<p>Asians have the highest percentage in most university, but in the real world is mostly whites that have the CEO chair fill. I do not see many Asians driving around in ferraris as i see whites.
Asians concentrate to hard on one aspect of life and practicably fail at other aspects, social, artistic, monetary. I don’t think there is even 1 asian in forbes list.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting article answering the question I posed.</p>
<p>[Why</a> Minority Students Don’t Graduate From College - Newsweek](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/minority-report.html]Why”>Why Minority Students Don't Graduate From College)</p>
<p>The graduation rate for AA, NA and Hispanics lags far behind graduation rates for whites and Asians. Not the case at HYP reportedly because they cherry pick and many of their blacks are from the Caribbean and Africa. But it is the case at Bowdoin and Colby, the colleges featured and at the ‘public ivies’, UW-Madison is mentioned. </p>
<p>There’s an example of Washington & Lee bringing up their black graduation rate through special assistance to the black students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only solution is to change the last name as well. Gary Locke, the outgoing US Secretary of Commerce, in-coming US Ambassador to China, former Governor of Washington state and Yale graduate, uses Locke as his last name instead of Luo or Lo. See what happened to him?</p>
<p>
Yeah, that’s what they said, but everybody knows better. I mean, everybody, including the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>As for geographical diversity, Asians are unevenly distributed across the United States. In many states, they make up only about 1% or less of the population, and in many others it is substantially less than the nationwide average of about 5%. That includes some very highly populated states, too. Hawaii has something like 400,000 Asian citizens. Idaho–with roughly the same population as Hawaii–has maybe 17,000. Those are extremes, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…meaning…what?</p>
<p>Meaning that the Supreme Court provided a fig leaf for colleges to continue to do what they had been doing all along. They just have to phrase it in terms of diversity. I assume this was done as some kind of compromise by the Justices. But you shouldn’t let something like this fool you into thinking that it represents a principle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. Since 1978, nothing has changed. You have eight Justices who think that “diversity” is BS and too weak. Four of them think reparations and social justice should be the rationales for “affirmative action.” The other four think “diversity” is an absolute joke, completely unworthy of being a “compelling” interest, and further believe that “affirmative action” is outright discrimination. One thinks that “diversity” is acceptable but with limits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think Lowell didn’t do those calculations for Jews in Western states? As anti-Semitic as he was, I’m sure he did. It didn’t work. His plan failed spectacularly. What makes you think it wouldn’t be the same for Asians? What makes you think geographic preferences won’t benefit the 17,000 Asians in Idaho, like it benefited the Jews of 1920s Idaho?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, yes, that is what I thought you meant. I thought O’Connor’s reasoning was ingenious, actually. Because to me, it is a “principle” worth defending; that representatives of every race in the U.S. should have a realistic shot at all elite facets of American life and American college students should be encouraged to know what it is like to consort with all races. It feels like the <em>right</em> thing to do.</p>
<p>The interesting thing is that thus far, no one has taken the initiative to seriously refute the Court’s justification for upholding the practice (i.e., racially diverse learning environment benefits all).</p>
<p>Well, maybe the 17,000 Asians of Idaho are the best students in the state. I suppose it’s possible.</p>
<p>As for the Supreme Court, what you [fabrizio] describe was the situation in Bakke, but the issue was addressed again more recently. In Grutter, the Court (five justices joining) ruled that diversity is a compelling interest. They spelled out just what the school has to say and do for their approach to pass muster–essentially they have to say that they are interested in diversity, that race only provides a plus, and that each applicant is considered individually without quotas or separate tracks. In other words, it’s OK as long as it’s done in a black box.</p>
<p>Justice Scalia, in dissent, argued that the whole thing was a sham to justify proportional admissions. And it was. That’s pretty much shown by Justice O’Connor’s statement that it should be unnecessary after 25 years. That makes no sense if the interest is in diversity, but lots of sense if what’s going on is reparation for past discrimination. The Court also thought it was OK for a school to try to obtain “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities, as long as the purpose was stated as the educational value of diversity.</p>
<p>This kind of Supreme Court decision is hardly unusual–it represents a compromise in order to get enough votes to decide the issue. The real principle is hidden, though.</p>
<p>
Indeed, it would be very interesting to watch the NFL and NBA teams with 66% whites, 16% Hispanics, 13% Africans and 5% Asians. However, I doubt it will ever happen.</p>
<p>^And 50% women, too.</p>
<p>^^ Sports teams could provide Affirmative Action, but they don’t want to. They aren’t trying to create a “well rounded and diverse” football team.</p>
<p>Good point, woeishe. Its not like sports teams are trying to educate their players about the world they live in. They are only trying to win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t represent my racial classification; I represent myself. The view that we are representatives of our tribes stems from viewing people as members of groups instead of as individuals. It’s a fundamental difference, again, in how we see the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why refute it when the evidence to back it up is weak?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me be clear that I don’t espouse an Asian supremacist view. I’m asking only why you think what happened for Jews wouldn’t happen to Asians?</p>
<p>Lowell’s anti-Semitism was repugnant, but the man wasn’t an idiot. I’m sure he ran “the calculations” before attempting to reduce Jewish enrollment via geographic preferences. I’m sure he concluded that it was unlikely for the plan to fail. But fail it did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In Grutter, the breakdown was</p>
<p>The Four In Favor of Affirmative Action
Justice Ginsburg
Justice Stevens
Justice Breyer
Justice Souter</p>
<p>The Four Against Racial Preferences
Chief Justice Rehnquist
Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas
Justice Kennedy</p>
<p>The One In Favor of “Diversity” With Restrictions
Justice O’Connor</p>
<p>I accept your point, however, that the four in favor may have approved of “diversity” more than their predecessors did in 1978, and I note the curiousity that Justice Stevens switched groups, as he was part of the “against” camp in Bakke.</p>
<p>I think “diversity” as a compelling state interest was an absolute joke, a point expressed more articulately by Justices Scalia and Thomas in their respective dissents. I also think that “critical mass” is an even bigger joke. I commend Bollinger’s attorney for convincing Justice O’Connor that “critical mass” isn’t a quota when it so obviously is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How else will the decision be overturned? And if diversity is such a joke, why hasn’t anyone taken the initiative to challenge it?</p>
<p>That initiative has taken place in the form of a voter referendum. The voters of Michigan overwhelmingly passed an anti-affirmative action law a few years ago, akin to California’s. Voters want their state institutions to be unbiased and admit based on merit, not race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even though voters want unbiased admissions, the UC’s have used sleight of hand to work racial preferences back into admissions decisions.</p>
<p>[Racial</a> Games - UCLA’s Biased Admissions Process - Chapter 3](<a href=“http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/racialgames3.html]Racial”>http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/racialgames3.html)</p>
<p>Quote from Bruin Alumni article above:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The entire 5 page article is quite illuminating, and should be of interest to those participating in this thread.
[Racial</a> Games: UCLA’s Biased Admissions Process - Chapter 1](<a href=“http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/racialgames1.html]Racial”>http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/racialgames1.html)</p>
<p>^ Out! Out damned spot! </p>
<p>Wasn’t that year they had more than 100 black freshman? I think it was 102.</p>
<p>I know. Even ONE “unqualified” student is too many.</p>
<p>I hope it helps to know my D wasn’t one of them (in 2008). She didn’t get in, even though most of her “numbers” where better than the UCLA average. </p>
<p>Yay! Another win!</p>
<p>I honestly figured urm without adversity equals zilch. I can live with that. The people have spoken!</p>
<p>No one ever seems to have an answer for this … Where do the deserving Asians whose seats were taken away by those undeserving blacks and Hispanics wind up going? I’m serious. Where do they wind up?</p>