43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[alexf.1990]

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.

I don't know if you're just being dishonest or if you can't remember your own arguments. You said:

"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."

You're clearly implying they're some sort of secret white supremacist organization.

I read the case. I actually read the briefs. I understand the arguments. Before you get yourself tied in a knot of sophistry, perhaps you could support your argument that SFFA is arguing for "disparate impact." Their briefs expressly state they aren't arguing disparate impact.

My claim was simply challenging the claim you laid out above, that removing ALDC preferences would reduce the number of white students. You even stated that the reduction in white admits was the reason SFFA wasn't challenging ALDC.

Don't you think its a bit absurd to accuse me of Dunning Kruger when you haven't even read the briefs of the case you've been arguing about for months? You have absolutely no understanding of the underlying legal issue, yet continue to repeat your uniformed opinions, backed by such scholarly sources as Business Insider.

I certainly hope your PhD is in one of the social "sciences." Perhaps you're just a bit too close to this AA issue to see things clearly.