43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[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.