I worked with two Harvard grads. I would never hire one. Over inflated opinion of themselves and expectation of compensation that is not in line with the position they are doing. Not big on details, big picture types.
LOL — Asian virtue signaling. Left unsaid is ... “I’ve got mine, Jack”.
It appears that many Asian-Americans join the oppressed minority club in spite of being the cultural opposites of most of the rest of the members.
Perhaps that comes from watching too many episodes of Kung Fu.
Affirmative Action is just an insulting, racist program. It just flat-out says: “Your kind will never be as good as the “normal” people, but don’t worry, we’ll bend the rules so that even below normal people like you can have a chance.”
Black people should be the ones who are demanding that this stuff ends.
I’m in so close the door..................
Exactly. This is like Warren Buffett moaning and begging the government to raise his income taxes after he spent decades benefiting from Republican low taxes. If this Elyse D. Pham wants to put her PC credibility where her PC mouth is, she should leave Harvard and go to a state school so that a black or Latino can take her place.
America should have a public college system. It should be limited and free. Entrance should be acquired by testing one must earn the acceptance by achieving the high grade. If there is a tie the one with the highest IQ gets the position
etc.
Well, she doesn’t want the competition.
FWIW, Harvard used to (probably still does) apply similar quotas on Jewish people. They got sued and lost, but smart applicants hide their Jewishness on applications. Not sure how Asians would be any different.
Anyway, go to MIT, better school, less politics.
She seems to be saying that Asians should accept being denied college positions they have objectively earned because this is necessary to stick it to Whitey.
Affirmative Action is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and as such is a disgusting abridgement of the rights of any impacted by it.
The absurdity of a self identified Asian claiming the right to have her race preferred over others is self evident. What is her claim to preferential status? That her ancestors had nothing to do with the founding and sustainment of the United States? That the Americans prohibited people from her country from entering the country on demand up until 1965?
Does anyone know of any nation that simply acquiesces to foreign intrusion? That kind of “discrimination” is exactly what the meaning of a nation is.
So as long as the rules favor her race over others, guess she’s OK with it. Funny how we all know she wouldn’t extend the same courtesy to anyone else if she were in her country of ancestry.
No. Admissions MUST not take into consideration certain factors: sex, race, age, skin color, religion, sex preference, presence or absence of original sex organs.
Consider only ability. Nothing else.
She’s the token Asian-American.
Re: Affirmative action:
“Equal rights and equal opportunity, however, mean just that. They do not mean preferential treatment. Preferences, no matter how well intended, ultimately breed resentment among the nonpreferred. And preferential treatment demeans achievements that minority Americans win by their own efforts.”
Colin Powell - My American Journey with Joseph E. Persico
The above, I think, is a proper understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That Act required in its various sections that hiring and other decisions be made without regard to race or ethnicity. The goal was to include previously excluded racial or ethnic groups in the applicant pool.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly rejected any statistical representation or quota. In fact, Vice President Humphrey, who steered the legislation through the Senate, noted that it “does not require an employee to achieve any kind of racial balance in his work force by giving any kind of preferential treatment to any individual or group.”
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 703(j): “Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group because of the race, color, religion, sex or national origin of such individual group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed . . .”
Well, good luck with that. Administration agencies and courts were able to alter that and create policies never authorized by Congress and contrary to its plainly expressed legislative intent.