Then your analogy has no relevance to the matter at hand.
Nope, it is clear that it does, it just so happens that you do not like it, that is all.
You gonna answer any of the questions I asked you?
Moderating
It is possible to disagree with something without referring to it as dumb, or saying what the fuck are you talking about, or any of the sniping i’m seeing. I’ve picked out a couple of examples above, this is not an exhaustive list.
If you can’t be civil you will be warned.
Moderating
This in particular is wholly inappropriate for this forum. This is an official warning.
Those are just leading questions with the intention of muddling the waters. As the courts reported earlier:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/3-key-passages-from-the-harvard-decision/
“SFFA has not shown that any applicant was referred to by these types of descriptors because of their race or that there was any sort of systemic reliance on racial stereotypes. The docket binder that contains notes to the effect that several Asian American applicants were ‘quiet’ or ‘flat’ also includes notes for white, African American, and Hispanic students who were also described as ‘quiet,’ ‘shy,’ or ‘understated.’ In the absence of a pattern or a more pervasive use of stereotypes, the court accepts that there are Asian American applicants who were ‘quiet’ and that the use of this word … would be truthful and accurate rather than reflective of impermissible stereotyping.”
During the trial, Harvard’s lawyers repeatedly noted that SFFA did not call a single applicant as a witness.
The court found no evidence of “an individual applicant whom it can determine was discriminated against or intentionally stereotyped by an admissions officer, including by the use of the words ‘standard strong,’” a term admissions officers used to describe some applicants.
Stories matter.
In a trial dominated by statistical analyses, personal stories seemed to matter a lot, too. In a footnote, Burroughs noted the testimony of Ruth J. Simmons, president of Prairie View A&M University and, as a former president of Brown, the first African American president of an Ivy League university. Simmons’s father was a janitor and her mother was a maid, yet she got her master’s and doctorate from Harvard.
Burroughs wrote that the benefit to students of a diverse campus is “they get a better education, a deeper education, and a truer education to deal with what they’re going to have to deal with in life.”
Burroughs called that testimony “perhaps the most cogent and compelling testimony presented at this trial.” In her conclusion, the judge linked the benefits of diversity to Harvard’s selection process. “The eloquent testimony captures what is important about diversity in education,” she wrote. “For purposes of this case, at least for now, ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race-conscious admissions.”
This is literally the contradiction and tap-dancing that is being referred to.
Link 1: Harvard pinky-swears that we don’t take race into account in admissions at all. We don’t use “well-rounded” as code for “white” (even though everyone, on all sides of the discussion, knows that it actually is) and we don’t have a numerical penalty for being Asian or a numerical bonus for being black (even though every person who has been involved in elite college admissions has attested that this is how it works and everyone, on all sides of the discussion, knows that they are telling the truth).
Link 2: It’s essential that we continue to use “race-conscious admissions” for reasons X Y and Z.
It cannot be both, no matter how much Harvard, Yale, the Virginia Department of Education, Ruth Simmons, or you insist otherwise. It can’t be one at some times (i.e. in some posts) and the other at others. This is basic logic. By definition you cannot coherently argue for “X does not exist” and “this is why I think it is good that X exists.”
Uh, in the testimony for the court it was clear that race was not denied to be a factor. There was one item the claimants concentrated with, but the courts did not see it like they wanted: “His response to the deposition question appears to have been a misstatement, and the Court concludes that Mr. Looby meant to indicate at his deposition that he would consider the academic rating and race in assigning the overall rating, not the personal rating.”
Here is what you miss, at Harvard and other institutions, race is just one factor, not the only one as the claimants, well, claimed.
And that only shows that you do not know what a factor is. It is only one item in the way Harvard looked at prospects. As the judge put it:
Harvard’s admissions process survives strict scrutiny. It serves a compelling, permissible and substantial interest, and it is necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve diversity and the academic benefits that flow from diversity. Consistent with the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored program, applicants are afforded a holistic, individualized review, diversity is understood to embrace a broad range of qualities and experiences, and race is used as a plus factor, in a flexible, non-mechanical way. See Fisher, 136 S. Ct. at 2214; Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337–38. The Admissions program also satisfies the other principles articulated in Fisher II in that it does not have a quota or use a fixed percentage and all applicants compete for all available seats. Further, Harvard has met its burden of showing that there are not currently any available or workable race-neutral alternatives.
Every purported goal of increasing “diversity” in college admissions can be achieved by giving some preferences to black and Hispanic applicants, but by far the major effect of the program is to transfer spots from more qualified Asians to less qualified whites. The idea that people in the United States just meet too many Asians and need to meet more white people to understand how the diverse and well-rounded world works is laughable on its face. The fact that anyone can hear an Ivy League school deny that it has an Asian quota without bursting out laughing is a testimony to their personal restraint in the face of an obvious lie that literally no one on any side of the debate actually believes.
As noted, you are wrong, the judge did not agree and there was no need to think the ones involved are lying.
If you don’t like the question, could you summarise what you believe in your own words? After looking at the evidence, it’s hard to understand how the judge came to the conclusion she did. But I gather the case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.
IMO it’s immoral to reject a candidate solely on the basis of their race (racism is bad, kids!) Allowing for poverty and deprivation, yes, taking account of people’s life histories can matter in determining potential - though by university level only a limited amount of catching up is possible. But people should be treated as individuals, not members of a group to be balanced with quotas. How much diversity is there anyway in admitting mostly rich people of every race?
I’d like to see what kind of results the students admitted under this system are getting. @damuriajashi, is it possible to find out what grades Harvard students are achieving based on race? I don’t know enough about the US university system to know what to look for.
PS. Is eliminating family reunification visas racist, @GIGObuster?
And they didn’t do that. Again you ignore that it was just one factor they looked at.
The evidence showed that they did avoid quotas.
It is now, the best-laid plans of mice and racists often go awry. IOW the racists that proposed that did not expect that it would end diversifying America more, while progressives expected it. so eliminating it now is due to the current racism of the current administration.
If your store said we will only allow each person to buy one bottle of lysol, that’s OK.
If your store says we have 100 bottles of lysol and we will sell 25 of them to whites, 25 of them to blacks, 25 of them to hispanics and 25 of them to asians.
You can only justify this attitude if you don’t see asians as individuals, if you want to split people up into racia tribes and distribute resources by tribe. The 26th asian that gets denied lysol on account of race does not benefit in any way from the 25 asians that got lysol before. If he got in line first, why would you give the lysol to someone else behind him on account of race?
What you are effectively doing is exactly what the racists do when they call asians “voracious,” “selfish” or “greedy” You are effectively accusing asians of hoarding opportunity that they don’t actually need.
It is entirely within your power to sell more disinfectant at other stores.
Even without AA hispanics are not stopped from going to elite schools (we see this at uc berkeley and ucla). Just that there is a bit less. The rest of your post is hard to understand.
I’m glad you have so much faith in the courts. I hope you remember that when this case gets to the supreme court.
Janelle wong and professor park are both supporters of anti-asian racism, they have made a cottage industry out of being the asian faces in favor of anti-asian discrimination. Asians are capable of being racist against asians just as anyone can be racist against their own racial group.
Can you do a word search for the words ignorant, ignorance?
What is the purpose of the sarcasm in post 261?
Once again, we see a pronounced tilt in moderating towards the wokest elements of the board. Kid gloves for them, strict scrutiny for everyone else.
Gigo frequently posts word salad that might make sense in his head but is indecipherable to others in the context of the post he is replying to. That is where the WTF are you talking about comes from. Noone knows wtf he he is talking about.
Harvard has a history of lying about this.
They lied about it when they did it to jews.
There is statistical evidence they are lying about it now.
And that shows that you ignore the limits when convenient so as to accuse others of racism.
Your line here does imply that Yale and specially the school in the OP invite more students that it is feasible. Also you also willfully ignore that the main issue is the actual makeup of the area where the school is located. Again you willfully ignored that the issue was the lack of Black and Hispanic representation from the community. That is why I also mentioned that if the reverse was the case. If there were more Asians in a neighborhood and the store with shortages constantly came up with ways to serve more Black clients then one would say not only that there was unfairness there from the owners, but also a very bad business decision.
I will remember that the court will become more dismissive of poor and Hispanic and blacks thanks the racist in the white house, the one that you even agree is one.
Do you have a cite for this?
Again, not what the judge and others before concluded (here you are indeed ignoring that the judge relied on lots of precedent)