Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Oct '18 21:103 edits
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/at-trial-harvards-asian-problem-and-a-preference-for-white-students-from-sparse-country

    "At Trial, Harvard’s Asian Problem and a Preference for White Students from “Sparse Country""
    --Jeannie Suk Gersen (a professor at Harvard Law School)

    "In the nineteen-twenties, the concept of diversity in admissions arose
    in response to the fear of being overrun by Jewish students, who were
    considered strong on academic metrics but lacking in qualities of character and personality."

    The same stereotype applies to Asian Americans today.

    "As the proportion of Jews threatened to exceed a quarter of each
    class, Harvard’s president, Abbott Lawrence Lowell, proposed limiting
    Jews to fifteen per cent of the student body."

    Similar quotas have been proposed and, according to many Asian American
    academics, long been enacted to reduce Asian American students
    at some elite universities (with exceptions such as Caltech).

    "By the class of 1930, as a result of the new plan, Jewish students
    made up only ten per cent of Harvard’s undergraduates."

    According to Ron Unz, a conservative American Jewish alumnus of Harvard,
    IF all students were admitted only according to academic merit, then
    about 6% of Harvard's undergraduates would be Jewish (they face
    much more competition today from Asians than they did in 1930),
    whereas he estimates that about 25% of Harvard's undergraduates today
    are Jewish, largely because they receive preferential treatment from
    Harvard (whose leadership has long been disproportionately Jewish).
    (I already have posted Ron Unz's article several times.)

    "Harvard makes a special effort to recruit students from twenty states
    that it calls Sparse Country"

    "He [William Fitzsimmons, the dean of admissions] also testified about
    the letters Harvard sends to high-school students in Sparse Country
    who have P.S.A.T. scores of at least 1310, encouraging them to apply.
    The only Sparse Country students with such scores who do not get
    the letter are Asians; to receive it, an Asian male must score at least 1380.
    An attorney for the plaintiff asked why a white boy in, say, immigrant-rich
    Las Vegas with a score of 1310 would get the letter, while his Asian
    classmate with a 1370 would not."

    "The twentieth-century history of reaching out to regions where Jews
    were sparse cast something of a pall over the revelation of explicit
    differential treatment of Asian and white students in Sparse Country."

    Harvard uses a subjective 'personality score' as a significant factor in admissions.
    Asian Americans have consistently been assigned the lowest average
    personality scores of any group (whites, blacks, or Latinos), presumably
    reflecting the stereotypes and prejudices of (mostly white) admissions officers.

    "Fitzsimmons’s testimony confirmed that admissions officers gave
    Asian applicants higher ratings than white applicants in the academic and
    extracurricular categories, but that Asians’ admissions rates were
    pulled down because of their lower personal ratings, despite having
    alumni-interview scores comparable to or higher than those of whites.
    While Fitzsimmons rejected the notion that Asian-Americans have
    worse personal qualities than whites, he speculated that their lower
    personal ratings reflected the fact that high-school teachers and
    guidance counselors’ support in recommendations is stronger for whites
    than for Asians. In other words, if there was indeed bias against Asians,
    it originated outside of Harvard. If that is so, though, it is curious
    that the holistic review process, which is designed to take account
    of various disadvantages n a student’s minority background, would
    not attempt to correct for it."

    "Harvard can win at trial if the judge, Allison Burroughs, determines
    that any discriminatory effect on Asians was unintentional on Harvard’s
    part or that the disparities shown are not “gross” enough to infer
    Harvard’s discriminatory intent. While a “smoking gun” in a civil-rights
    case is not needed, proof of intentional discrimination is always a
    steep uphill climb."

    Particularly in the case of a politically marginalized minority such as Asian Americans.

    "Much of the evidence at trial may not create a good look for Harvard, but
    it also may not be enough to meet the operative legal definitions of discrimination."

    Many, if not most, 'liberal' white Americans will celebrate Harvard winning by technicality.

    "It is rather hard to imagine Harvard losing a case of such importance to
    its brand as social equalizer, especially in a courthouse in a town so
    palpably dominated by its footprint and its alumni."

    The politics never have been in Asian Americans' favor.

    "The most likely trajectory, with or without court cases, is that the
    perception of Asians’ personal qualities of character and leadership—"

    In corporate America, Asian Americans remain stereotyped as poor
    in leadership and communication, which may explain why few of them
    ever crack the 'glass ceiling' of senior management in 'white' corporations.

    "perhaps even “effervescence”—"

    In contrast to Asian Americans, white Americans are born 'well-rounded'.
    A white American who can speak Spanish tends to be praised over
    an Asian American who can speak several languages.

    "... will, in A MATTER OF DECADES, improve, in élite institutions and in American society."

    Asian Americans are expected to feel reassured and accepting of
    continuing adverse discrimination today by hoping that there will be
    less discrimination against other Asian Americans several decades later.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    24 Oct '18 22:221 edit
    @duchess64 said
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/at-trial-harvards-asian-problem-and-a-preference-for-white-students-from-sparse-country

    "At Trial, Harvard’s Asian Problem and a Preference for White Students from “Sparse Country""
    --Jeannie Suk Gersen (a professor at Harvard Law School)

    "In the nineteen-twenties, the concept of diversity in admissions arose
    in respon ...[text shortened]... hoping that there will be
    less discrimination against other Asian Americans several decades later.
    We've discussed this case before and it is a "bait and switch" by right wing opponents of affirmative action. Their pleadings and requested relief do not seek any changes in legacy, athletic scholarships or any other program that favor whites at Harvard but only attempt to dismantle its affirmative action programs which benefit blacks and Hispanics who are victims of systemic racism. If successful, the primary result will be a sharp decrease in those students being admitted to Harvard, a more racially polarized academic community and perhaps a SCOTUS decision destroying AA programs once and for all.

    Any progressive who does not oppose this lawsuit is naive, misinformed or not a progressive at all.

    Jeffrey Toobin the real ideological agenda here:

    But, at its core, the lawsuit reflects the American conservative movement’s legal and political assault on people of color, which has been endorsed and abetted by President Trump. The Trump Administration has sought to limit voting rights, backing voter-suppression efforts; it has demonized immigrants; the President himself has repeatedly targeted prominent African-Americans for abuse. The Trump Administration is also supporting the Harvard lawsuit.

    The lawsuit is the latest brainchild of Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has made a career of attacking laws and policies that have historically assisted African-Americans. Blum shepherded the Shelby County lawsuit, which the Supreme Court used, in 2013, to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was also behind Fisher v. University of Texas, which challenged the admissions practices at U.T., and which twice failed, by a narrow margin, in the Supreme Court. The Harvard case is essentially a rerun of Fisher, except with the prospect of review by a newly reinforced and expanded conservative majority on the Court.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The argument against affirmative action in college admissions (and in favor of the plaintiffs in the Harvard case) rests on a claim of objectivity—that grades and test scores, which can be reduced to numbers, are the only legitimate grounds on which to differentiate students from one another. In fact, race remains a critical part of identity in contemporary America, and diversity represents a gift both to its direct beneficiaries and to the schools, which can enjoy the perspectives of students of different backgrounds. In the Grutter case, Justice O’Connor was moved by the amicus briefs submitted by retired military officials and current corporate executives who said that they needed a diverse pool of future leaders equipped to take over when white males became a shrinking part of the population. Then, as now, a diverse student body is both a national-security and an economic imperative.

    Blum and his allies can talk all they want about level playing fields and race neutrality, but their legal and policy efforts all point in the same direction—toward less power and influence for groups that are disproportionately affected by the disadvantages of poverty and low incomes. This case comes in the camouflage of solidarity with Asian-Americans, but, in reality, it’s just the same as the others.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-underlying-attack-in-the-harvard-admissions-lawsuit
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    24 Oct '18 22:441 edit
    @no1marauder said
    We've discussed this case before and it is a "bait and switch" by right wing opponents of affirmative action. Their pleadings and requested relief do not seek any changes in legacy, athletic scholarships or any other program that favor whites at Harvard but only attempt to dismantle its affirmative action programs which benefit blacks and Hispanics who are victims of syst ...[text shortened]... https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-underlying-attack-in-the-harvard-admissions-lawsuit
    I've posted this before but here's what Blum wants the Court to do in the Harvard case:

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., prays for the
    following relief as to all counts:

    (a) A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that Harvard’s admissions policies and procedures violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.;

    (b) A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that any use of race or ethnicity in the educational setting violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.;

    (c) A permanent injunction prohibiting Harvard from using race as a factor in future undergraduate admissions decisions;

    (d) A permanent injunction requiring Harvard to conduct all admissions in a manner that does not permit those engaged in the decisional process to be aware of or learn the race or ethnicity of any applicant for admission;

    (e) Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable legal authority; and

    (f) All other relief this Court finds appropriate and just.

    https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2014cv14176/165519/1/0.pdf?ts=1416728521

    Essentially, he asking for a District Court to overrule the SCOTUS decision in Fisher. It won't do it, but this sets up appeals to that Court now that it has what Blum believes is a more right wing ideological bent.

    Notice there is zero mention of legacy, athletic, or other admission policies that favor whites.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Oct '18 23:242 edits
    @no1marauder said
    We've discussed this case before and it is a "bait and switch" by right wing opponents of affirmative action. Their pleadings and requested relief do not seek any changes in legacy, athletic scholarships or any other program that favor whites at Harvard but only attempt to dismantle its affirmative action programs which benefit blacks and Hispanics who are victims of syst ...[text shortened]... https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-underlying-attack-in-the-harvard-admissions-lawsuit
    First of all, No1Marauder has a long record of sneering anti-Asian racism (clinging
    to anti-Asian stereotypes popular among white Americans) and denying that Asian
    Americans have experienced any racism except perhaps in the distant past.

    No1Marauder dishonestly ignores the fact that this article by an Asian American woman
    (who's apparently married to a white man--so how much can she hate all white people?)
    professor at Harvard Law School (how much will the lawyer No1Marauder sneer at her?)
    does NOT mention blacks (whom No1Marauder condescendingly loves to treat as
    perpetually helpless victims) or Latinos at all. It's ONLY about why Harvard explicitly
    (now admittedly) gives preferential treatment to white applicants with inferior academic
    records over Asian American applicant with superior academic records.

    Of course, No1Marauder admires and supports giving whites with inferior qualifications
    preferential treatment over Asians with superior qualifications. Indeed, No1Marauder
    has absurdly argued that all Asian Americans are 'privileged' over white Americans.
    No1Marauder has implied that white Americans routinely like to give Asian Americans
    preferential treatment over all other Americans, including white Americans, dishonestly
    ignoring all evidence (including the testimony of Harvard's dean of admissions) to the contrary.

    The lawyer No1Marauder attempts a dishonest 'guilt by association' argument,
    implying that Asian Americans must be wrong--and racist--if they are able to draw
    support from any conservative white Americans. By the same kind of 'reasoning',
    universal health care must be wrong--and pro-Communist--given the fact that
    some Communists (in addition to many non-Communists) happen to support it.
    There's no reason to believe that Asian Americans generally support any kind of
    conservative white racist agenda against blacks or Latinos, as No1Marauder insinuates.

    The arrogant racist troll No1Marauder, a white American, has even less motivation
    to listen seriously to politically marginalized Asian Americans than to much more
    politically influential African Americans, whom he must pretend to respect.

    No1Marauder apparently wants American university admissions to be a 'racial spoils system'
    (to quote Jason Riley, an African American social critic) where Asian Americans,
    being politically weaker, always will be told that they must be content with what's
    left over after more politically powerful groups have taken whatever they want.

    The bottom line is that the deeply racist No1Marauder--acting out of the perceived
    self-interest of white Americans like himself--apparently wants to do everything possible
    to insure that American institutions will continue to discriminate--perhaps in
    perpetuity--in favor of white Americans and against Asian Americans.

    It's a complete waste of time to argue with the extremely close-minded, prejudiced,
    and dishonest No1Marauder. The only way that Asian Americans can ever prevail
    over his kind of obstinate racism is to develop more political power and assert it
    unreservedly without attempting to appeal to more objective ethical considerations.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Oct '18 23:436 edits
    Although Asian Americans, who are very diverse and often divided, still don't come
    close to having the political power or media attention of blacks or Latinos, they are
    in a stronger position than they were before 1965.

    Some Asian American organizations, communities, and individuals already are or
    have been protesting (seldom noticed by the mainstream US media) continuing
    racism such as by boycotting some corporations or government departments.
    For instance, after the US government purged (not for the first time) many Chinese
    American defense scientists or engineers, some Asian American academic organizations
    urged a boycott of US government defense labs. The only reason why the US government
    would attempt to recruit among Chinese Americans is its sheer desperation.
    The defense lab jobs require advanced education and are relatively not well-paying.
    The US government has been unable to find nearly enough qualified white, black,
    or Latinos to fill these jobs. So the US government has belatedly attempted to recruit
    Chinese Americans even though it stereotypes them as potential spies for China.
    (It seems rather like the USSR recruiting Jewish scientists and engineers for its defense industry.)

    I would hardly be surprised to see more of a 'brain drain' from Asian Americans
    leaving the USA (typically at a major personal cost) in order to seek opportunities
    in less racist societies (not necessarily in Asia) than the USA. Some corporations or
    universities outside the USA have begun to recruit top Asian American talent.

    I suspect that many, if not most, white Americans here smugly assume that US science
    and technology would not suffer at all IF there no Asian Americans working there.
    They may prefer to believe that all the jobs held by Asian Americans would be
    easily filled by 'superior' whites or 'more deserving' (as No1Marauder wants to
    believe) blacks who are at least as qualified as the 'privileged' Asian Americans.
    In my view, if the USA eliminated Asian Americans from its STEM fields, then the USA
    would lose more talent than when the Third Reich eliminated Jews from its STEM fields.

    In the meantime, would No1Marauder like to express his outrage over Asian Americans
    allegedly being more 'privileged' over white Americans (as he has claimed over implied)
    by boycotting every product developed or service provided by any Asian American?

    I suspect that some of No1Marauder's virulent anti-Asian racism might come from
    his apparent assumption that Asian Americans contribute little to the USA, so when
    Asian Americans complain of racism, he may wish them 'Good riddance' out of the USA.
    No1Marauder may like to believe that all Asian American contributions could be
    easily and quickly replaced by those of black, Latino, or even white Americans.

    In 2017 and 2018, the US teams for the international Olympiads in mathematics,
    physics, chemistry, biology, and informatics selected 23 students each year (with
    the caveat that the USA boycotted two Olympiads held in Iran), with 22 out of the
    23 each year being Asian American (the other's white). Surely, if the US teams were
    selected by 'politically correct' racial quotas, they would have performed at least as well!
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    25 Oct '18 01:291 edit
    In the pursuit of diversity, some amount of racial balancing seems unavoidable, however taboo. We should not want the composition of our élite universities to be wildly out of proportion to the racial composition of our country. Such lopsided access to gateways of opportunity and power—say, with whites being severely underrepresented at schools like Harvard—has the potential to fuel dangerous resentment and disturb social peace, at least if the change occurs too far ahead of demographic changes that are projected to make whites a minority in this country in less than three decades. I would not relish seeing the nation’s most élite colleges become majority Asian, which is what has resulted at selective high schools, such as Stuyvesant, that do not consider race in admissions at all. It is also extremely troubling when solely test-based admissions such as Stuyvesant’s reflect the failure to remedy structural disadvantages suffered by black and Latino students. What is needed instead, then, is race-conscious affirmative action, to address the historic discrimination and underrepresentation of blacks and Latinos, in combination with far less severity in the favoring of whites relative to Asians.

    Jeannie Suk Gersen

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    25 Oct '18 03:351 edit
    @duchess64 said
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/at-trial-harvards-asian-problem-and-a-preference-for-white-students-from-sparse-country

    "At Trial, Harvard’s Asian Problem and a Preference for White Students from “Sparse Country""
    --Jeannie Suk Gersen (a professor at Harvard Law School)

    "In the nineteen-twenties, the concept of diversity in admissions arose
    in respon ...[text shortened]... hoping that there will be
    less discrimination against other Asian Americans several decades later.
    Many times (including this article) analogies have been made between
    past (several decades ago) institutional discrimination against
    acadenically superior Jewish students and ongoing institutional
    discrimination against academically superior Asian American students.
    (On average, Jewish students today perform slightly better than
    other whites but significantly worse than some Asian ethnicities.)I
    Some Jews (like Ron Unz) freely embrace this analogy.

    I expect that no white Americans here would condone such discrimination
    against Jews, but their attitude often seems be 180 degrees
    different toward Asians. Indeed it"s hard to recall any white
    American here criticizing any anti-Asian racism at any time.

    Like the self-pitying racist No1Marauder, many, if not most,
    white Americans presumably believe that a stupid white
    American (like Donald Trump) who was born into wealth
    is unfairly disadvantaged compared to a supposedly 'privileged'
    child from a poor non-English-speaking Asian immigrant family.
    So the stupid rich white would be 'more deserving' than the
    brilliant poor Asian of a place at Harvard.
  8. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1391
    25 Oct '18 12:14
    @duchess64 said
    First of all, No1Marauder has a long record of sneering anti-Asian racism (clinging
    to anti-Asian stereotypes popular among white Americans) and denying that Asian
    Americans have experienced any racism except perhaps in the distant past.

    No1Marauder dishonestly ignores the fact that this article by an Asian American woman
    (who's apparently married to a white man--so ...[text shortened]... and assert it
    unreservedly without attempting to appeal to more objective ethical considerations.
    First of all, No1Marauder has a long record of sneering anti-Asian racism (clinging
    to anti-Asian stereotypes popular among white Americans) and denying that Asian
    Americans have experienced any racism except perhaps in the distant past.



    I wondered how long it would be before Duchess would find another excuse to brand another white man as a villain, while ignoring her own racism and sexism. I guess not very long. 🙄
  9. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55366
    25 Oct '18 19:33
    @no1marauder said
    In the pursuit of diversity, some amount of racial balancing seems unavoidable, however taboo. We should not want the composition of our élite universities to be wildly out of proportion to the racial composition of our country. Such lopsided access to gateways of opportunity and power—say, with whites being severely underrepresented at schools like Harvard—has the potent ...[text shortened]... ww.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans
    You could not possibly more misguided. Universities should be explicitly banned from favoring one group over another. Affirmative action as practiced (regardless of its motive) is explicit discrimination.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    25 Oct '18 19:43
    @quackquack said
    You could not possibly more misguided. Universities should be explicitly banned from favoring one group over another. Affirmative action as practiced (regardless of its motive) is explicit discrimination.
    Actually, it's a remedy to systemic and endemic discrimination that exists in our society.
  11. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55366
    26 Oct '18 00:30
    @no1marauder said
    Actually, it's a remedy to systemic and endemic discrimination that exists in our society.
    Affirmative action is a new form of discrimination where an institution can decide that members of certain groups gets a boost at the expense of another group. The group that is forced to make a sacrifice could actually being a minority group and the individual who benefits could have personally never struggled. Harvard in fact won't even disclose its formula feeling it has a right to treat people unequally based on inherent characteristics without even giving an explanation. It is appalling that any human being would find affirmative action acceptable.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Oct '18 01:161 edit
    No1Marauder (an extremely political creature) shows that he apparently believes that
    university admissions should be treated as part of a politicized 'racial spoils system',
    in which the most politically powerful groups (whites, followed by Latinos and blacks)
    get to claim the most attractive and lucrative slots, with little consideration given
    to academic merit. (No1Marauder apparently likes to believe that all academic
    tests, even in mathematics, cannot be objective because they are biased by racism.)

    If I recall correctly, KazetNagorra believes that university admissions should be decided
    strictly upon academic merit, with no affirmative action and no legacy admissions.
    Whatever else may be said of it, this position has the merit of simplicity and consistency.

    I believe that KazetNagorra's not blind, of course, to the inequalities in society.
    Some people--for varying reasons (ranging from class to gender bias)--may find it
    harder to succeed academically. These concerns can and should be addressed by
    programs aimed at helping the disadvantaged (for varying reasons) BEFORE they
    apply for university. These concerns are not best addressed by creating different
    standards for 'racial groups' supposedly competing on the same tests.

    'Race norming' was a US affirmative action practice, now illegal (perhaps to No1Marauder's regret).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race-norming

    "Race norming ... is the practice of adjusting test scores to account for the race or
    ethnicity of the test-taker. In the United States, it was first implemented by the United
    States federal government in 1981 with little publicity,[1] and was subsequently
    outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.[2] Prior to being banned by the federal
    government, race-norming was practiced by 38 U.S. states' employment services."

    Under 'race norming', a person would be assigned bonuses or penalties according to one's 'race'.
    Given that on mathematics tests, Asians, whites, Latinos, and blacks tend to perform in that order,
    one way of 'race norming' would be, say on a test worth 100 points, to give every
    black a starting bonus of 20 points, every Latino a bonus of 10 points, every white
    without bonus or penalty, and every Asian a starting penalty of 20 points.
    So a black who scored 70 would have 'race-normed' score of 90, superior to an
    Asian who originally scored 100 before having it 'race-normed' down to 80.

    Or, to put it less crudely, 'race-norming' holds that a black who scored in the 99th
    percentile for blacks would be regarded as clearly superior to an Asian who scored
    only in the 90 percentile for Asians, even if the Asian's score was much higher than
    the black's on the same test.

    A poor African athlete may have many disadvantages unknown to a rich European athlete.
    But when they compete together at the Olympics, the African's not allowed to run a shorter distance.
    And the European's not held back at the start of the race until the African has taken a sizable lead.
    Everyone who enters is expected to run the same distance under the same conditions.
    This concept of fairness is accepted in athletics, but apparently often not in US academics.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    26 Oct '18 03:53
    @quackquack said
    Affirmative action is a new form of discrimination where an institution can decide that members of certain groups gets a boost at the expense of another group. The group that is forced to make a sacrifice could actually being a minority group and the individual who benefits could have personally never struggled. Harvard in fact won't even disclose its formula feeling i ...[text shortened]... ing an explanation. It is appalling that any human being would find affirmative action acceptable.
    The so-called "boost" is an acknowledgement of the fact that individuals in those groups are subject to discrimination throughout their lives.

    It is appalling that any human being could really defend the system of endemic discrimination that exists in the US and fight tooth and nail against any efforts to remedy its severe impacts on its victims.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Oct '18 04:441 edit
    @no1marauder said
    The so-called "boost" is an acknowledgement of the fact that individuals in those groups are subject to discrimination throughout their lives.

    It is appalling that any human being could really defend the system of endemic discrimination that exists in the US and fight tooth and nail against any efforts to remedy its severe impacts on its victims.
    (No1Marauder replied to Quackquack.)

    Of course, the deeply dishonest racist No1Marauder likes to
    deny that Asians ever experience any racism in the USA, though
    he seems to have grudgingly conceded that some Asians
    experienced a bit of racism in the distant past.

    No1Marauder 's apparent deeply racist belief that Asians are
    incapable of surpassing whites in any field unless the Asians
    have major unfair advantages may contribute to his zeal to
    rationalize discrimination against Asians at every turn,
    including benefiting whites over Asians.

    I note that Singapore, a multicultural society that has been highly
    praised for its meritocratic educational system, does NOT
    pursue the 'racial spoils system ' that No1Marauder embraces.
Back to Top