Posted on 10/16/2019 9:47:18 AM PDT by karpov
In a long-awaited decision, federal trial judge Allison Burroughs has ruled that, while Harvard does consider a student’s race in determining who gets in and who doesn’t (“the use of race in and of itself is admitted”), nonetheless Harvard is not breaking the law.
That outcome was not surprising, and the judge’s opinion is unlikely to change many minds or alter the case’s expected trajectory to the Supreme Court.
Judge Burroughs found that “Race is only intentionally considered as a positive attribute.” But if race is a positive attribute for favored groups, then does it not follow that it is a negative attribute for everyone else? Well, yes, she admits about 100 pages later, writing, “Race conscious admissions will always penalize to some extent groups that are not being advantaged by the process.” Sure, there is discrimination against Asian Americans, but it isn’t “undu[e]” or “disproportionate.”
Here’s a sociopolitical reality: If it’s legally accepted that racial discrimination in admissions is permissible if you do A-B-C and do not do 1-2-3, then universities will make those claims. And so Judge Burroughs explains at great length why she accepts Harvard’s assertions that its discrimination is “narrowly tailored” (A-B-C) and that she is persuaded by the school that its discrimination is not anti-Asian (vis-a-vis whites, 1-2-3) but is only pro-diversity.
I believe she’s wrong in concluding that our law permits group discrimination as long as it doesn’t hurt disfavored groups “unduly.” The Civil Rights Act in particular and the 14thAmendment weren’t written that way. But Harvard drew one of the judges who reads the Supreme Court’s dubious jurisprudence to conclude that they were.
So those who favor a colorblind society (including college admissions) will struggle on. The plaintiffs (Students for Fair Admissions) have already announced that they’ll appeal to the First Circuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Nowadays, it's OK to discriminate against Asians.
In both cases it's a matter of envy towards intellectual or scholastic betters.
Future “narrowly tailored” millstones around my double standard neck.
The judge has ratified a new Chinese Exclusion Act for academia except that she extended it to all Asians and Whites.
Find an Asian hahvid graduate,
hire him to teach only Asians.
The Ancient School Of Hahvidism
.. is not a rip off of the school.
Asians seem to be content riding on the POC bandwagon. This is particularly annoying, since they make more money than whitey does and suffered no more abuse than a lot of Europeans. I think it is good for them to experience yellow becoming the new white. Maybe they will wake up and see which side really has their backs.
Well, didn’t they let in Hogg Boy the gun control teen idol before a lot of people (including Asians who were that likely far more academically qualified)?
The racial identification of a person is determined at birth just as sexual identification. If one is allowed to change sexual identification, why not allow everyone to change racial identification to an oppressed group if they feel oppressed.
From so many decades ago and in fact for my entire adult lifetime, affirmative action in academic admissions has been instituted to cut Jews and Asians down to size.
No other reason.
All the rest is bafflegab.
It's not just Asians, whites get discriminated against in all kinds of 'legal' ways.
Do they need to feel oppressed? Just let them change it on a whim.
Of course the entire ruling is underpinned by the idea that racial diversity is an end-goal and as such all other factors, such as academic-ability, are secondary.
I forget where I saw it but I read somewhere that Trump got 56% of the Chinese-American vote and based on my interactions with Asian folks I believe it. They aren’t as religious and they are much less vocal about politics in general, but I don’t see them as hardcore Dem voters. Don’t write off the Asian vote just yet.
Very disappointing decision. Asians are being punished for daring to be successful independent of Whitey’s charity. How dare they not need white liberals holding their hand and providing them with safe spaces?
If this would have a been a Black group suing Harvard, guaranteed this would have gone the other way. This is why you need a Trump Presidency. To prevent over-educated imbeciles like this judge making it up as they go along. Liberals are great at cranking out kids which become bad lawyers, failed on the spectrum tech wizkids and professional whiners and protesters.
If any race is seen as a "positive attribute" then that means that at least one *other* race is seen as a "negative attribute".
Another name for that is racial discrimination.
Not hardly
The National Exit Poll, funded by the major national media organizations, shows that Clinton won roughly two-thirds (65 percent) of Asian-American votes, while Trump received just over a quarter (27 percent), according to pollsters at Edison Research.
Seventy-seven percent of Indian Americans who responded to the 2016 National Asian American Survey voted for former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, noted researchers who released results May 15.
Eighty percent of Indian Americans view President Donald Trump unfavorably, according to the survey, which was conducted shortly after the Nov. 8, 2016 general election.
Affirmative action teaches young people a lesson that they will never forget:
The color of your skin is more important than the content of your character.
What can President Trump do to overturn this decision? Of course he can use his position as President to draw attention to the discrimination, but I’m unclear on the exact steps he could use to force a private university like Harvard to end anti-Asian and anti-white discrimination.
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.