Majorityrights News > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

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

Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Andrej Babis

Czech Prime Minister: “We decide who comes to our country”

By ARTHUR LYONS 25 September 2019

The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Andrej Babis, has slammed policies promoting mass migration and population replacement which are both propagated by globalist governments in Western Europe.

While touching on the subject which is commonly referred to as ’Replacement Migration‘ during an interview with Die Welt, Babis said, “We do not see migration as a means of counteracting a shrinking population, as in Western Europe.”

Echoing his Visegrád partner Viktor Orbán, Babis also spoke about how he would like to increase the low birthrates of his own country where women, on average, have just 1.7 children.

“We want to get the Czechs to have more children,” Babis said.

After the German reporter asserted that it’s “not very climate-friendly” to set government incentives for people to have more children, Babis responded, saying: “I have four children. Then I’m probably climate-damaging.”

In Germany, a country where a large portion of the population seems to have lost touch with reality, there are now certain climate activists who measure everything in terms of carbon dioxide and would, therefore, prefer to ban child-bearing.

Babis went on to say that the only people who immigrate to the Czech Republic are invited by its government.

“We welcome foreigners, more than five percent of our population is born abroad, but we are the ones who decide who comes here and who does not,” the Czech Prime Ministere declared.

Throughout his tenure as the leader of the small central European country, Babis hasn’t wavered in his opposition to mass migration from the third world – something the EU technocrats are certainly not happy with.

In the past, Babis has suggested that the EU should model its asylum policy after the Australian model, which processes those seeking asylum outside of the country.

    ....in address to Italy, expresses solidarity, willingness to help however he can:

Orbán:  “We reject migrant quotas, but accept deportation quotas with pleasure”

Voice of Europe 26 Sept 2019:

In a rousing speech given at an annual event hosted by the national-conservative Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) party in Rome, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced that his governments rejects the EU’s migrant redistribution quotas, but would “accept deportation quotas with pleasure”.

Once Italy holds elections, the Brothers of Italy will likely be a key player in the next ethnonational populist governing coalition, along with Salvini’s League.

https://twitter.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/1175436177261912064

Throughout the speech, Orbán implored Italy’s leadership to protect its citizens and close its borders.

While he acknowledged that the country’s new leftist coalition government appears to be realigning itself with globalists in Brussels, Orban also said that Hungary would be there to fully support Italy when and if it removes its anti-Italian and anti-European leadership.

“Hungary is ready to help Italy in whatever way we can, but there are areas where we cannot help,” Orbán said. “We cannot help with the transport and settlement of any migrants in Hungary. That is impossible.”

“But once you decide it, we can help you defend your borders, and if you are determined to send home the migrants who are already here, we can help you with that, too.”

“Mandatory settlement quotas, we cannot accept, but deportation quotas with pleasure,” Orbán declared.

Vlad Tepesblog @Vladtepesblog

Last 2 minutes of Viktor Orban speech in Italy.

03:57 - 24 Sep 2019
Twitter Ads information and privacy
15 people are talking about this

“So if PM Conte were to ask the Hungarians to send home a couple of thousand migrants from Italy back to where they came from, then Hungary will be ready and help fulfill such obligations,” the Hungarian PM continued.

Orbán also touched on the steps his government has taken to support Hungarian families but asserted that there are still too few children being born.

“If we don’t do something to counter the negative demographic trend, it will never change,” Orbán added. He then insisted that he would never support globalist policies which seek to replace the children who aren’t being born with migrants.

The Hungarian then wrapped up his speech with this sobering statement: “We are in the minority in the European political elite, but in the majority among nations and people. Our opposition is big, rich, strong and well organized, thus we must fight an unjustly difficult battle for what is right.”

Tips? Follow Arthur Lyons

John Mearsheimer, The Roots of Liberal Hegemony, Yale University speech, published 22 Nov 2017.

       

(17:54): I just want to be clear, that if we’re going to [be talking about] liberalism, we’re talking about at home, not liberalism abroad; and with regard to nationalism, I’m not making the argument that nationalism is this wonderful force all the time.

Okay. Roots of liberal hegemony - the talk tonight. As I said, you’ve got to start with human nature, that was my chapter two. And when you talk about human nature, really what you’re asking is, ‘what are those common traits that all individuals have in common?’

And by the way, this is something that the founding fathers of liberalism paid enormous attention-to.

I believe that if you’re going to think about liberalism and nationalism, you have to wrestle with these questions.

And there are two big questions:

1) The first question is, ‘are men and women social beings above all else or does it make more sense to emphasize their individuality? In other words, are humans fundamentally social animals, who strive hard to carve out room for their individuality, or are they individuals who form social contracts?

That’s question number one.

2) Question number two, second, have our critical faculties developed to the point where we can reach universal consensus, on what defines the good life - can we agree on first principles?

Can we use reason? Are we able to reason our way through collectively and come to meaningful agreement on the big questions about life?

Those are sort of the two big issues on the table when you think about human nature.

Now, my views on this subject are that human beings are primarily social animals. We’re born into societies. We’re born into groups; and we are heavily socialized inside those groups, both by the family and the society around us in a really big way before our individuality gets to assert itself.

I think human beings are very tribal, to put it in simplistic terms from the get go - that’s not to say that you can’t have a lot of individualism but we’re primarily social animals.

Secondly, I think it’s near impossible to reach universal consensus about questions about the good life.

I agree with Mearsheimer that socialization is primary, that we are primarily social animals. That is the human condition, should be considered the preliminary outlook and matter of negotiation - failing that sufficiently, the individual and their truth will not even survive - they become, thereby, a moot point, not even there to argue how facts count.

However, I don’t think the tribal designation is good short hand - that may have been the practical social survival unit historically, but eventually it became too small and the national social scale has become the optimal unit of survival for various practical reasons.

But coming back to the second question, of whether common grounds and recognition of the shared good between people can be established, Mearsheimer frames it wrong in the sense of looking for any sort of elaborate, universal agreement between nations.

The goal, rather, should be more modest, namely of coordination, enough recognition of common interests, self and other national interests to be able to function non conflictually.

Coordination is geared toward facilitating groups functioning in their own interests with minimal conflict as opposed to trying to achieve thorough cooperation in details that do not bear on capacity for coordination or interfere with the common good.

I do need to call your attention to the fact that there is a constellation of right wingers out there who will seize upon ANYTHING, often superficial matters, in order to distract from what I have to say (which is a coherent and complete enough platform in advocacy of European peoples; I can defend and explain anything that I say).

These people are usually antagonistic to me and the ideas that I put forth because they are committed to Christianity, to Hitler, or to the inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group..and sometimes it is reactionary scientism and egotism that has them averse to the integration of ideas which are very necessary to understand for the good of our people.

Let me say briefly, that coordination of human and pervasive ecology is a large concept which I table. Conducted according to White Post Modern understanding, it is grounds that people of any thought and decency should be able to agree upon to facilitate the survival and coordination of our distinct peoples.

However, these right wing commitments, part and parcel of modernity, run rough shod over coordination to an extent that even the most ethnocentric of tradition could never be capable of.

The first project then, getting people, Europeans anyway, especially northern Europeans, perhaps, to appreciate our social nature from the onset is somewhat difficult for the reasons that:

A) They/we are evolved somewhat more individualistically as we were more evolved against the challenges of nature rather than the challenges of other groups forcing us to band together.

B) This has been fetishized in our modernist quest for pure objective warrant and the reward of its scientific/technological yields, its grandiose moral claims beyond utility to relative social group interests, either beyond nature or in laws thereof; also tending to be narcissistically extended beyond the boundaries, discrimination and prerogatives of other groups - modernity runs rough shod over coordination for its failure to recognize differences while traditional ethnocentrism at least recognized the concept of non-natives, outsiders.

C) However, this objectivity has been somewhat spurned on by Christianity, itself introduced by YKW while the purity quest was weaponized further against Whites by YKW - exacerbated Alinsky style, viz. White Americans being instigated to live up to the anti-social (anti White social) Cartesian purity of Lockeatine individual civil rights against “racism” - i.e., prejudiced against the relative group interests of Whites, with boundaries and discrimination thereupon for Whites.

Furthermore, the Abrahamic religions tend to run rough shod over coordination as they insist upon one god, and tend to be narcissistic, disregarding the significance of national differences

D) To make matters worse, whatever socially organizing and qualitative niche advocating correctives to this universalism and individualism that were introduced through (((academia))), tended to be made didactic for Whites by being exaggerated or misrepresented so that Whites would react against the very corrective that they needed for organization and defense of their social systemic homeostasis - this is where we are at now with all this railing against “the left” and “its failure to deal with reality” its “social justice warring” and various other straw man characterizations of THE Leftist, “his call for equality”, “fifty eight genders”, trannies reading to children in libraries and in paradox to the profoundly leftist call for unionization mislabled a call for “liberalism.” This “scourge of ‘identity politics’, when we should all be American.”

There was/is a call for liberalism within the nation, in the sense of doing away with the strict aristocratic class system that England has had since 1066, but the union of England does not mean giving up its borders, it means a union of the English people, whether they had been so called aristocracy or working class.

Bateson calls this “paradigmatic conservatism” - strong borders of the group, but relative freedom of individuality as facilitated by group security. He felt, as I do, that that’s the way it should be but that the reverse is more and more the case - group borders are being forced open to run wild and individualism is getting pegged, put in a straight jacket.

.....

Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy - a post modern turn away from universalism well advised - as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.

However, he does not observe that The U.S. has failed democratic principle in important ways - notably in the open border/ opening of group boundaries policies in exploit of the “civic nationalist” concept that his YKW people have perpetrated through power niches in cahoots with liberals/right wingers to overturn democratic will (for closed borders) ..open borders and boundaries, weakening The United States nationhood and putting The U.S. effectively, on a trajectory of non-nationhood.

Note Mearsheimer’s use of the pejorative word “purportedly” when discussing nationalist claims to distinguish their people in ways (e.g., important biological differences) requiring a nation-state to protect their differences; i.e., that they are only “purportedly” different from other people in significant ways which require national boundaries/borders to protect them.

Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.

READ MORE...

The moment some fat liberal fuck, working for an (((NGO))), informs 82 African invaders that they will be allowed to disembark into European civilization.

Italy’s new globalist government invites NGOs to offload more migrants

By ARTHUR LYONS 15 Sept 2019:

A migrant transport ferry that has been continuously shuttling mostly military-aged migrant men into Europe this summer has announced that Italy’s new Liberal government has permitted it to offload 82 migrants at Lampedusa island.

Seventy percent of the individuals onboard the ship are military-aged men.

The ‘Ocean Viking’, a migrant transport vessel operated by the NGOs SOS Mediterranee and Doctors Without Borders, announced Saturday that Italian authorities gave the ship the go-ahead to begin sailing to Lampedusa island.

The ship reported that it had been six days since it had picked up this latest group of migrants before it was given permission to dock. 58 men, six women, and 17 minors are currently onboard the ship.

Previously, under the nationalist-populist Salvini government, Italy’s ports were closed to these NGO human transporters.

Now that leftist globalists are back in charge of Italy, the ports have seemingly been reopened to the third world masses.

Italy’s new government will once again begin allowing NGO human trafficker helpers to bring as many loads of mainly military-aged migrant man into Europe as possible.

Italy ‘puts an end’ to Salvini era as 82 rescued migrants allowed to dock

First time in 2019 a charity boat allowed to disembark on Italian soil

The Independent, Andy Gregory:

3 days ago

82 migrants rescued by the Ocean Viking will be allowed to dock on Italian island of Lampedusa ( AP Photo/Renata Brito )
A rescue ship carrying 82 refugees has received permission to dock on an Italian island, suggesting the hard line taken on such vessels by Matteo Salvini’s former government may be easing under the new coalition.

Ocean Viking’s crew said that after days of appealing for a port of safety, Italian authorities instructed them to sail to Lampedusa, a small Italian island between Malta and Tunisia.

It is the first time in 2019 that Italy’s government has granted a charity rescue boat permission to disembark.

Italy’s previous government, under a rigid anti-migrant policy led by League’s ethnonationalist leader Mr Salvini, banned charity rescue boats from entering Italy’s waters and disembarking migrants on the country’s shores.

But earlier this month, Mr Salvini lost power after he pulled out of a coalition with the Five Star Movement in the hope of triggering an early election he felt confident his party could win.

Instead the Five Star Movement formed an unlikely coalition with the Democratic Party, whose leader Nicola Zingaretti said in a clear dig at Mr Salvini: “We intend to put an end to the season of hatred, rancour and fear.”

Democratic Party leaders promised a fresh approach to migration, and have previously called for a more humane policy on migrant rescue boats, many of which have been forced to make illegal landings to ensure the safety of their passengers as a result of Mr Salvini’s policies.

In June the captain of Sea-Watch 3 was arrested after ramming a border police boat to dock at Lampedusa. In other cases the Italian authorities have seized ships and imposed heavy fines.

The 82 adults and children rescued by the Ocean Viking had been fleeing Libya, where refugees are currently sent in a deal agreed with the EU.

Charity SOS Mediterranée, which is running the ship alongside Doctors Without Borders (MSF) said it had been offered port of safety by Libya, but had refused it as it was “not a safe place for rescued people to be returned to”.

Describing those rescued on Ocean Viking, MSF Sea wrote on Twitter: “They tell our medics their skin was burned with melted plastic and they were beaten with sticks. These are just the physical injuries. There are even more horrific stories of abuse and exploitation that have left many with psychological wounds or trauma.”

The passengers had been rescued from two smaller boats – one a rubber dinghy without a working engine launched from Libya by human traffickers – on 8 and 10 September.

On Thursday, a 23-year-old Nigerian woman rescued by the Ocean Viking gave birth to a baby boy after being airlifted to Malta with her husband the previous day.

France and Germany have each agreed to take in a quarter of those onboard, and Italy 10 per cent, according to AFP.

Germany and other EU countries have advocated finding at least an interim solution to the impasse over rescues in the Mediterranean Sea, ahead of a meeting of the bloc’s interior ministers on 23 September in Malta.

Italy’s current and previous governments have insisted on more solidarity from fellow European Union nations, saying the migrants set out on their journeys seeking asylum or better economic conditions in Europe as a whole, not necessarily Italy.

Foreign minister Luigi Di Maio, who heads the Five Star Movement, said the Ocean Viking was only being given access to the southern island of Lampedusa because other European states had agreed to take in many of those on board.

“The new government has reopened its seaports [to migrants],” Mr Salvini said on Twitter on Saturday. “Italy returns to being Europe’s refugee camp. Abused by ministers, who hate the Italians.”

Source of quotes, Laura Towler for Defend Europa, 14 Sept 2019.

Mosley addresses the White Post Modern concern in the following quote.

It is an interesting question as to how to manage White post modernity, and one that is eminently worth commentary, would have commentary feedback if White Nationalism could muster a modicum of intellectual pragmatism.

For particular reasons (falling for deceptive language games profusely slathered over the public, stupidity perhaps), the struggle can’t get past reactionary mode yet..

Perhaps an age, a period, would not decide entirely what to maintain and what to leave behind, but clearly Mosley meant that there are times for a people to band together in defense, to drastically curtail the more experimental ventures in order to protect their inherited forms, and those ways which remain conducive.

READ MORE...

This History of “Political Correctness” remains the most incisive and accurate explanation of Political Correctness - also accurately described as “Cultural Marxism”.

Related at Majorityrights:

‘Give-em-Hell Trump’ re-normalizing social classification & discrimination - very good, but..

Barbara Spectre Is Back, in an Israeli summit of Jewish luminaries, including Rothschild, to unite worldwide Jewry and bring gentiles under yoke of Noahide law.

Barbara Spectre Is Back

...in summit with Jewish luminaries, held in Israel to unite worldwide Jewry in a “foundationalization’ of their common destiny.

...also discussed will be the obligations for the rest of mankind - the renewing of Noah’s covenant, The Noahide obligations incumbent upon all mankind.

...an international court based on biblical principles.