because I have received the exact opposite answer from another college counselor. Why does her academic acalulator show a 40% gap in admission rates (90% versus 50%) for students taht score 800 versus 750? So is she full of shit or are you? > [@](#): > > I guess you must have totally glossed over explicit evidence such as [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14773256&postcount=206](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14773256&postcount=206) which I showed you earlier, to which you ignored. Sorry, I missed this. How could I argue with a blog by an MIT admissions counselor. Every school used to say the same thing and then we found out about the academic index calculator which shows that there is a difference in how colleges view a 750 student versus an 800 student. > [@](#): > > Here you are outright admitting that you are a crackpot because no amount of evidence will change your mind. > > Funny how you’ll cling to any bit of evidence, no matter how tenuous, from admissions officers YEARS ago that might be twisted to support your view, but when it comes to admissions officers of today with overwhelming evidence against your position, you ignore it all and claim that they’re not credible sources? If that’s not blatant confirmation bias, I don’t know what is. > > In other words, you don’t really care about what any citations have to say. You assume primary sources are basically lying to you and that your speculation, in absence of hard evidence, is the right conclusion. This is why I said earlier in this thread that I think you are a crackpot. It’s the same mentality the Obama-birthers have. You can show them ream after ream of evidence, but none if it is considered credible to them… but the moment they’ll see something that might support their warped frame of mind, suddenly it’s rock hard, irrefutable evidence. “It’s all a conspiracy,” etc etc etc. Pot calling kettle. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/228 "2012-02-16T21:39:15Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > If your supposition were correct, then we would not see the admissions numbers we saw at UCLA or Berkeley. That is why the data is in conflict. So you just ignoring the notion that discrimiantion may have been leeched from their system during the late 1980’s early 1990s? > [@](#): > > Because this is just elaborating on what he said before, that there is no proof of discrimination. Because he leaves on the possibility that there might be if they had more data is just common sense. He’s doing mroe than that. > [@](#): > > Because you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. Is this really such an alien concept to you? I can prove to you that a donut does not exist in my left front pocket. > [@](#): > > Wrong. Not TO disadvantage Asians. They said it DOES/MAY disadvantage Asians. There is an important difference. Specifically because we know affirmative action, and efforts to achieve financial diversity will lead to fewer Asians being admitted. Those programs were not implemented TO disadvantage Asians, that is just the result of trying to help someone else in a near zero-sum situation. What you seem to not understand is that there is a moral and practical difference between the two. What you don’t understand is that all of these things seemed to disadvantage Asian students without disadvantaging white students. Why does affirmative action disadvantage asian students without disadvantaging white students? > [@](#): > > Yep, I am. I do not believe your story for a second. Not only because the story itself is implausible, but because you’ve clearly demonstrated an inability to reason, maintain a coherent argument, or understand basic statistics and logic. Assuming you actually are a lawyer, and presumably above average intelligence, you likely have no problem being completely intellectually dishonest. reported. > [@](#): > > And you, sticking to your habit of ignoring anything you don’t like, have ignored the fact that the academic index doesn’t really differentiate between scores like the ones we are talking about. That said, there doesn’t need to be any significant difference in the soft criteria. Furthermore, there was plenty of quantitative metrics not included in the study. So in other words you thought you had a gotcha and I made you realize you screwed up. > [@](#): > > No he is not. Read the goddamn quote: you read it. > [@](#): > > That said, he stated he is confident that the data do not prove discrimination. He also says he understand why people might think it does. > [@](#): > > Asians, then why is the author so reticent to admit it? In fact, he goes out of his way to say it probably doesn’t happen in any systemic way. I don’t know. Why would professor at a school that is being sued and under investigation for discrimination be reticent to admit that discrimination exists? Perhaps because he doesn’t think he can prove it with enough certainty. > [@](#): > > No I didn’t, and no it doesn’t. What happens when you do it because I just tried it again and I got the same results. It goes from an 8 to a 6. > [@](#): > > after a certain point, it doesn’t. This has been cited several times. try that academic calculator again > [@](#): > > Occam’s razor. More importantly, does it strike you as plausible at all that across a number of UC campuses, they were told to slowly phase out discrimination (over 2 years) lest they outed as bigots once the changeover comes. They would have had, at most 2 admissions cycles over which to complete this process. That strikes you as plausible? Occam’s razor. All objective criteria shows a huge disparity. I think that Asian admission rates have increased significantly since the late 1980’s through the late 90’s > [@](#): > > Or because you are just wrong. As much as you want to bend, contort, and manipulate the data, there is very little proof of your claims. Right back at you. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/229 "2012-02-16T21:42:20Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Yep, I am. I do not believe your story for a second. Not only because the story itself is implausible, but because you’ve clearly demonstrated an inability to reason, maintain a coherent argument, or understand basic statistics and logic. Assuming you actually are a lawyer, and presumably above average intelligence, you likely have no problem being completely intellectually dishonest. You’re not allowed to call another poster a liar in Great Debates, and you’re not allowed to insult other posters. This is a formal warning: don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/230 "2012-02-16T21:44:30Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Here you are outright admitting that you are a crackpot because no amount of evidence will change your mind. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Pot calling kettle.[…] > So is she full of shit or are you? This isn’t appropriate either. Keep this kind of namecalling and bluster in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/231 "2012-02-16T22:07:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you disagree with the choice of words? That’s your argument? I used the word advantage instead of a more neutral disparity? Yes, Damuri, the words you use actually matter. A disparity does not imply advantage, and it’s not a trivial error to make. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why does the academic index seem to indicate that there is a difference? [http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/ivy-academic-index/](http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/ivy-academic-index/) The only reason I showed you the AI was to show you that hairs don’t get split. This is further substantiated by the link I just showed you. The AI is _just a rough heuristic tool_ built from correlations. By itself, it still doesn’t factor in a huge number of variables that are included in admission. It was probably a mistake to show it to you because you misinterpreted the results just like you misinterpreted the SAT results. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The study was talking about scores in the 1300 to 1400 range. The three to one advantage occured at those levels. We still talking Ivies, here? Those scores are below-average at the Ivy level and start tearing into greater proportions of groups such as recruited athletes, for which I would expect a vast majority to be non-Asian. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you have a more recent study, I’d like to see it. I don’t think you understand the concept of burden of proof. You’re the one claiming something exists (anti-Asian discrimination). The onus is therefore on you to prove that it exists. The onus is not on everyone else to prove a negative (which, in many cases, cannot be done). There has been, however, lots of evidence to suggest that your claims are baseless, and there is no evidence in your favor directly indicating your position. There have already been references to material in this thread that indicate no proof of such discrimination. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Then why do so many people think discrimination is there. And BTW, who believes that discrimination isn’t there. Espenshade doesn’t think his research is proof that it exists (he, like you thinks its possible taht Asians are so deficient on other areas that this disparity could exist without discrimination) but he never says that he doesn’t think it exists. Fallacious logic. Even if a lot of people believe something, doesn’t make it true. I’m not arguing that Asians are necessarily deficient in other areas. I’m explaining to you that it’s a possibility if diversity aims to select against homogenous trends within clusters (I gave examples of some possible trends). We don’t have access to all that data, so all we can do is speculate. The point is that speculation != proof. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah, and you don’t think that the study supports that possibility of discrimination? I bet people like you were denying discrimiantion in the 1980s right up until schools finally started admitting discrimination. It’s hardly compelling evidence to point to discrimination occurring years ago (and even so, not the kind of discrimination you’re trying to prove now), when admissions were totally different, and then imply that it’s still going on now, without any proof. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And one vector of that diversity is race. Correct. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Other than geography, what are these “soft criteria” in which Asians are so crippled? Nobody’s arguing this. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Pot calling kettle. If I or brickbacon sound repetitive it is because we are giving you evidence, repeatedly, and you’re ignoring it, repeatedly. You’re just repeating the same things even when explicit evidence is shown to discredit your stance. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” - Keynes > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Really because I have received the exact opposite answer from another college counselor. Why does her academic acalulator show a 40% gap in admission rates (90% versus 50%) for students taht score 800 versus 750? > > So is she full of shit or are you? Again, you’re looking at a result and misinterpreting the causal factors. Students that tend to be high-achievers tend to have scores and EC’s go hand-in-hand. That combination is the powerhouse that gets them admitted at higher rates. What you’re doing is naively looking at results that are derived from a combination of factors and then tunnel-visioning on only one metric and seeing how it changes at various levels, and then concluding that there’s some significant difference between two particular levels. You can’t do that. You need more data so you can adjust for different variables. In other words, you need all the relevant variables involved in the admissions process so you can normalize/baseline them and be able to measure the relative effect of the SAT with respect to every other variable held equal. Simply looking at SAT by itself is woefully insufficient and only gives a rough, incomplete view of the story. But of course you will ignore this fundamental concept of statistics, too. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Sorry, I missed this. How could I argue with a blog by an MIT admissions counselor. Every school used to say the same thing and then we found out about the academic index calculator which shows that there is a difference in how colleges view a 750 student versus an 800 student. Again, you ask for cites, and then when cites are provided from primary sources, you dismiss them and continue to repeat your flawed interpretation of other metrics. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Pot calling kettle. No. Again, the onus is on you to support why something is true. You have not done this. However, what you have done is prove that you aren’t going to listen to anything that contradicts your view. Instead, you’ll naively hook onto anything you can use that can be abused to fit your warped definition of anti-Asian discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/232 "2012-02-16T22:13:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This isn’t appropriate either. Keep this kind of namecalling and bluster in the Pit. Now this is just silly, IMO. Damuri explicitly and outright said that he doesn’t trust primary-source evidence (i.e. top-uni admissions officers cited). I need not do much more than quote! I understand why debate forums have rules against calling people trolls and calling them liars, but these rules also make it way too easy for people to argue with incredible levels of intellectual dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/233 "2012-02-16T22:16:02Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Damuri explicitly and outright said that he doesn’t trust primary-source evidence. I need not do much more than quote! Then just quote. “Crackpot” is a personal insult, and I don’t think allowing people to call each other names like that is going to improve the quality of debates here. So please don’t do it again. And if you have any other thoughts on the moderating, please start a thread in ATMB. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/234 "2012-02-16T22:20:36Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Then just quote. “Crackpot” is a personal insult, and I don’t think allowing people to call each other names like that is going to improve the quality of debates here. So please don’t do it again. And if you have any other thoughts on the moderating, please start a thread in ATMB. Well, a less-pejorative synonym for “crackpot,” then. Someone who refuses to acknowledge counter-evidence, no matter how consistent or numerous such citations may be. I’m not sure why these kind of activities are not against the rules in this forum. I’ll make that thread when I get the chance. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/235 "2012-02-16T22:54:54Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Yes, Damuri, the words you use actually matter. > > A disparity does not imply advantage, and it’s not a trivial error to make. People have used both terms in articles. They have referred to it as both a disparity and a disadvantage. I think you’re splitting hairs because your argument is so weak. > [@](#): > > The only reason I showed you the AI was to show you that hairs don’t get split. And yet it turns out they do split hairs. Or did you miss the aprt where I show you that 800 SAT scores result in a AI of 8 and 750 SAT scores result in an AI of 6? Or did you miss the aprt where Michele Hernandez says that this is the difference between a 90% acceptance rate and a 50% acceptance rate. > [@](#): > > We still talking Ivies, here? Those scores are below-average at the Ivy level and start tearing into greater proportions of groups such as recruited athletes, for which I would expect a vast majority to be non-Asian. The study was done back when we were on the 1600 point scale. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you understand the concept of burden of proof. You’re the one claiming something exists (anti-Asian discrimination). The onus is therefore on you to prove that it exists. The onus is not on everyone else to prove a negative (which, in many cases, cannot be done). There has been, however, lots of evidence to suggest that your claims are baseless, and there is no evidence in your favor directly indicating your position. I understand burden of proof and I think I have met the burden with the facts from teh study. You seem to think that the burden of proof requires that I make an airtight case before you have to offer a rebuttal or that your rebuttal can be conjecture because I have not provided conclusive proof. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing that Asians are necessarily deficient in other areas. I’m explaining to you that it’s a possibility if diversity aims to select against homogenous trends within clusters (I gave examples of some possible trends). We don’t have access to all that data, so all we can do is speculate. The point is that speculation != proof. So far you are the one doing the speculating. You try to imply that Asians are deficient in some way without actually coming out adn saying theya re deficient in some way. Its almost as if you want to say something that you think should be obvious to everyone but you don’t want to be the one to say it. > [@](#): > > It’s hardly compelling evidence to point to discrimination occurring years ago (and even so, not the kind of discrimination you’re trying to prove now), when admissions were totally different, and then imply that it’s still going on now, without any proof. It does prove that you can’t trust admissions committees when they say “nope, no discrimiantion here” And considering that your “proof” consists largely of conjecture and stuff that admissions committees have said. well… [quote] Correct. [quote] So. Wait. You agree taht race is a factor. Do you agree that race works against Asians? Because if you do, we don’t disagree. > [@](#): > > Nobody’s arguing this. Then how the fuck do you account for the difference? Are you saying that small differences in “soft criteria” accounts for the rather large disparity in acceptance rates? > [@](#): > > If I or brickbacon sound repetitive it is because we are giving you evidence, repeatedly, and you’re ignoring it, repeatedly. You’re just repeating the same things even when explicit evidence is shown to discredit your stance. Right back at you. > [@](#): > > Again, you’re looking at a result and misinterpreting the causal factors. Says you. I think you are ignoring obvious implications. > [@](#): > > Again, you ask for cites, and then when cites are provided from primary sources, you dismiss them and continue to repeat your flawed interpretation of other metrics. You mean the blog? > [@](#): > > No. Again, the onus is on you to support why something is true. You have not done this. However, what you have done is prove that you aren’t going to listen to anything that contradicts your view. Instead, you’ll naively hook onto anything you can use that can be abused to fit your warped definition of anti-Asian discrimination. It seems like you won’t believe that discrimiantion exists unless colleges do another mea culpa like they did 20 years ago. We’ll see what the federal investigation uncovers. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/236 "2012-02-16T23:36:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > People have used both terms in articles. They have referred to it as both a disparity and a disadvantage. I think you’re splitting hairs because your argument is so weak. Well obviously an advantage would imply a disparity, but not the other way around. What we have here is a disparity, but not necessarily an advantage. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And yet it turns out they do split hairs. Or did you miss the aprt where I show you that 800 SAT scores result in a AI of 8 and 750 SAT scores result in an AI of 6? > > Or did you miss the aprt where Michele Hernandez says that this is the difference between a 90% acceptance rate and a 50% acceptance rate. Dude, I don’t know why you keep ignoring things. Did you not read where I told you _I have spoken with her before_? They do _not_ split hairs. Go find me one admissions officer at a top university who claims that they do put great emphasis on the difference between, say, a 750 and an 800. They _don’t_. Every admissions officer is fairly consistent on this point. They just do not care about splitting hairs when the difference between a 750 and an 800 can amount to maybe 2 questions. I even showed you that huge breakdown earlier where the difference between a 2400 and a 2100 can amount to just 1-2 questions per section. Admissions officers have said, over and over again, that they are not going to take those couple extra questions in higher regard than\* four years\* of grades, extracurriculars, essay ability, awards, recs, etc. The SAT matters a lot less than you think. If anything, I’d say they care a bit more about SAT2’s, especially tests like Math 2C where 800’s are a dime a dozen in the Ivy League (800 is something like 90th percentile, but this is due to self-selection bias of course). The SAT is a screening tool of sorts. If a kid has all A’s in his math/calc courses but gets a 620 Math and 650 IIC, that’s a red flag. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The study was done back when we were on the 1600 point scale. Yes, and my response was made with this in mind. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I understand burden of proof and I think I have met the burden with the facts from teh study. You seem to think that the burden of proof requires that I make an airtight case before you have to offer a rebuttal or that your rebuttal can be conjecture because I have not provided conclusive proof. You say you understand burden of proof and yet you’re asking people to prove a negative. Burden of proof means the onus is on the person claiming the existence of something. And yes, if you’re going to make an accusation, you need strong proof. Speculation fueled by a misinterpretation of statistics and data is not even _adequate_ proof, let alone strong, let alone airtight. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So far you are the one doing the speculating. You try to imply that Asians are deficient in some way without actually coming out adn saying theya re deficient in some way. Its almost as if you want to say something that you think should be obvious to everyone but you don’t want to be the one to say it. Now you are just making things up. I have never said that. I have never said that Asians were “deficient” in any way. You’re the only one in this thread, to my knowledge, that has been making that assumption of the other side. Again, word choice actually matters here. There is a difference between filtering against a group because of a perceived inferiority and filtering against a group because homogeneity does not mix well with diversity. If there are homogeneous trends within the Asian applicants, diversity-based holistic admissions will not work in their favor. The point here is that there are MANY different possible variables contributing to a particular set of results, and you don’t have access to those variables. Thus, you don’t have the proof. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It does prove that you can’t trust admissions committees when they say “nope, no discrimiantion here” > > And considering that your “proof” consists largely of conjecture and stuff that admissions committees have said. well… Like I said, if you’re going to admit that you don’t even trust admissions officers when they tell you how they admit people, then why ask for citations? The only people who have access to the data you need are the very people you apparently don’t trust. Either way, you do not have definitive proof of anti-Asian discrimination, again, because you do not have access to nearly enough data to make that claim. SAT and race are insufficient metrics for basing your conclusions. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So. Wait. You agree taht race is a factor. Do you agree that race works against Asians? Because if you do, we don’t disagree. Of course race is a factor, but I do not agree that race necessarily works against Asians unless you happen to also have an application profile that is too homogenous with respect to the race variable. But this can also be said for people of a particular state, or a particular EC club, or who write a particular type of essay, etc. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Then how the fuck do you account for the difference? Are you saying that small differences in “soft criteria” accounts for the rather large disparity in acceptance rates? Sigh. I want you to actually listen this time. What you think is a disparity in acceptance rates is NOT a disparity in acceptance rates. All you’re doing is holding one variable constant at various levels and then looking at how race acceptance metrics change. _You cannot do this_. The answer to your question: There are _MANY_ variables that account for the disparity. You don’t necessarily know most of them. You need more data in order to further segment clusters and normalize variables against each other. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Right back at you. No, it’s not “right back at me.” You’re not providing proof. You think you are, but you’re not. It’s already been explained why your “proof” is not so. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Says you. I think you are ignoring obvious implications. Again, you’re looking at a relationship and assuming it means something while other evidence (which you’re ignoring) shows why your assumptions are flawed. You think it’s an “obvious implication” but it’s really just a brash conclusion wrung out of incomplete data. Admissions decisions are based on so many variables and you’re only picking out a couple and crying discrimination. Do you not see the problem with this? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You mean the blog? Yes, the blog is one of them. It’s written by an admissions officer who has actually gone through the experience of having access to all the data and literally making decisions of admission/rejection. Do I really need to explain to you why an admissions officer is a primary source, here? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It seems like you won’t believe that discrimiantion exists unless colleges do another mea culpa like they did 20 years ago. We’ll see what the federal investigation uncovers. And you’d be right, here, unless of course we had access to a lot more data than we do now. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/237 "2012-02-17T00:31:49Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you just ignoring the notion that discrimiantion may have been leeched from their system during the late 1980’s early 1990s? What notion? You just made that up to justify your preconceived conclusions. This is why people do not work backwards from conclusions. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What you don’t understand is that all of these things seemed to disadvantage Asian students without disadvantaging white students. Why does affirmative action disadvantage asian students without disadvantaging white students? It doesn’t. In fact, that is the basis for the negative action argument. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > He also says he understand why people might think it does. And he explains why he thinks that’s wrong, and the reasons it’s wrong. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t know. Why would professor at a school that is being sued and under investigation for discrimination be reticent to admit that discrimination exists? Perhaps because he doesn’t think he can prove it with enough certainty. Are you accusing him of being a liar? Maybe you should report it to the government investigators. I am sure they would want to know. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > All objective criteria shows a huge disparity. Geez. It doesn’t become more true just because you repeat it over and over again. I wasted enough time with this seeing as you are content to pretend you have evidence to back up your claim. Since you have no intention of reading what is actually said, or learning anything, I am gonna bow out. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/238 "2012-02-17T04:38:48Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Like I said, if you’re going to admit that you don’t even trust admissions officers when they tell you how they admit people, then why ask for citations? The only people who have access to the data you need are the very people you apparently don’t trust. Either way, you do not have definitive proof of anti-Asian discrimination, again, because you do not have access to nearly enough data to make that claim. SAT and race are insufficient metrics for basing your conclusions. So you’re saying that if (based on a huge disparity in admissions) I think someone is discriminating, then I really need to take their word if they tell me they are not? And its true I don’t have access to the data but Espenshade did and while he says that his study doesn’t PROVE discrimination it does show this disparity. A disparity which doesn’t seem to alarm you at all, in fact it doesn’t even seem to raise an eyebrow with you.. Of course race is a factor, but I do not agree that race necessarily works against Asians unless you happen to also have an application profile that is too homogenous with respect to the race variable. But this can also be said for people of a particular state, or a particular EC club, or who write a particular type of essay, etc. > [@](#): > > What you think is a disparity in acceptance rates is NOT a disparity in acceptance rates. All you’re doing is holding one variable constant at various levels and then looking at how race acceptance metrics change. _You cannot do this_. Why not? Why is that information not informative? > [@](#): > > The answer to your question: There are _MANY_ variables that account for the disparity. You don’t necessarily know most of them. You need more data in order to further segment clusters and normalize variables against each other. Yeah I know, those “soft criteria” :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You think it’s an “obvious implication” but it’s really just a brash conclusion wrung out of incomplete data. Admissions decisions are based on so many variables and you’re only picking out a couple and crying discrimination. Do you not see the problem with this? No, I don’t. I am not a voice in the wilderness saying this stuff. A lot of people are. There is enough there for the federal government to launch a federal investigation into this. Yes, the blog is one of them. It’s written by an admissions officer who has actually gone through the experience of having access to all the data and literally making decisions of admission/rejection. Do I really need to explain to you why an admissions officer is a primary source, here? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/239 "2012-02-17T04:53:25Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > What notion? You just made that up to justify your preconceived conclusions. This is why people do not work backwards from conclusions. Wait. So you’re allowed to come up with alternative rationales for why the data doesn’t support your position but I’m not? I mean I know that the whole investigation of Berkeley thing might not have actually resulted in any shift but its at least as plausible as your theories on why the disparity doesn’t actually mean anything. > [@](#): > > And he explains why he thinks that’s wrong, and the reasons it’s wrong. I believe the exact words are: “Espenshade said in an interview that he does not think his data establish this bias. He noted that while his formulas are notably more complete than typical test score comparisons by race and ethnicity, he doesn’t have the “softer variables,” such as teacher and high school counselor recommendations, essays and lists of extracurricular activities. It is possible, he said, that such factors explain some of the apparent SAT and ACT disadvantage facing Asian applicants. At the same time, he said he understood that these numbers would certainly not reassure Asian applicants or those who believe they are suffering discrimination. “I understand the worry of Asian students, but do I have a smoking gun? No,” he said.” Read more: [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite#ixzz1mbzChjYj](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite#ixzz1mbzChjYj) Inside Higher Ed [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite) Isn’t he saying here that he understands the concerns of Asian students about discrimination but that he doesn’t have a smoking gun. That he can’t PROVE discrimination? I don’t think he was explaining it away, and if he is he seems to be saying that he is only explaining away SOME of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636.md?page=11)