Supreme Court Rules Harvard and Other Universities Cannot Discriminate Against Asian Americans

by

The Supreme Court has ruled public and private Universities cannot use race as a factor in college admissions.

Harvard and other Universities have used race factors to reduce the admissions of Asian Americans. Asian Americans have in general had superior SAT scores and other grades. This was increasing the percentage of Asian Americans admitted to colleges. However, Affirmitive Action was used to in recent years to be racist against Asian Americans.

Unbiased admissions would have had about 50% Asian admissions at colleges at Berkeley while Harvard and Stanford suppressed Asian admissions.

Over an 18-year period stretching from 1995 to 2013, Asian-American students admitted to Harvard scored higher on the SAT than did their peer admits from other racial groups. Asian-American applicants on average scored highest on the SAT and African-American applicants scored lowest.

Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono estimates that an Asian-American with a 25 percent chance of admission to Harvard would have a 33 percent chance if he or she were white, a 75 percent chance if Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance if black. Furthermore, the average Asian-American admittee to Harvard had SAT scores roughly 120 points higher than blacks admitted and 50 points higher than whites. (This is a low estimate, as a third or more of Asian applicants would have scored higher than the maximum SAT score had the maximum been increased.)

It seems that the Supreme court ruling against race bias, will mean that names, race and address data will need to be removed from admissions applications when they go to admissions officer. All considerations of admissions will need to be made based on information which race-blind.

Solutions

There is no need to keep the level of students at top tier universities artificially low. Most universities will not have elite professors teaching undergraduates anyway. There could be an expansion of quality undergraduate education capacity at Universities. Create more campuses and increase the number of quality teaching assistants and lecturers. Expand enrollment by 4X or 10X. Harvard admitted less than 2000 annually.

Cornell admits over 5000.

The University of Toronto admits 17000 per year.

There needs to be improvement of all of the K-12 schools.

There is no quota so that there are 10% Asian Americans in the NBA. There is no talk of adjusting the standards of admissions into top sports based upon race.

The adjustments need to be made to improve the quality of people so that they can succeed based upon actual merit.

43 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rules Harvard and Other Universities Cannot Discriminate Against Asian Americans”

  1. Looking at the average SAT scores, it must have become easier since the 1970s. Has there been SAT inflation?

  2. Why should any Asians be admitted to Harvard? Whites created Harvard (and essentially discovered or created all the knowledge taught there) and should be free to choose to pass it down to their progeny.

    Instead, idiot white people looked around Harvard and thought “Gee, there’s way too many whites here. We better start discriminating against ourselves.”

    Multiculturalism is a failure as is modern liberalism.

  3. It seems Brian hasn’t been informed that merit is a racist, colonialist, white supremacist construct and no longer counts for anything, let alone college admissions… (sarcasm – well not really…).

    • The problem with merit is that it isn’t always earned. Sometimes it is given. The big difference between having the lowest paid most uneducated teacher teaching 50 children per class in a ghetto and having very well-paid teachers with Masters and PhDs teaching 20 children and less in an affluent suburb. Then there is history, the children of a sharecropper whose parents would have been killed for knowing how to read versus the children of an Asian with a Master’s Degree or an MD. Our paths thru life aren’t always the same. Our society must offer opportunity to all not just to a few and that must include blacks. The top colleges will not be 100% Asian and 0% black so the admission process will be changed. Maybe it will be a lottery.

  4. I’ve come to the conclusion that multi culture societies don’t work and we should stop trying to recolonies others with western woke values.

  5. Colleges should just randomly select from the people who apply. This way there would be no discrimination and their incoming classes would reflect the diversity of the applicants. Some people would of course think this wouldn’t be fair. But it should be noted that those who can’t cut it will quickly fall out and that everyone would be given a chance. And to be absolutely fair “Legacy” entrance will need to stop.

    • It seems kind of inefficient with a good chance that the number of ‘grad-school’-quality people would crater (less quality undergrads) – which to me is the most important reason for college – getting that top 5% talented to reach their potential.
      If we assume that each University published it’s minimum application standards and all applied who met that — say 15 – 30% of the graduating high school class — and just guessing, 1-in-3 get into some kind of program somewhere, based on filling existing classrooms and labs, I would guess that way more than 75% fail to make it into their final year of undergrad – somewhat worse than the less than 50% who now make it (STEMs more). It would be interesting to see what the half to 2/3 would do with their lives having ‘lotteried out’ of any post-secondary education – even though they may have valedictorian-ed. LOL

    • What? That makes no sense when you are trying to pick the candidates MOST likely to succeed in coursework.
      Yea but let’s increase the failure rate needlessly

      • When your daddy pays $50,000/year for tuition plus a large bribe for admission you are guaranteed to get B grades. Ask Kennedy. Ask Romney.

  6. Are we sure that people want to fix those problems? If not, there is no amount of money that will matter – how ever it is wasted.

    Sure people don’t want wars, in the abstract, but will they give up their lifestyles of hate and resentment of such and such heritage or culture or religion or region or have/have not; therefore taking up arms to antagonize, threaten, undertake special military action, or take quick offence at such-and-such facebook besmirchment?
    Sure people don’t want poverty, in the abstract, but will they give up having 8 children, following violent and disorganized tribes/ religions/ politicians, being part of a cultural community *before* they think of themselves as an individual who needs to work and plan and organize, undertake behaviour of location and lifestyle that will lead to little else except high-probabiltiy of famine or exposure or violence?
    Of course, it’s a chicken-egg thing, one has to be raised in a culture of success to have the opportunity to be more successful and then spread that, but at the end of the day: the most successful societies follow an individualist, pro-work-identity, pro-consumer, pro-technology mindset – which often minimizes traditional values of family, community, heritage, and neighborhood – which is abhorent to most ‘old world cultures’.
    Perhaps a technological ‘black box’ of unlimited free energy, unlimited clean water, unlimited free communication, and an E.musk nanny-bot infestation could provide enough infrastructure to obviate such ‘growing pains’ cultural challenges.

  7. Good point that the top US universities could greatly expand undergrad enrollment without lowering standards at all. It should be a matter of National policy to encourage top ranked Universities to expand admissions.

  8. Clearly true, no need to discriminate against the more studious races, but there is a need to give a hand to a certain extent to the infantile black race and to some extent to the lazy and spoiled White race. They will cause more harm if they stay behind.

    • I think you’re confusing race with culture. I know many with light pigmented skin who are very into a lifestyle many would define as being of caribbean or african origin. Though the Venn diagram of race and culture is very ‘over-lapped’, best to look at upbringing, values, and life choices as being more aligned with culture than race.

    • I fail to see how the white race can be characterized as lazy and spoiled when they built the modern world, including the institutions this is centered on

      • Sure in London or Manchester of the 1800s. But have you met a youth in urban/ rural US since the 1960s – some of the lowest test scores, work ethic, and ambitions of any in the free and not-so-free civilized world.

      • The absolutely did – and from the 1600s through the 1850s they enslaved a large population of Africans – raping, murdering, torturing and forced-laboring them to create untold wealth that was the envy of the world.
        Tell you what: me and my friends are going to play a 500 year game of Infinite Monopoly. After 30 years we realize it’s a pretty hard game, so we hire people to capture you and your entire family, and we force you to play with us, only we take everything you win in the game. If you try not to play, we’ll torture, rape and even murder you until you agree to play. After 400 years, we’ll realize we’re total assholes – so we’ll let you play and keep the stuff you win from now on (actually we’ll keep cheating quite a bit for at least 100 more years, but you can keep *some* of what you win) – but we aren’t giving back any of the 500 years of winnings we stole and distributed among ourselves. The game is fair now. Keep playing as-is.

        • Bleeding-Heart Liberal Sentimental Nonsense. Of course, unimaginable atrocities were committed by a small number of delusional opportunists – easily an early precedent for the capitalist CEO of today – -and- their governments did little to pursue and punish such activities or the businesses that benefited, especially in the early days. But to portray the africans, caribbeaners, south-east asians, and others along the equator as some kind of ‘gentle and noble tribes just going about their time-honored traditions’ is drivel. They were every bit, and more, the genocidal savage maniacs as any european crusader, asian warlord, early american continent war tribe, etc., etc. They committed every single imaginable heinous act within their families, communities, against neighbors and allies and enemies with way more brutality and cold-blooded savagery than any slave ship or colonial war party. They were just technologically, ill-prepared to commit their violence and conquest beyond their own natural boundaries. Being primitive, backward, and simple does not make one group, region, or culture noble, saintly, or free-of-blame/accountability. Having the bigger gun doesn’t make you the bigger criminal. At least, nowadays there is some general acceptance that having greater technology does come with greater responsibilities, even if poorly defined and understood. Hopefully, Russia will come to understand that in the coming months -and- keep their barbarian values within their own backyard.

  9. Why the derp?

    Harvard admissions are roughly 50% white, 20% asian, 12% hispanic, 13% black

    US by population roughly 60% white, 6% asian, 19% hispanic, 13% black.

    Seems Asians are doing well indeed.

    Maybe quadruple the tuition and eliminate space for rich white folks putting the highly qualified in their place.

    • Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono estimates that an Asian-American with a 25 percent chance of admission to Harvard would have a 33 percent chance if he or she were white, a 75 percent chance if Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance if black. Furthermore, the average Asian-American admittee to Harvard had SAT scores roughly 120 points higher than blacks admitted and 50 points higher than whites. (This is a low estimate, as a third or more of Asian applicants would have scored higher than the maximum SAT score had the maximum been increased.)

      • Perhaps now – it is time for you to post an Article on the Chinese University system vs the American University system and let us know how it leads to a successful society. Which to follow? What are the pros and cons for getting ‘the Best’ to their ‘rightful place’ of productivity and creative genius? I certainly cannot guess.

      • Great, we’ll get those Asian genius’s that aren’t working for the PRC into Harvard by getting rid of those useless white frat boys that are flying on Daddy’s donations.

        All such frat boys admitted will be charged quadruple tuition to cover scholarships for Asian genius’s.

        Ordinary asians with normal sat scores will be admitted as part of the hoi polloi.

        Note that high school marks and Sat scores are not the best predictor of post college success. Smart folks are frequently very lazy as everything comes to them so easily. Very motivated students score well because the average high school course is designed to give A+ to a student that can read and do his homework.

        Real life post college doesn’t work that way.

    • No, nobody needs handouts or be treated like an infant.

      What they need is a real sense of accomplishment, and that every part of the selection process is truly blind to color, sexual preference, gender and any other inherent unchangeable group-label.

      The good behaviors are learned by example and if people know following the good behaviors will work out for them, they will follow them.

      • Perhaps the bigger question is: what is a university suppose to be? Simply an assembly line of homework, tests, labs, and exams to determine your rank to a pre-determined role as junior STEM or lib.Arts corporate/company drone or government paper-pusher climbing the proverbial ladder? Then maybe your SAT score is enough to rank you for such – I imagine the Imperial examination 科舉 was similar – barely civilized nonsense.

        I always envisioned Uni as a place to connect with other greats to determine life direction, plan for grad school, come up with the next big thing, etc., a means to creativity and newness. I haven’t applied for Uni in a few decades but imagine that the selection process and experiences for admission must include other significant life accomplishments. Did Elon finish top of his Class? Gates? Jobs? How were their SATs?

        • University is supposed to be the later.

          A place fostering universal (hence the name) thinking and giving you he knowledge required for a profession of the intellectual kind, or preparing you for a future in research and new knowledge generation. Regardless of the type of career, it was supposed to open up your mind.

          Nowadays in many cases it’s far from it. A lot of BS careers preparing you for nothing useful, fashioning your mind into an obedient drone of a political clique’s favorite cultus.

          The exception still are STEM careers, of course, where you need to produce visibly working stuff or verifiably true results and BS gets you nowhere. That’s where the fiercest competition is, and where the most grievous quotas were stablished.

    • Until one sees how Universities are funded by alumini, bequests, tuition, etc. The reality is that greatness comes from money, attracting teaching talent, and perceived rank. If you look how the universities rank -and- their ‘quality’ -and- where those get their funding ‘private vs public’ – gentrification usually wins, even if some in the barrel are overly-privileged bad apples. The Elites have done way more good than bad in pushing society along.

  10. In spirit, I agree with this – a race-blind, hyper-meritocratic undertaking. Though, it should be a non-issue since everyone who is ‘worthy’ of a higher education should get in – and the criteria should be comprehensiev and applicable. How many are refused entry, that in a given year, due to numbers, may be excluded? Or are we worried that people who have nothing better to do than chase grades, but have no other redeeming value, are not getting their #1 uni choice? My ‘principle’ (as in school) parent, now retired, often told us stories of those in the chinese community of our well-mixed middle-class, neighborhood would harass the 1st grade teachers about making sure they gave their kids the best books and materials, since they were to be doctors. Ambition and competitiveness is to be lauded, but ruthless ‘beating down of your neighbor’ as part of your trajectory to greatness is necessarily community-destroying. ‘All spoils to the winner’ may appear to be a worthwhile goal, but conflict often undermines competitiveness – since, at some level, collaboration with your peers is needed in most every discipline.

    • Agreed. But the reality is that most groups (by whatever identity: gender, race, ethnicity, age, team affiliation, education background) ‘prefer their own’ unless extremely clear negatively. We had a senior electrical engineer of asian descent who constantly recruited asian engineers, all brilliant, but with very mediocre language skills — often affecting the group’s ability to comunicate. Then there is the hyper-introvert, the socialite ‘include everyone, even against their will’, the wokeist that everything has to be fair and open and touchy-feely, the toxic crusader, etc., etc. A circus of personalities.

      Group identity has been a force of negative economic and social growth for decades – a precarious tension between:
      a world of free-flowing people, defined by skills, mostly, in the desperate but apparently noble goal of fitting the best, by skill, into their ideal job or role -vs-
      a world of cultures, defined by language, family and cultural values, in the goal of fitting the best collaborative, agreeable, and productive environment
      Each industry, group, community, and region may need different levels of either of the above to reach goals and accomplish success.

      • Note that the reason why a manager hiring only people of their same ethnic group with poor communication skills, could became a problem, it’s because bringing such a thing up as a management concern is pretty much taboo.

        That’s why having such social taboos and most pious but coercitive forced-equality measures (beyond the person’s merit) cause more problems than they solve.

      • Most of these policies came into Law or Policy due to the overly-promoted opinions of a very few Archie Bunkers of this world – though unfortunately, often in positions of much business control and influence — an obvious over-reaction. For the most part, people are very merit-conscious (though I suppose you wouldn’t notice that walking around most Rest Homes), there just has to be a transparent and comprehensive standard – grades, education, experience, etc. — though I suppose, often, many places can’t be bothered.

  12. That graph is pretty damning of a policy that has fine-sounding reasons and arguments in favor, but in the end really doesn’t achieve what it might have been positioned to do.

    I think meritorious ascent — especially in schools — is one of the most affirming ways by which society, culture, opportunity and outcome can be arranged to inform those trying to ‘get ahead’ of how to do so. Try hard, work at it, the system is color-race-class-and-bigotry blind. It was in fact why the US Armed Forces was so adamant at inducting (formerly exclusively) men of all races, etc., into their ranks. TO GIVE UPWARD OPPORTUNITY to each individual, both in the Army, and then in life, afterward.

    Such a basis of advancement, free from taint of systemic racism, really does work to raise culture as a whole. And it is laudable, to me.

    That Asian-background people will rise to a simple majority of students at so many of our public and private universities is NOT something to be worried about, but celebrated. They worked hard, got the grades, passed the exams, gave up a lot of social interaction to … get into fine universities. CELEBRATE IT. Their skin color, their height, their hair color … doesn’t matter.

    So, in this new SCOTUS result, I am very happy. I’ve been arguing for just such for now over 40 years. “About time”

    • Indeed. The meritocratic selection methods were the most anti-racist system ever invented.

      That we could be convinced otherwise for so long, is a testament to the power of cultist group thinking, and the reason why religion must be separated from government.

    • I think the question could also include: how are these various races doing in their 2nd and subsequent years? How many continue into grad school? How many get placed within their chosen field? The point being that that is the measure of success – how university-worthy are those that get in based on the criteria used for entry?

  13. This is great news. Now my kids don’t have to pick which parent’s race they will claim on their application and worry how much their choice will impact their chances.

  14. Good. All inherent attributes-based quota systems for admission and application of rights are discriminatory.

    Only the work and ability should count.

    Things starting going south when they started admitting people based on orthogonal attributes to their work and results.

  15. Great news for the us! Finally some sanity. Imagine treating everyone as an individual, instead of based on race. What a novel idea. Watch the left wing media lose its mind justifying why systemic racism is needed. barrack Obamas girls getting an extra advantage over a poor white or Asian kid!? Disgusting.

  16. Whoo! Not that I expect my Filipino/American son to ever go to Harvard; He’s actually got his heart set on MIT, like his hero Dick Feynman. But this isn’t just going to be binding on Harvard.

    It’s a good day for equality before the law.

Comments are closed.