43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[alexf.1990]

Their? You mean "its." The stat you're referring to solely relates to dropping legacy admissions. Donor and child of employee are separate categories, which is why they ran models that included the other preferences. Why are you only focused on the effect of dropping legacy admissions when the article is about the combined effect of ALDC?

They didn't run models for what a class would look like without donor and children of staff would look like. They ran models for non-legacy, non-athlete, and non-athlete/legacy/racial preference. The results are posted above. There's absolutely no factual basis for your claims or the narrative pushed in the article. The only way I can imagine you've arrived at your conclusion is if you assume that the ADLC applicants wouldn't be replaced if the ADLC system were removed, which is a stunning mistake for someone so well-versed in the social "sciences." Someone capable of making such an elementary error wouldn't dare to correct another poster on a mere pronoun typo.

Are you refusing to read anything other than Table 11? I literally quoted the information from Table 10 above.

Table 10 only tells you the likelihood that current ADLC admits would have been admitted without ADLC preferences, it doesn't simulate what an admissions class would look like without those preferences in place. That is, we know those candidates have a lower chance of admission, but who would take their place without those policies in place. Table 11 gives us the answer: largely other white and Asian students. This is the exact opposite of what you and the journalists covering this story are arguing. Your narrative appears to be: whites are represented because of these "racist" policies. The reality is that without racial preference, this very study shows 66% of black and hispanic students wouldn't be admitted to Harvard. Do better.

If you read the methods section, you would know that the simulated class demographics are based on admissions probability. Admissions probabilities for various characteristics are laid out in multiple tables. If the researchers felt they could accurately calculate how the combined effects would impact the number of admits for each racial/ethic category in the counterfactuals, their expectation was that removing ALDC preferences would result in a drop of White admits that is significantly more than 6%. They focused on legacy, as opposed to child of donors or child of employees, for ease of exposition. As I have stated multiple times, the group that is most negatively impacted by ALDC preferences is Asians. 

It should also be noted that Dr. Arcidiacono, the person who wrote the study, was retained by Students for Fair Admissions. In a court case, you're going to choose an expert who will benefit your argument. I believe the stats Dr. Arcidiacono collected are accurate. However, the decision to only run certain simulations could have possibly been influenced by the fact that he was working for the plaintiffs. For balance, this is the report from Dr. Card, who was retained by Harvard. 

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/di...dacted.pdf

I read the methods section of the report. If you believe the inclusion of donor and child of employee data would lead to "significantly more more than the 6%" reduction, feel free to show how you came to that conclusion. Neither the original paper, nor the one you just posted alleges such. It's just such a reach to make an allegation like that, while simultaneously ignoring the clear conclusion of the paper: that Harvard's admissions preferences are racist against Asians and it's melanin-based preferences are the sole reason 60%+ of black and hispanic students were admitted. Why exactly does all of the coverage of this paper have the same "43% of whites aren't qualified" narrative?

For the record, the original paper wasn't funded by either party to the lawsuit.

[sanantone]

They didn't run models for what a class would look like without donor and children of staff would look like. They ran models for non-legacy, non-athlete, and non-athlete/legacy/racial preference. The results are posted above. There's absolutely no factual basis for your claims or the narrative pushed in the article. The only way I can imagine you've arrived at your conclusion is if you assume that the ADLC applicants wouldn't be replaced if the ADLC system were removed, which is a stunning mistake for someone so well-versed in the social "sciences." Someone capable of making such an elementary error wouldn't dare to correct another poster on a mere pronoun typo.

Are you refusing to read anything other than Table 11? I literally quoted the information from Table 10 above.

Table 10 only tells you the likelihood that current ADLC admits would have been admitted without ADLC preferences, it doesn't simulate what an admissions class would look like without those preferences in place. That is, we know those candidates have a lower chance of admission, but who would take their place without those policies in place. Table 11 gives us the answer: largely other white and Asian students. This is the exact opposite of what you and the journalists covering this story are arguing. Your narrative appears to be: whites are represented because of these "racist" policies. The reality is that without racial preference, this very study shows 66% of black and hispanic students wouldn't be admitted to Harvard. Do better.

If you read the methods section, you would know that the simulated class demographics are based on admissions probability. Admissions probabilities for various characteristics are laid out in multiple tables. If the researchers felt they could accurately calculate how the combined effects would impact the number of admits for each racial/ethic category in the counterfactuals, their expectation was that removing ALDC preferences would result in a drop of White admits that is significantly more than 6%. They focused on legacy, as opposed to child of donors or child of employees, for ease of exposition. As I have stated multiple times, the group that is most negatively impacted by ALDC preferences is Asians. 

It should also be noted that Dr. Arcidiacono, the person who wrote the study, was retained by Students for Fair Admissions. In a court case, you're going to choose an expert who will benefit your argument. I believe the stats Dr. Arcidiacono collected are accurate. However, the decision to only run certain simulations could have possibly been influenced by the fact that he was working for the plaintiffs. For balance, this is the report from Dr. Card, who was retained by Harvard. 

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/di...dacted.pdf

I read the methods section of the report. If you believe the inclusion of donor and child of employee data would lead to "significantly more more than the 6%" reduction, feel free to show how you came to that conclusion. Neither the original paper, nor the one you just posted alleges such. It's just such a reach to make an allegation like that, while simultaneously ignoring the clear conclusion of the paper: that Harvard's admissions preferences are racist against Asians and it's melanin-based preferences are the sole reason 60%+ of black and hispanic students were admitted. Why exactly does all of the coverage of this paper have the same "43% of whites aren't qualified" narrative?

For the record, the original paper wasn't funded by either party to the lawsuit.

If I believe? I am paraphrasing the authors. The authors made that allegation on page 32.  

We suspect that if we were able to run these counterfactuals, the share of white admits would drop by significantly more than 6% and the share of Asian American admits would rise by more than 9%.

It doesn't matter where the funding came from. Two authors of the study were consultants/expert witnesses to SFFA in an earlier court case against Harvard. They are not a non-biased third party.

[alexf.1990]

Are you refusing to read anything other than Table 11? I literally quoted the information from Table 10 above.

Table 10 only tells you the likelihood that current ADLC admits would have been admitted without ADLC preferences, it doesn't simulate what an admissions class would look like without those preferences in place. That is, we know those candidates have a lower chance of admission, but who would take their place without those policies in place. Table 11 gives us the answer: largely other white and Asian students. This is the exact opposite of what you and the journalists covering this story are arguing. Your narrative appears to be: whites are represented because of these "racist" policies. The reality is that without racial preference, this very study shows 66% of black and hispanic students wouldn't be admitted to Harvard. Do better.

If you read the methods section, you would know that the simulated class demographics are based on admissions probability. Admissions probabilities for various characteristics are laid out in multiple tables. If the researchers felt they could accurately calculate how the combined effects would impact the number of admits for each racial/ethic category in the counterfactuals, their expectation was that removing ALDC preferences would result in a drop of White admits that is significantly more than 6%. They focused on legacy, as opposed to child of donors or child of employees, for ease of exposition. As I have stated multiple times, the group that is most negatively impacted by ALDC preferences is Asians. 

It should also be noted that Dr. Arcidiacono, the person who wrote the study, was retained by Students for Fair Admissions. In a court case, you're going to choose an expert who will benefit your argument. I believe the stats Dr. Arcidiacono collected are accurate. However, the decision to only run certain simulations could have possibly been influenced by the fact that he was working for the plaintiffs. For balance, this is the report from Dr. Card, who was retained by Harvard. 

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/di...dacted.pdf

I read the methods section of the report. If you believe the inclusion of donor and child of employee data would lead to "significantly more more than the 6%" reduction, feel free to show how you came to that conclusion. Neither the original paper, nor the one you just posted alleges such. It's just such a reach to make an allegation like that, while simultaneously ignoring the clear conclusion of the paper: that Harvard's admissions preferences are racist against Asians and it's melanin-based preferences are the sole reason 60%+ of black and hispanic students were admitted. Why exactly does all of the coverage of this paper have the same "43% of whites aren't qualified" narrative?

For the record, the original paper wasn't funded by either party to the lawsuit.

If I believe? I am paraphrasing the authors. The authors made that allegation on page 32.  

We suspect that if we were able to run these counterfactuals, the share of white admits would drop by significantly more than 6% and the share of Asian American admits would rise by more than 9%.

It doesn't matter where the funding came from. Two authors of the study were consultants/expert witnesses to SFFA in an earlier court case against Harvard. They are not a non-biased third party.

Again, your narrative is simply incoherent. Arcidiacono was an expert witness in SFFA v. Harvard trying to prove that Harvard racially discriminates against Asians. If a full non-ALDC simulation would show an increase in Asian admits, why wouldn't they run it? Perhaps his desire to protect the white supremacist ALDC scheme is stronger than his desire to assist SFFA?

I'm also rather amused at your unwillingness to address the underlying narrative of the reporting. Why is it a problem that white admits disproportionately benefit from ALDC. Clearly their motivation isn't to bolster the number of white admits. The same adcom expressly disadvantages white admits on the sole basis of their race. Again, why does all the reporting on this study use the same "43% of white kids are admitted only because they're ALDC" narrative? Why don't any of the stories mention that 60% of African American, and 50% of hispanic, students are admitted only because of their race? At least with ALDC admits, there is some plausible primary benefit. With racial preference, it comes down to "we like how much melanin you have."

[sanantone]

Table 10 only tells you the likelihood that current ADLC admits would have been admitted without ADLC preferences, it doesn't simulate what an admissions class would look like without those preferences in place. That is, we know those candidates have a lower chance of admission, but who would take their place without those policies in place. Table 11 gives us the answer: largely other white and Asian students. This is the exact opposite of what you and the journalists covering this story are arguing. Your narrative appears to be: whites are represented because of these "racist" policies. The reality is that without racial preference, this very study shows 66% of black and hispanic students wouldn't be admitted to Harvard. Do better.

If you read the methods section, you would know that the simulated class demographics are based on admissions probability. Admissions probabilities for various characteristics are laid out in multiple tables. If the researchers felt they could accurately calculate how the combined effects would impact the number of admits for each racial/ethic category in the counterfactuals, their expectation was that removing ALDC preferences would result in a drop of White admits that is significantly more than 6%. They focused on legacy, as opposed to child of donors or child of employees, for ease of exposition. As I have stated multiple times, the group that is most negatively impacted by ALDC preferences is Asians. 

It should also be noted that Dr. Arcidiacono, the person who wrote the study, was retained by Students for Fair Admissions. In a court case, you're going to choose an expert who will benefit your argument. I believe the stats Dr. Arcidiacono collected are accurate. However, the decision to only run certain simulations could have possibly been influenced by the fact that he was working for the plaintiffs. For balance, this is the report from Dr. Card, who was retained by Harvard. 

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/di...dacted.pdf

I read the methods section of the report. If you believe the inclusion of donor and child of employee data would lead to "significantly more more than the 6%" reduction, feel free to show how you came to that conclusion. Neither the original paper, nor the one you just posted alleges such. It's just such a reach to make an allegation like that, while simultaneously ignoring the clear conclusion of the paper: that Harvard's admissions preferences are racist against Asians and it's melanin-based preferences are the sole reason 60%+ of black and hispanic students were admitted. Why exactly does all of the coverage of this paper have the same "43% of whites aren't qualified" narrative?

For the record, the original paper wasn't funded by either party to the lawsuit.

If I believe? I am paraphrasing the authors. The authors made that allegation on page 32.  

We suspect that if we were able to run these counterfactuals, the share of white admits would drop by significantly more than 6% and the share of Asian American admits would rise by more than 9%.

It doesn't matter where the funding came from. Two authors of the study were consultants/expert witnesses to SFFA in an earlier court case against Harvard. They are not a non-biased third party.

Again, your narrative is simply incoherent. Arcidiacono was an expert witness in SFFA v. Harvard trying to prove that Harvard racially discriminates against Asians. If a full non-ALDC simulation would show an increase in Asian admits, why wouldn't they run it? Perhaps his desire to protect the white supremacist ALDC scheme is stronger than his desire to assist SFFA?

I'm also rather amused at your unwillingness to address the underlying narrative of the reporting. Why is it a problem that white admits disproportionately benefit from ALDC. Clearly their motivation isn't to bolster the number of white admits. The same adcom expressly disadvantages white admits on the sole basis of their race. Again, why does all the reporting on this study  use the same "43% of white kids are admitted only because they're ALDC" narrative? Why don't any of the stories mention that 60% of African American, and 50% of hispanic, students are admitted only because of their race? At least with ALDC admits, there is some plausible primary benefit. With racial preference, it comes down to "we like how much melanin you have."

SFFA is not an Asian organization. It was started by a White man. He failed with a case using White plaintiffs, so now he's using Asian plaintiffs because they're minorities. Pitting minorities against minorities is a better legal strategy. Whether or not you agree with Harvard's reasoning or methods, they're not practicing Affirmative Action because they like melanin. Many Asians have more melanin than White Latinos. Remember that Latino and Hispanic are not races, and most Latinos in the U.S. are mixed with Spanish and Native American usually being more Spanish than Native American. Harvard's reasoning is that they believe they are correcting for racial and ethnic inequities and historical injustices. Ultimately, it's just good marketing to appear to be a socially-conscious organization. If these Ivy Plus schools truly had a preference for Black and Latino students, they wouldn't be underrepresented at almost all of these schools. 

Your narrative is incoherent. If SFFA truly wanted to win on behalf of Asians regardless of the impact on White applicants, they would have targeted all admissions preferences that negatively impact Asian applicants who are trying to gain admission based on merit. They probably would have won this case in the lower courts years ago if they didn't have a hidden agenda.

[alexf.1990]

Again, your narrative is simply incoherent. Arcidiacono was an expert witness in SFFA v. Harvard trying to prove that Harvard racially discriminates against Asians. If a full non-ALDC simulation would show an increase in Asian admits, why wouldn't they run it? Perhaps his desire to protect the white supremacist ALDC scheme is stronger than his desire to assist SFFA?

I'm also rather amused at your unwillingness to address the underlying narrative of the reporting. Why is it a problem that white admits disproportionately benefit from ALDC. Clearly their motivation isn't to bolster the number of white admits. The same adcom expressly disadvantages white admits on the sole basis of their race. Again, why does all the reporting on this study  use the same "43% of white kids are admitted only because they're ALDC" narrative? Why don't any of the stories mention that 60% of African American, and 50% of hispanic, students are admitted only because of their race? At least with ALDC admits, there is some plausible primary benefit. With racial preference, it comes down to "we like how much melanin you have."

SFFA is not an Asian organization. It was started by a White man. He failed with a case using White plaintiffs, so now he's using Asian plaintiffs because they're minorities. Pitting minorities against minorities is a better legal strategy. Whether or not you agree with Harvard's reasoning or methods, they're not practicing Affirmative Action because they like melanin. Many Asians have more melanin than White Latinos. Remember that Latino and Hispanic are not races, and most Latinos in the U.S. are mixed with Spanish and Native American usually being more Spanish than Native American. Harvard's reasoning is that they believe they are correcting for racial and ethnic inequities and historical injustices. Ultimately, it's just good marketing to appear to be a socially-conscious organization. If these Ivy Plus schools truly had a preference for Black and Latino students, they wouldn't be underrepresented at almost all of these schools. 

Your narrative is incoherent. If SFFA truly wanted to win on behalf of Asians regardless of the impact on White applicants, they would have targeted all admissions preferences that negatively impact Asian applicants who are trying to gain admission based on merit. They probably would have won this case in the lower courts years ago if they didn't have a hidden agenda.

The race of the founder is irrelevant when that organization is representing 20,000 Asian plaintiffs. They're clearly not a white supremacist organization in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you're just using it as a lazy pejorative against any person or organization that criticizes lefitsts.

Using race-based discrimination to correct previous race-based discrimination is infantile and sloppy. Black and LatinX students aren't underrepresented at these schools, they're dramatically over-represented if you assess their qualifications by any objective measure.

What other admissions preferences could SFFA have targeted? Harvard's racial preferences appear to be the only preference that is clearly unconstitutional. They are a private university, afterall. They should only be restricted from discriminating based on protected classes: race, gender, national origin, and disability; just as every other private business.

[sanantone]

Again, your narrative is simply incoherent. Arcidiacono was an expert witness in SFFA v. Harvard trying to prove that Harvard racially discriminates against Asians. If a full non-ALDC simulation would show an increase in Asian admits, why wouldn't they run it? Perhaps his desire to protect the white supremacist ALDC scheme is stronger than his desire to assist SFFA?

I'm also rather amused at your unwillingness to address the underlying narrative of the reporting. Why is it a problem that white admits disproportionately benefit from ALDC. Clearly their motivation isn't to bolster the number of white admits. The same adcom expressly disadvantages white admits on the sole basis of their race. Again, why does all the reporting on this study  use the same "43% of white kids are admitted only because they're ALDC" narrative? Why don't any of the stories mention that 60% of African American, and 50% of hispanic, students are admitted only because of their race? At least with ALDC admits, there is some plausible primary benefit. With racial preference, it comes down to "we like how much melanin you have."

SFFA is not an Asian organization. It was started by a White man. He failed with a case using White plaintiffs, so now he's using Asian plaintiffs because they're minorities. Pitting minorities against minorities is a better legal strategy. Whether or not you agree with Harvard's reasoning or methods, they're not practicing Affirmative Action because they like melanin. Many Asians have more melanin than White Latinos. Remember that Latino and Hispanic are not races, and most Latinos in the U.S. are mixed with Spanish and Native American usually being more Spanish than Native American. Harvard's reasoning is that they believe they are correcting for racial and ethnic inequities and historical injustices. Ultimately, it's just good marketing to appear to be a socially-conscious organization. If these Ivy Plus schools truly had a preference for Black and Latino students, they wouldn't be underrepresented at almost all of these schools. 

Your narrative is incoherent. If SFFA truly wanted to win on behalf of Asians regardless of the impact on White applicants, they would have targeted all admissions preferences that negatively impact Asian applicants who are trying to gain admission based on merit. They probably would have won this case in the lower courts years ago if they didn't have a hidden agenda.

The race of the founder is irrelevant when that organization is representing 20,000 Asian plaintiffs. They're clearly not a white supremacist organization in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you're just using it as a lazy pejorative against any person or organization that criticizes lefitsts.

Using race-based discrimination to correct previous race-based discrimination is infantile and sloppy. Black and LatinX students aren't underrepresented at these schools, they're dramatically over-represented if you assess their qualifications by any objective measure.

What other admissions preferences could SFFA have targeted? Harvard's racial preferences appear to be the only preference that is clearly unconstitutional. They are a private university, afterall. They should only be restricted from discriminating based on protected classes: race, gender, national origin, and disability; just as every other private business.

Huh? When did I call SFFA a white supremacist organization? You were the only person in this thread who used the term "white supremacist." You're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. Embarrassing. 

Maybe you should read some court cases on disparate impact. 

Federal laws prohibit job discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, religion, age, military status, equal pay, pregnancy, disability or genetic information and prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/disparateimpactdisparatetreatment.aspx

https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

[alexf.1990]

Again, your narrative is simply incoherent. Arcidiacono was an expert witness in SFFA v. Harvard trying to prove that Harvard racially discriminates against Asians. If a full non-ALDC simulation would show an increase in Asian admits, why wouldn't they run it? Perhaps his desire to protect the white supremacist ALDC scheme is stronger than his desire to assist SFFA?

I'm also rather amused at your unwillingness to address the underlying narrative of the reporting. Why is it a problem that white admits disproportionately benefit from ALDC. Clearly their motivation isn't to bolster the number of white admits. The same adcom expressly disadvantages white admits on the sole basis of their race. Again, why does all the reporting on this study  use the same "43% of white kids are admitted only because they're ALDC" narrative? Why don't any of the stories mention that 60% of African American, and 50% of hispanic, students are admitted only because of their race? At least with ALDC admits, there is some plausible primary benefit. With racial preference, it comes down to "we like how much melanin you have."

SFFA is not an Asian organization. It was started by a White man. He failed with a case using White plaintiffs, so now he's using Asian plaintiffs because they're minorities. Pitting minorities against minorities is a better legal strategy. Whether or not you agree with Harvard's reasoning or methods, they're not practicing Affirmative Action because they like melanin. Many Asians have more melanin than White Latinos. Remember that Latino and Hispanic are not races, and most Latinos in the U.S. are mixed with Spanish and Native American usually being more Spanish than Native American. Harvard's reasoning is that they believe they are correcting for racial and ethnic inequities and historical injustices. Ultimately, it's just good marketing to appear to be a socially-conscious organization. If these Ivy Plus schools truly had a preference for Black and Latino students, they wouldn't be underrepresented at almost all of these schools. 

Your narrative is incoherent. If SFFA truly wanted to win on behalf of Asians regardless of the impact on White applicants, they would have targeted all admissions preferences that negatively impact Asian applicants who are trying to gain admission based on merit. They probably would have won this case in the lower courts years ago if they didn't have a hidden agenda.

The race of the founder is irrelevant when that organization is representing 20,000 Asian plaintiffs. They're clearly not a white supremacist organization in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you're just using it as a lazy pejorative against any person or organization that criticizes lefitsts.

Using race-based discrimination to correct previous race-based discrimination is infantile and sloppy. Black and LatinX students aren't underrepresented at these schools, they're dramatically over-represented if you assess their qualifications by any objective measure.

What other admissions preferences could SFFA have targeted? Harvard's racial preferences appear to be the only preference that is clearly unconstitutional. They are a private university, afterall. They should only be restricted from discriminating based on protected classes: race, gender, national origin, and disability; just as every other private business.

Huh? When did I call SFFA a white supremacist organization? You were the only person in this thread who used the term "white supremacist." You're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. Embarrassing. 

Maybe you should read some court cases on disparate impact. 

Federal laws prohibit job discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, religion, age, military status, equal pay, pregnancy, disability or genetic information and prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/disparateimpactdisparatetreatment.aspx

https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

You said that ALDC admissions policies support white supremacy. You stated that SFFA was started by a "white man" and then asked why they weren't going after other ALDC policies. Its quite clear what you were implying.

Disparate impact has never been applied to college admissions. Moreover, disparate impact cases allow for discriminatory practices if there is a business necessity. Let's say you're in the business of selecting the most intelligent students to attend your university. It would be trivial to argue that considering SAT scores and GPAs are a necessary process, regardless of the ethnic makeup of the resulting class ends up. If that same university were to whimsically decide they were going to use race as a factor to make up for "historic oppression," that would be a case of disparate impact per se.

[sanantone]

Again, your narrative is simply incoherent. Arcidiacono was an expert witness in SFFA v. Harvard trying to prove that Harvard racially discriminates against Asians. If a full non-ALDC simulation would show an increase in Asian admits, why wouldn't they run it? Perhaps his desire to protect the white supremacist ALDC scheme is stronger than his desire to assist SFFA?

I'm also rather amused at your unwillingness to address the underlying narrative of the reporting. Why is it a problem that white admits disproportionately benefit from ALDC. Clearly their motivation isn't to bolster the number of white admits. The same adcom expressly disadvantages white admits on the sole basis of their race. Again, why does all the reporting on this study  use the same "43% of white kids are admitted only because they're ALDC" narrative? Why don't any of the stories mention that 60% of African American, and 50% of hispanic, students are admitted only because of their race? At least with ALDC admits, there is some plausible primary benefit. With racial preference, it comes down to "we like how much melanin you have."

SFFA is not an Asian organization. It was started by a White man. He failed with a case using White plaintiffs, so now he's using Asian plaintiffs because they're minorities. Pitting minorities against minorities is a better legal strategy. Whether or not you agree with Harvard's reasoning or methods, they're not practicing Affirmative Action because they like melanin. Many Asians have more melanin than White Latinos. Remember that Latino and Hispanic are not races, and most Latinos in the U.S. are mixed with Spanish and Native American usually being more Spanish than Native American. Harvard's reasoning is that they believe they are correcting for racial and ethnic inequities and historical injustices. Ultimately, it's just good marketing to appear to be a socially-conscious organization. If these Ivy Plus schools truly had a preference for Black and Latino students, they wouldn't be underrepresented at almost all of these schools. 

Your narrative is incoherent. If SFFA truly wanted to win on behalf of Asians regardless of the impact on White applicants, they would have targeted all admissions preferences that negatively impact Asian applicants who are trying to gain admission based on merit. They probably would have won this case in the lower courts years ago if they didn't have a hidden agenda.

The race of the founder is irrelevant when that organization is representing 20,000 Asian plaintiffs. They're clearly not a white supremacist organization in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you're just using it as a lazy pejorative against any person or organization that criticizes lefitsts.

Using race-based discrimination to correct previous race-based discrimination is infantile and sloppy. Black and LatinX students aren't underrepresented at these schools, they're dramatically over-represented if you assess their qualifications by any objective measure.

What other admissions preferences could SFFA have targeted? Harvard's racial preferences appear to be the only preference that is clearly unconstitutional. They are a private university, afterall. They should only be restricted from discriminating based on protected classes: race, gender, national origin, and disability; just as every other private business.

Huh? When did I call SFFA a white supremacist organization? You were the only person in this thread who used the term "white supremacist." You're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. Embarrassing. 

Maybe you should read some court cases on disparate impact. 

Federal laws prohibit job discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, religion, age, military status, equal pay, pregnancy, disability or genetic information and prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/disparateimpactdisparatetreatment.aspx

https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

You said that ALDC admissions policies support white supremacy. You stated that SFFA was started by a "white man" and then asked why they weren't going after other ALDC policies. Its quite clear what you were implying.

Disparate impact has never been applied to college admissions. Moreover, disparate impact cases allow for discriminatory practices if there is a business necessity. Let's say you're in the business of selecting the most intelligent students to attend your university. It would be trivial to argue that considering SAT scores and GPAs are a necessary process, regardless of the ethnic makeup of  the resulting class ends up. If that same university were to whimsically decide they were going to use race as a factor to make up for "historic oppression," that would be a case of disparate impact per se.

That's a reach. You can't use a perjorative without using the perjorative. And, Ivy League schools' reasoning for putting ALDC in place decades ago is not connected to SFFA's mission. What I said pretty plainly is that SFFA wants to get rid of certain non-merit preferences without having a negative impact on White applicants. 

I brought up disparate impact because ALDC has a disparate impact on Asian applicants. Legacy and child of employee preferences are not based on merit. They do not bring in the brightest students. At least donor preferences directly bring in money, and athlete preferences indirectly bring in money, but they're not bringing in the smartest students.

[alexf.1990]

SFFA is not an Asian organization. It was started by a White man. He failed with a case using White plaintiffs, so now he's using Asian plaintiffs because they're minorities. Pitting minorities against minorities is a better legal strategy. Whether or not you agree with Harvard's reasoning or methods, they're not practicing Affirmative Action because they like melanin. Many Asians have more melanin than White Latinos. Remember that Latino and Hispanic are not races, and most Latinos in the U.S. are mixed with Spanish and Native American usually being more Spanish than Native American. Harvard's reasoning is that they believe they are correcting for racial and ethnic inequities and historical injustices. Ultimately, it's just good marketing to appear to be a socially-conscious organization. If these Ivy Plus schools truly had a preference for Black and Latino students, they wouldn't be underrepresented at almost all of these schools. 

Your narrative is incoherent. If SFFA truly wanted to win on behalf of Asians regardless of the impact on White applicants, they would have targeted all admissions preferences that negatively impact Asian applicants who are trying to gain admission based on merit. They probably would have won this case in the lower courts years ago if they didn't have a hidden agenda.

The race of the founder is irrelevant when that organization is representing 20,000 Asian plaintiffs. They're clearly not a white supremacist organization in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you're just using it as a lazy pejorative against any person or organization that criticizes lefitsts.

Using race-based discrimination to correct previous race-based discrimination is infantile and sloppy. Black and LatinX students aren't underrepresented at these schools, they're dramatically over-represented if you assess their qualifications by any objective measure.

What other admissions preferences could SFFA have targeted? Harvard's racial preferences appear to be the only preference that is clearly unconstitutional. They are a private university, afterall. They should only be restricted from discriminating based on protected classes: race, gender, national origin, and disability; just as every other private business.

Huh? When did I call SFFA a white supremacist organization? You were the only person in this thread who used the term "white supremacist." You're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. Embarrassing. 

Maybe you should read some court cases on disparate impact. 

Federal laws prohibit job discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, religion, age, military status, equal pay, pregnancy, disability or genetic information and prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/disparateimpactdisparatetreatment.aspx

https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

You said that ALDC admissions policies support white supremacy. You stated that SFFA was started by a "white man" and then asked why they weren't going after other ALDC policies. Its quite clear what you were implying.

Disparate impact has never been applied to college admissions. Moreover, disparate impact cases allow for discriminatory practices if there is a business necessity. Let's say you're in the business of selecting the most intelligent students to attend your university. It would be trivial to argue that considering SAT scores and GPAs are a necessary process, regardless of the ethnic makeup of  the resulting class ends up. If that same university were to whimsically decide they were going to use race as a factor to make up for "historic oppression," that would be a case of disparate impact per se.

That's a reach. You can't use a perjorative without using the perjorative. And, Ivy League schools' reasoning for putting ALDC in place decades ago is not connected to SFFA's mission. What I said pretty plainly is that SFFA wants to get rid of certain non-merit preferences without having a negative impact on White applicants. 

I brought up disparate impact because ALDC has a disparate impact on Asian applicants. Legacy and child of employee preferences are not based on merit. They do not bring in the brightest students. At least donor preferences directly bring in money, and athlete preferences indirectly bring in money, but they're not bringing in the smartest students.

Getting rid of ALDC admissions policies wouldn't result in a decrease in the number of white admits. We went over this a month ago. You can absolutely imply a pejorative. You're a PhD candidate, you really can't expect me to believe you when you play dumb.

ALDC admissions policies can be argued to have a legitimate business interest. Legacy admissions are a significant fundraising tool for Harvard. Legacies give, in large part, because they know that adcoms will review their donation history when their child applies. I don't know what the reasoning is behind giving a boost to children of employees, but Harvard has a fairly diverse staff. I would be surprised if this gave any meaningful boost to white admits.

But again, disparate impact has only ever been applied to a company's hiring practices. There's no case law that would allow it to be applied to admissions policies. If SFFA went this route, they'd likely end up before SCOTUS anyway. With the current composition of SCOTUS, they're much more likely to strike down AA than extend disparate impact tests into university admissions practices.

[sanantone]

The race of the founder is irrelevant when that organization is representing 20,000 Asian plaintiffs. They're clearly not a white supremacist organization in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you're just using it as a lazy pejorative against any person or organization that criticizes lefitsts.

Using race-based discrimination to correct previous race-based discrimination is infantile and sloppy. Black and LatinX students aren't underrepresented at these schools, they're dramatically over-represented if you assess their qualifications by any objective measure.

What other admissions preferences could SFFA have targeted? Harvard's racial preferences appear to be the only preference that is clearly unconstitutional. They are a private university, afterall. They should only be restricted from discriminating based on protected classes: race, gender, national origin, and disability; just as every other private business.

Huh? When did I call SFFA a white supremacist organization? You were the only person in this thread who used the term "white supremacist." You're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. Embarrassing. 

Maybe you should read some court cases on disparate impact. 

Federal laws prohibit job discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, religion, age, military status, equal pay, pregnancy, disability or genetic information and prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/disparateimpactdisparatetreatment.aspx

https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

You said that ALDC admissions policies support white supremacy. You stated that SFFA was started by a "white man" and then asked why they weren't going after other ALDC policies. Its quite clear what you were implying.

Disparate impact has never been applied to college admissions. Moreover, disparate impact cases allow for discriminatory practices if there is a business necessity. Let's say you're in the business of selecting the most intelligent students to attend your university. It would be trivial to argue that considering SAT scores and GPAs are a necessary process, regardless of the ethnic makeup of  the resulting class ends up. If that same university were to whimsically decide they were going to use race as a factor to make up for "historic oppression," that would be a case of disparate impact per se.

That's a reach. You can't use a perjorative without using the perjorative. And, Ivy League schools' reasoning for putting ALDC in place decades ago is not connected to SFFA's mission. What I said pretty plainly is that SFFA wants to get rid of certain non-merit preferences without having a negative impact on White applicants. 

I brought up disparate impact because ALDC has a disparate impact on Asian applicants. Legacy and child of employee preferences are not based on merit. They do not bring in the brightest students. At least donor preferences directly bring in money, and athlete preferences indirectly bring in money, but they're not bringing in the smartest students.

Getting rid of ALDC admissions policies wouldn't result in a decrease in the number of white admits. We went over this a month ago. You can absolutely imply a pejorative. You're a PhD candidate, you really can't expect me to believe you when you play dumb.

ALDC admissions policies can be argued to have a legitimate business interest. Legacy admissions are a significant fundraising tool for Harvard. Legacies give, in large part, because they know that adcoms will review their donation history when their child applies. I don't know what the reasoning is behind giving a boost to children of employees, but Harvard has a fairly diverse staff. I would be surprised if this gave any meaningful boost to white admits.

But again, disparate impact has only ever been applied to a company's hiring practices. There's no case law that would allow it to be applied to admissions policies. If SFFA went this route, they'd likely end up before SCOTUS anyway. With the current composition of SCOTUS, they're much more likely to strike down AA than extend disparate impact tests into university admissions practices.

As a noun, a pejorative is specifically an inflammatory word or phrase. It's not an idea. Saying that someone can imply a pejorative is like saying that someone can imply a slur. Criticism of an organization's legal strategy is not a pejorative. There's a lot of projection going on because you've said so many dumb things. Just admit that you thought you saw "white supremacist" by mistake while you were reading your quoted post. You would look smarter admitting a simple mistake than forcing this stupid argument in an attempt to not look dumb. 

SFFA is using the disparate impact argument! They're arguing that personality scores are having a disparate impact on Asian students. If disparate impact couldn't be applied to college admissions, that would have killed a main part of their case. Besides, the Department of Education looks for disparate impact on students at higher education institutions.

---

You tried to prove that ALDC wouldn't significantly reduce the number of White admits by referring to two simulations. ALDC includes four types of preferences. Two of them were not simulated, but a review of student stats showed that many of these applicants had almost no chance of being admitted based on academic qualifications.