Higher ed unites against Asian students in Supreme Court’s Harvard discrimination case

[Kamaji]

Higher ed unites against Asian students in Supreme Court’s Harvard discrimination case

By William A. Jacobson and Johanna E. Markind
August 3, 2022

The dirty little secret of higher-ed admissions is that achieving a desired “diverse” racial mix means discriminating against Asian applicants — or at least, secret until Students for Fair Admissions exposed it.

The higher-ed establishment is brazenly defending its race-conscious admissions in dozens of amicus briefs just filed in the US Supreme Court opposing SFFA’s discrimination suits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. It’s terrified the cases, which the court just announced it will hear in October, could spell the end of racial affirmative action.

The statistics are shocking. As SFFA noted in its Harvard petition, “an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”

Such unequal treatment followed the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger permitting schools’ temporary, limited use of race as one of many factors for the desired educational objective of viewpoint diversity. Harvard and other schools have used this loophole to drive de facto illegal racial quotas, using admissions subterfuges like personal scores and a “holistic” approach reminiscent of the methodologies Harvard developed a century ago to limit Jewish enrollment.

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/higher-ed-vs-asian-students-in-supreme-courts-harvard-discrimination-case/?dicbo=v2-ebac3c455d0adbc1d51c8ef019957112

[Kamaji]

“an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”

That is the essence of racial privilege.

Black Privilege is alive and well in academia.

[PeteS in CA]

Between academia's racism and large cities giving lip-service or less to fighting ant-Asian violence - most perps are not whites - Asians who usually just want to lead quiet lives may become increasingly active, and may find Dems/Progs enabling the Anti-Asian racism and the Anti-Asian violence (different phenomena, same enablers).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That is the essence of racial privilege.

Black Privilege is alive and well in academia.

Racists believe to eradicate racism one must be racist.

Paradox
A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion

[Kamaji]

Between academia's racism and large cities giving lip-service or less to fighting ant-Asian violence - most perps are not whites - Asians who usually just want to lead quiet lives may become increasingly active, and may find Dems/Progs enabling the Anti-Asian racism and the Anti-Asian violence (different phenomena, same enablers).

Let's hope they bring that epiphany to their voting habits as well.

[Fishrrman]

kamaji observes:
"That is the essence of racial privilege.
Black Privilege is alive and well in academia."

But not for much longer, if the Asians win this case.
Which they will, if the current Court is as amenable to ending affirmative action as it was to ending Roe v. Wade.

The Asians v Harvard case will be the most important decision rendered by The Court in the 2022-23 term. I'm gonna make the prediction that even though the oral arguments are being heard in October, the decision on the case won't come down until the Court's final week next year.

Not since Taxman v. Piscataway (NJ) School Board** has there been an affirmative action case before the Court with the potential of overturning the "entire apple cart" and putting Harvard and the university system (and perhaps the entire USA) OUT OF the A.A. business. I would hope the Asians' attorneys have been carefully chosen and have their case well prepared.

** Wait! Stop right there! Who was "Taxman", you're wondering...
Sharon Taxman had the most ironclad case of reverse discrimination to ever be brought before the Court -- she was told point blank that she was denied the position she sought [even though better qualified] because she was white and the other applicant was black. Everyone -- including the left -- knew she was going to win the case, and with the win, affirmative action would be struck down and rendered unconstitutional by the Court.

But... Ms. Taxman "had her price", so to speak, and sold her cause (and the injustice to all whites) down the river for 30 pieces of silver. Well, actually, it was more $$$ than that, but she still "sold out cheap". The "civil rights community" put up several hundred thousand dollars and offered it to her to withdraw the case from being heard by the Court -- which she did, only days before the oral arguments had been scheduled.

And that's why we still HAVE affirmative action in the USA today.

[Hoodat]

Democrats  -  Opposing Equal Protection since 1836.