Harvard Does Not Discriminate Against Asian-Americans in Admissions, Judge Rules

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected claims that Harvard had discriminated against Asian-Americans in admissions, saying that the university had a right to choose a diverse class.

The challenge to the university’s admissions process came from a group hoping to overturn a longstanding Supreme Court precedent that allows race to be considered as one factor among many, but prohibits universities from using quotas in admissions.

The judge, Allison Burroughs, rejected the argument that Harvard was using affirmative action as a weapon against some races and a boon to others, and said that the university met the strict judicial standard for considering race in its admissions process.

In her decision, Judge Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said that while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here.

“For purposes of this case, at least for now, ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions,” the judge said. “The students who are admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents. They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race, as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences. It is this, at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us, one day, to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet.”

The plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit representing a group of Asian-American students rejected by Harvard, had accused the college of violating federal civil rights law by holding Asian-Americans, who as a group get better test scores and grades than other races, to a higher standard.

The three-week trial last October set off a national discussion about the role of race and ethnicity in college admissions. It led to sometimes bitter debate over whether the college admissions system was a beacon of meritocracy or a system that privileged some groups — like the children of alumni, wealthy donors and certain minorities — while penalizing others.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/harvard-admissions-lawsuit.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914401)

fuckin lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914407)

call me when the supreme court takes this up (they obviously will). then it will be a bloodbath.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914419)

https://www.boston.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/allison-burroughs-850x478.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914421)

will this get appealed?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914504)

Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x)

Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x)

Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x)

Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x)

African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x)

Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x)

non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914510)

that's now lawful and even wonderful, the judge says.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914648)

Take the midpoints. 5.5 / 7.5 = 0.73. I wouldn't call a 23% lower admissions rates "slightly lower."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914659)

is an important aspect of education. See Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).The evidence at trial was clear that a heterogeneous student body promotes a more robust academic

environment with a greater depth and breadth of learning, encourages learning outside the

classroom, and creates a richer sense of community. See [Oct. 19 Tr. 185:23–187:24; Oct. 23 Tr.

24:13-20, 31:2–34:11, 59:8–14; Oct. 30 Tr. 27:20–28:8]. The benefits of a diverse student body

are also likely to be reflected by the accomplishments of graduates and improved faculty

scholarship following exposure to varying perspectives. See [Oct. 30 Tr. 28:9–30:11].

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914663)

lawyers are just a shitty, dysfunctional cross between mathematicians and priests who operate under the collective delusion (deliberate sophistry?) that "the law" is an axiomatic system, rather than something that is just fucking made up out of thin air

if it wasn't the "supreme court" making this shit up out of whole cloth and then referencing their own made up nonsense 25 years later, it would just be somebody else doing the same thing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914705)

odd case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914923)

SNU MA though. u mad?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38915463)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38914973)

Instead the media portrays it as legacy admits (who haven't donated $10 mm) are getting in with 1100 SAT scores.

I'm pretty sure that the aversion to AA would drop dramatically if AA was handled in a similar manner. If an Asian with a 1500 SAT score had a 20% chance but a black kid had an 95% chance - that'd be okay. The problem is an Asian kid with a 1500 SAT score has a 5% chance and a black kid with a 1300 SAT score has a 50% chance. And this is the reason for the negative effects of AA on minorities which has now been well documented.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38915196)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38920689)

why

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4354914&forum_id=2#38921224)