Majorityrights News > Category: Education

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions process in violation of U.S. civil rights law.

Yale University /VCG:

NewsCGTN 14 Aug 2020:

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against Asian American and white applicants. /AP

The findings are the result of a two-year investigation in response to a complaint by Asian-American groups concerning Yale’s conduct, the department said in a statement.

The department said it was prepared to file a lawsuit against Yale if the school, in New Haven, Connecticut, did not take “remedial measures.”

A Yale spokeswoman said the university “categorically denies” the allegations but has cooperated fully with the investigation. The Justice Department made its findings before allowing Yale to provide requested documents, Yale said.

“Had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information, it would have concluded that Yale’s practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent,” the spokeswoman said.

The Justice Department said that although race can lawfully be considered in college admissions in limited circumstances, “Yale’s use of race is anything but limited.” The elite school “uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission,” the Justice Department said.

The Justice Department has previously filed legal briefs in support of a lawsuit, brought by affirmative action opponents, accusing Harvard University of discriminating against Asian Americans.

A federal judge in Boston ruled in favor of Harvard last year, saying the school’s affirmative action program advanced a legitimate interest in having a diverse student body. An appeal of that ruling is pending. The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Affirmative action programs in higher education were meant to address racial discrimination. The Supreme Court has ruled universities may use affirmative action with the aim of helping minority applicants get into college.

U.S. conservatives have said that in helping Black and Latino applicants, affirmative action can hurt white people and Asian Americans.

Source(s): Reuters

Related at Majorityrights: Hyperbolic over-representation of YKW (under-rep. of Whites) in Ivy League not remotely merit based

I believe the Greeks and Romans (for example) were more inventive than he is giving them credit for, but Ryan Faulk is offering specificatory structures (an Alternative Hypothesis) which can work against bad will arguments proffered from the international liberalism of Marxists and Cultural Marxists.

However, that is one of the limitations to the I.Q. and genetics sort of rebuts - the main utility that they have is against bad will and rather stupid arguments.

We are defending our race (genus European) and its species (ethnicities), not I.Q. or even the accomplishments of I.Q. per se. True, the products of our genius are not only an added benefit, but crucial to our survival. However, ethnonationalism protects these differences.

It is primarily bad will arguments that will need to be defended against when it comes to populating functions among our ethnostates that may require an I.Q. argument to rebut a stupid objection; e.g., if someone were to say that their retarded son should be allowed to engineer a high-rise building.

On the other hand, if a black person, or a Jewish person has a higher I.Q. than your son or your daughter, should you then say that they are a fit replacement, your new child?

This is Luke Ford level absurdity.

It is like a magic trick or a card trick to distract attention from the fact that we are defending species, human ecologies, not a single variable.

Objectivist arguments in lieu of relative racial group interests can disingenuously serve to distract from aspects and doings - other than a blindered, narrow view of merit - that have had Jewish hegemony in niche power and influence as profound ever - a fact they wish to distract from as their qualitative, relative ethnocentric difference is of a different tribe who are largely indifferent where not antagonistic to our group interests.

Naturally we don’t want our positive attributes dragged down, to amplify malfunction, but again, I.Q. rebuts are largely limited to staving-off bad will, typically stupid arguments.

And you can see the danger in Faulk’s argument, that he may be isolating one group or area of Europeans; whereas ethnonationalism would serve to protect those distinctions anyway, while not running the risk of throwing under the bus and perhaps even creating antagonism rather than crucial allies among other parts of Europe which may be more a necessary part of our systemic function and survival than he realizes in addition to being perhaps more talented than he realizes.

Finally, the I.Q. and genetics rebut can indeed be used in bad will itself against social justice and to further supremacism, imperialism, exploitation as opposed to ethnonationalism and its coordination. If these arguments are not made judiciously and with the wisdom of ecological thinking (facilitated by ethnonationalism), they can generate unnecessary antagonism within and from without our genus; thus increasing the difficulty of maintaining our group systemic homeostasis, not reducing it.

A Lawschool student at Oklahoma City University Law School was banned from campus due to a complaint in regard to his private Tinder singles account, which specified that he did not want a woman who has been with a black.

For a Halloween party, he ventured back onto campus in costume, thinking that he might not be recognized. But when he posted a flyer saying “it’s ok to be White”, the administration inferred that it was him - seen through security camera footage, as he made the postings - and expelled him from the Lawschool.

The more interesting part (and liable to challenge) is the banishment from campus (setting-up trespassing grounds for expulsion) for his preference on the Tinder account.

Climate Crisis: Why Everyone Is Confused - Nora Bateson

What We Get Wrong About Social Change - Nora Bateson

Why The Asian American Students Lost Their Case Against Harvard (But Should Have Won)

Forbes, 1 Oct 2019:

On Tuesday a federal judge ruled against a group of Asian American students who claimed that Harvard discriminated against them in their admissions policy. The full decision is here. There is no question that Asian American students face a disadvantage in gaining admission to Harvard. The question is why and whether Harvard is responsible for it.

The reason that it is harder for Asian Americans to get into Harvard is that their “personal ratings” (a subjective evaluation of personal qualities) are, on average, significantly lower than for white applicants. The federal judge, Allison D. Burroughs, wrote: “the Court therefore concludes that the data demonstrates a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers, holding constant any reasonable set of observable characteristics.”

However, the Judge also held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the lower personal ratings are the result of “animus” or ill-motivated racial hostility towards Asian Americans by Harvard admissions officials.

This leaves the question of why Asian American applicants were being deemed to have, on average, poorer personal qualities than white applicants. The court entertained two theories. Judge Burroughs wrote that: “It is possible that the self-selected group of Asian Americans that applied to Harvard during the years included in the data set used in this case did not possess the personal qualities that Harvard is looking for at the same rate as white applicants . . .”

It is disappointing that a federal judge would indulge in that sort of conjecture. Surely the burden should be on Harvard to prove that its lower evaluation of the personal characteristics of Asian Americans is not the result of racial bias rather than vice versa. The court must be aware of various stereotypes of Asian Americans as “grinds” and math geeks who lack personality. The burden should be on Harvard to prove that such stereotypes are not at play here.

The judge wrote that the racial gap between the evaluation of Asian Americans and whites was small, but they are statistically significant. By definition, that means that it is very unlikely the gap is the result of chance. The court should be demanding that Harvard explain the gap or change their approach. Asian Americans cannot be expected to prove that they have personalities that are as admirable as whites. Given the racial gap, Harvard should have to prove that its evaluation system is fair.

The court’s second explanation for the racial “personal rating” gap is that there is racial bias in the evaluations by teachers and counselors. The judge wrote: “teacher and guidance counselor recommendations seemingly presented Asian Americans as having less favorable personal characteristics than similarly situated non-Asian American applicants . . . Because teacher and guidance counselor recommendation letters are among the most significant inputs for the personal rating, the apparent race-related or race-correlated difference in the strength of guidance counselor and teacher recommendations is significant.” This seems like a smoking gun showing that Asian American applicants are victims of discrimination. Nonetheless, the court ruled in favor of Harvard because she reasoned that: “Harvard’s admissions officers are not responsible for any race-related or race-correlated impact that those letters may have.”

Judge Burroughs should have ruled the other way here. If Harvard is knowingly using instruments that are racially biased (the counselor and teacher recommendations) and does not compensate for that bias, then Harvard’s process is biased. If Harvard didn’t already know the letters were biased, it knows it now.

To be fair to Harvard, it is between a rock and a hard place in some ways. When it relies on objective tests like the SAT’s it is often accused of using an instrument that is biased against African Americans. When it uses a subjective tool such as counselor and teacher letters, it must now contend with the fact that they are biased against Asian Americans. So the Harvard admissions officers are hardly a group of villains. But the judge is wrong to suggest that Harvard can take a “not our fault” approach to demonstrable anti-Asian bias in the letters that it relies upon. Difficult though it may be, Harvard must do better.

....

by Evan Gerstmann

I’ve always been interested in how we should balance individual and minority rights with majority rule. After several years practicing law in New York city, I found my true calling as a college professor and researcher. I’ve written about campus free speech, same-sex equality and racial justice for Cambridge University, The University of Chicago, and Harvard University. My latest book is “Campus Sexual Assault: Constitutional Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.

Related at Majorityrights:

Hyperbolic over-representation of YKW (under-rep. of Whites) in Ivy League not remotely merit based

They didn’t have quite the excuse to go after Regina as they did Reginald, but if they did ...well, they just lack education, has nothing to do with distinctive black hyper assertiveness…

READ MORE...