43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[sanantone]

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 thougt 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.

Pejorative is also an adjective. You can absolutely indirectly express a slur, just as you indirectly expressed that SFFA was a white supremacist organization.

Yes, and this is why SFFA is in front of SCOTUS right now. It's a case of first impression to make a disparate impact claim against a university for their admissions policies.

I completely understand why a person with your intellect would worry about universities eliminating AA policies.

You didn't use it as an adjective. You can call someone a Black person or call them the n-word. Criticizing a Black person or even saying something racist about a Black person is not implying the n-word. The n-word is the n-word.

SFFA is in front of the Supreme Court because of precedent and the fact that some of their claims could not be supported with data.


Now, you're hitting below the belt because your argument is falling apart. Sorry, but my GRE scores got me into my doctoral program. I know it's hard for you to believe that someone who doesn't agree with you scored in the 87th percentile. Unintelligent people think in black and white.

Saying that an organization isn't "really" an Asian organization because it was founded by a white man, and that the organization is deliberately avoiding an argument that is easier to win because it would hurt white people, is clearly an implication that the organization is a white supremacist organization. You're accusing SFFA of pursuing policies in order to advance the white race. What exactly do you call that?

I actually took another read through the SFFA brief. They expressly state they aren't using the disparate impact standard because SCOTUS ruled in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) that private parties don't have a right of action under Title VI based on evidence of disparate impact. One would think a PhD candidate would bother to do their research...

I'm simply returning the insult that you first started three posts ago. I don't think my comment was below the belt at all. You are a staunch advocate of AA, have subpar reasoning skills, and are a current PhD candidate. It's not difficult to put the pieces together. Even someone such as yourself should see this.

LOL. I didn't say that it's not really an Asian organization. I said that it is not an Asian organization because it isn't an Asian organization. Their first case didn't even involve Asians. On what planet is that calling an organization white supremacist? Are you listening to yourself? You don't have at least enough intelligence to realize how ridiculous that sounds? A white supremacist is someone who believes that white people are inherently superior. Advocating for a group you belong to doesn't automatically make someone a supremacist. Maybe you think that makes someone a supremacist. 

If you did your research, you would have read that the plaintiffs were using personality scores to make their case. Personality scores are not intentional racial preferences, so they are not an example of disparate treatment. They can only make the disparate impact argument in regards to the personality scores.

I was only returning your insults. Go back and read your posts. You seem to have a poor memory and poor reading comprehension skills. I don't know if it's dyslexia or poor vision, but you're also reading words that are not there. 

You keep repeating that removing ALDC policies would not significantly reduce the number of White admits. It was already explained to you that they only did simulations on two ALDC preferences. At most, you can say we don't know whether they would significantly reduce the number of White admits. You're making a claim that you haven't been able to support with anything. At least there is data showing the admissions probabilities for the preferences that were not simulated, and they don't support your claim. 

You are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. I have never been an advocate for the type of AA that is being implemented by Harvard. Because you lack reading comprehension and reasoning skills, you think that criticizing SFFA and ALDC is advocating for racial preferences. AA in the workforce, which has worked wonderfully for White women, is something that I support because it requires equal qualifications and is not race-specific.