Posted on 03/02/2020 3:15:10 AM PST by Kaslin
Harvard, the crème de la crème of Ivy League education, has been proudly engaging in racial discrimination in 2020.
Harvard has a sordid history of employing and supporting racists and engaging in antisemitic limitations on the admission of Jews. But this article isn't about the past; it is about present-day discrimination of a different group of Harvard-hated students: Asians.
Asians have had their share of discrimination in American history, recall the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese internment camps as examples. But the Asian U.S. community has proven themselves to be resilient and forward-looking, and they have effectively jumped over the hurdles thrown in their path. They were prospering in the United States in the '70s and '80s. By the late 20th century, Asians were succeeding so well at universities that the race bigots in charge of higher-education felt the need to pull Asians back enter: Asian quotas.
Harvard, a haven for those with a leftist superiority complex, was happy to join in on the anti-Asian festivities.
Harvard has been on a mission to maintain an intentionally-designed racial balance at their university. Harvard has been meticulously crafting the racial makeup of their classes, making sure that a certain number of Black and Hispanic students are always represented, while simultaneously ensuring that Asians are not overrepresented.
According to a DOJ brief that was filed last week in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, "Harvard's close attention to its racial composition has produced a remarkably consistent racial balance in the admitted class from year to year ... consider[ing] race at virtually every step of its admission process. And its officials constantly monitor and continually reshape the racial makeup of each admitted class as it emerges. Those mechanisms confirm that Harvard's racial balancing is no accident; it is engineered ... balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids." Most importantly, DOJ argued, Harvard's admissions process employs a system of de facto quotas which is patently unconstitutional.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. illuminated this issue when they sued Harvard for a racist admissions policy that discriminated against Asians while accepting less-qualified students of other minority groups in their place. The trial court found that "more than one third of the admitted Hispanics and more than half of the admitted African Americans, would most likely not be admitted in the absence of Harvard's race-conscious admissions process." The evidence also showed that Asain-Americans were intentionally disadvantaged by the race-centered admission policy. Harvard conceded that eliminating consideration of race would increase Asian student admission. Notwithstanding findings that clearly showed civil rights violations, the seemingly leftist trial court found in favor of Harvard's perverse racist admissions policy because of the benefit it afforded to Black and Hispanic students. The aptly outraged Asian students appealed, and the DOJ sided with these students, filing a scathing brief to chastise Harvard and the ridiculous decision of the trial judge. The DOJ also announced that they are concurrently investigating a separate complaint against Harvard that was filed by more than 60 Asian-American organizations.
"Harvard's use of race benefits African-American and Hispanic applicants," explained the DOJ. Harvard's process "triples the likelihood of being admitted for African-American applicants ... [and] doubles the chances of admission for Hispanics." This race "bump" was "determinative" for "approximately 45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants," the trial court found. According to DOJ calculations, Harvard's use of race provides a 133% bonus to African Americans. But this benefit comes at a cost, and the payers are Asian American students. "... the evidence clearly shows that Harvard imposes a racial penalty on Asian Americans as compared to members of other minority races that Harvard favors," the DOJ explained. Harvard achieved this by systematically and impersonally marking all Asian applicants as having less integrity, being less confident, assuming they are less qualified leaders, and so on mind-bogglingly racist personal qualification assumptions. At the same time, Black and Hispanic applicants were blanketly given the highest scores in these same categories.
Harvard's racism is clearly unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and it violates the Civil Rights Act. But it is an even more outrageous problem that affects every tax-paying American. Why? Because Harvard receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding every year. That means that Americans are paying for Harvard to engage in illegal race discrimination.
The DOJ's interjection in the Harvard case speaks volumes about the justified racism that has been the driving force of leftist diversity policy in modern times. DOJ's brief implies that enough is enough; that Americans oppose racism in any form and against any group; that we will not tolerate a benefit to one race at the unethical expense of another.
.
The left does not get penalized for their racism or any other of their many inconsistencies and double standards. We can all hope ....
Being a private institution means nothing now. The all powerful FedGov will tell you what you can do. And conservatives will applaud.
But who will pay for affirmative action and black history month?
How come white students don’t matter even though they’re just as discriminated against? Nobody even mentions them.
Affirmative action is illegal and unconstitutional. Laws that “allow” it are invalid and not binding.
All of the universities and colleges still employ a quota system that discriminates against whites.
Nobody mentions that tittle bit of fully accepted PC discrimination.
This outcome based “diversity” has been going on a very long time everywhere. It has killed fairness and equity in our country. Outcome based diversity WAS REPARATIONS. It was and is wrong and has made prejudice against certain groups acceptable and laudable. It MUST stop.
Judging by the quality of the recent graduates from Haaavaahd, it has ceased to be an institution of higher education.
Harvard is picking one minority. Hispanic citizens over another minority, Asian citizens based strictly on the color of their skin and race. What about this is not unconstitutional and violative of the 14th amendment, no matter how allegedly well intentioned their racial discrimination is?
Poor choice of words. It should not be "overrepresented". It should be "fairly represented".
It is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
The Left cannot maintain its identity political power if the laws are required to be colorblind.
The left must be able to reward its disparate collection of identity groups with special rewards and privileges in order to hold its coalition together.
I justifies this with the theory, held as absolute fact, that all racial identity groups have exactly the same talents and weaknesses as all others.
This is fundamentally false.
Theyve been doing this since the 70s at least
My 1480 SAT was too white for them
Wow just 4 posts till the Paulistinians showed up
a new record!
While claiming to help historically Black Colleges, the Trump administration is in fact trying to make it more difficult for African Americans to enter Harvard."
This is how the MSM will spin this story.
>
Are you saying private institutions can racially discriminate against any race they like?
Would you be saying the same thing if Harvard were consistently discriminating against blacks?
>
Yes & yes. And, when the public consumer base either bolsters their position, or causes them to fold, the Free Market will have done its job.
Course, not even many “(C)” these days would think the Fed. intrusion & trampling of Rights via ‘Civil Rights Act’ are a *bad* thing...When even the old (& correct) signage: “We have the Right to deny service for any reason” is poo-poo’d.
Gosh......I wonder if White Students might also have been discriminated against......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.