Sure, some people knew their place back then, right? The problem is talking about the problem, not the actual problem, if we don’t mention it everything goes away… 
@OHMomof2 I was asking specifically about the Asian lawsuits, which are of interest now to the DOJ, not Fisher or other past cases. Do those Asian lawsuits specifically charge that URMs are displacing Asian applicants? That is what @notigering has claimed in #1101.
The lawsuit claims that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans in the name of creating a diverse student body. You can read that in possibly every single article out there, both pro and against the lawsuit. It isn’t possible to create a diverse student body except by accepting OTHER minorities and since other minorities are UNDER-represented and Asian-Americans OVER-represented what I wrote above is the only possible argument. And that’s only the top the iceberg. The people behind this lawsuit are the same as the ones that brought the Fisher case all the way to the Supreme Court (and lost there as well…). This is yet another round of a very old fight that has nothing to do with Asian-Americans (except until just a few years ago that is… yes Asian-Americans were beneficiaries of afirmative action in these very places that they are now calling racist…).
…“in a very old fight”
the fight will keep going until Dr. MLK’s dream is realized for all. The dream isn’t just for URM’s, it’sfor everyone. Everyone wants a fair shake when it comes to college admissions. And eventually whether you call it AA, glass or bamboo ceiling or discriination, it will come down. The supreme court will decide on fairness. Because in the end the front of the bus is not just for some people. We should each have the same opportunity to sit in the front.
The color of one’s skin shouldn’t matter.
@whatisyourquest @notigering beat me to it. Same attorney bringing the “Asian case” as brought Fisher - Edward Blum, he’s just trying a slightly different tack now with Asian plaintiffs. His goal is the end of race-based affirmative action.
“A diverse student body”. You honestly think that refers to white people?
@OHMomof2 Where is your reference from? Is it a newspaper? or a quote from the lawsuit? A link, please.
Sorry, forgot. Newspaper. Don’t have the lawsuit text handy and heading out, if you are saying it is substantially different I’ll get into it and get back to you.
"And eventually whether you call it AA, glass or bamboo ceiling or discriination, it will come down. "
^ AA doesn’t belongs in that sentence. I am all in for all the rest but for what its worth I humbly ask: please don’t try to reach for that bamboo ceiling by using URMs as stepping stones, it is not worth it nor is good for anyone involved.
@OHMomof2 Yeah, I thought that I had read that paragraph in a NYT article.
Please recall that, in its initial reporting, the NYT claimed that the DOJ was investigating “anti-white bias” (those are the exact words used in the NYT headline) in college admissions, even though there was absolutely no evidence that any specific race was the subject of the incipient DOJ investigations. The next day, the NYT had to backpedal because it turned out that the DOJ job postings were actually for attorneys being sought to pursue the Asian lawsuits that the previous administration had allowed to languish. So, I’m not a big believer in the accuracy or objectivity of the NYT reportage on this subject, nor should anyone else be. (“Fake news” is thrown around too much, but the initial coverage of the DOJ job postings by the NYT certainly earned that pejorative.)
If you have a quote from the lawsuit that specifically claims that blacks, hispanics, etc. (URMs) are responsible for displacing Asians (ORMs) that would be more helpful.
^ Regardless of your beliefs on NYtimes accuracy the crux of the lawsuit is that Asian-Americans are being discriminated against by Harvard in the name of diversity. You can’t spin this around I promise you, all 120 pages are available online and they all revolve around that.
“In the name of diversity.” Is that the best that you can do?
Show me where the lawsuit specifically claims that blacks, hispanics, etc. (URMs) are displacing Asians (ORMs) at Harvard. If you can’t, then you are inferring (like the NYT did in their bogus headlines about “anti-white bias”) things that may, in fact, be completely false.
You have it backwards, you are the one saying I inferred something false from an article (although I didn’t do that as I read through the lawsuit which is different to inferring but whatever…) which IMO is wrong so then it’s only up to you to correct me if you want to. I honestly don’t know where you want to take this? the lawsuit is out there and it revolves around Asian-Americans supposedly being discriminated against in the name of diversity, that’s the whole case really. Maybe you have a different view so perhaps you can start your own lawsuit? I don’t know what else to do here.
As long as the Supreme Court permits colleges/universities to use “preferences,” :“A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,’” Justice Kennedy wrote, quoting from a landmark desegregation case. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”
“But still,” Justice Kennedy added, “it remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity,”
then they can prefer anyone they want over anyone else.
"No? Why couldn’t they hide behind
ECs, recommendations, essays
That’s what they are accused of doing now."
They’re being accused of different things, the justice dept case is accusing them of race-based discrimination against whites and possibly Asians. They’re being accused of trying to limit Asians like they tried to limit Jewish applicants by introducing non-academic criteria. They’re being accused of comparing Asians to Asians for a fixed number of slots, and therefore, comparing other ethnicities and races with each other.
I don’t think Asians would object to using ECs, essays and recommendations, they do well in ECs, academic like olympiads but also student govt, service etc. They don’t do as well in sports and are not recruited athletes, they also don’t have hooks, legacy, donation potential and being a minority.
Asians “are not recruited athletes”, They also dont have legacy, donation potential or being a "n URM. Pretty blunt statement. Many asians are full pay which is a huge advantage. There are asian athletes… The fact is that EVERYONE is a victim of racial preferences except blacks and hispanics. The schools also use this flexibility to allow less qualified applicants that fill other buckets. The NCAA governing organization codifies these preferences with the athlete academic minimums. Asians should not win because there are too many types of preferences being employed which undermines their assertion.
Note that some schools have athlete academic minimums significantly higher than the NCAA minimums. But some other schools have regular admission thresholds that are no higher than the NCAA minimums.
@ucbalumnus of course but we are talking mostly about the top schools. Their athletic minimums (academic index) definitively validate that there is a lesser standard for a special pool of applicants.
@notigering you wrote in #1101:
“They are accusing Harvard of racism because they believe the school accepted URMs that (they think) are less qualified than them.”
I am just asking you to substantiate your claim (your quote above) that the lawsuit specifically targets “less qualified” blacks, hispanics, and other URMs and holds their acceptances to Harvard responsible for displacing Asian applicants. So far, all I’ve gotten is “in the name of diversity.” That’s not the same thing.
My understanding is that the lawsuit doesn’t call out any URM racial group as responsible for Asian rejections, and simply wants to force Harvard to review Asian applicants with respect to the entire applicant pool, without consideration of their Asian race.
But never mind. I give up. I don’t know why my point is so hard to understand.
Give up if you want. But just to clarify your point is very easy to understand, it is just a sanitized, very narrow and oversimpliflied spin on the lawsuit and it’s intent, sort of like a propaganda slogan…
All 120 pages of the lawsuit are about how Asian-Americans are discriminated against in the name of diversity. The word diversity itself is repeated in almost every page in just that context. What do you want me to do? copy paste every instance here and then analyze it for you? Sorry, no. But knock yourself out if you want to, I am not the one claiming that OhMomof2, the nytimes and other fake media (lol) and myself are all lying so the job to prove us wrong is all yours…
IMO, you are conflating “URMs” and “diversity.” Asian applicants, on average, have stats that exceed those of all other racial groups, including whites. @OHMomof2 has repeatedly made the point that Harvard puts a “thumb on the scale” for lots of white applicants. She showed that recruited athletes in the Ivy League are predominately white, and she contends that this is an intentional back door to admitting more white students. In other words, Harvard, like other highly-selective universities, wants certain white applicants, precisely because they are white. So, to beat a dead horse, the white racial group is also a part of Harvard’s “diversity” or raced-based admission policy.
If Harvard loses the lawsuit, and its admission policy is forced to be more stats driven, it could very well have a more serious impact on the number of admitted white students than on URM students. That is, the additional Asian admits could displace more white admits than URM admits. I believe that @OHMomof2 has made that point as well. So, to say (as you are) that the lawsuit is specifically targeting URMs (blacks, hispanics, etc.) simply because the word “diversity” appears on every page of the lawsuit is disingenuous, IMO.
I hope that’s the prove that you need.