independent news and opnion

Venn diagram of the day on Harvard’s legal discrimination | American Enterprise Institute

0 1


The Venn diagram of the day was inspired by Jason Riley’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal “Harvard’s Asian Quotas Repeat an Ugly History,” here’s a portion:

In her ruling, Judge Allison Burroughs writes that a “partial cause” of racial disparities in admissions rates is that “Asian American applicants’ disproportionate strength in academics comes at the expense of other skills and traits that Harvard values.” She says it’s “possible” that the Asian applicants “did not possess the personal qualities that Harvard is looking for at the same rate as white applicants.” Moreover, “it would be unsurprising to find that applicants that excel in one area, tend to be somewhat weaker in other areas.” To Jews, such language and reasoning might sound painfully familiar. And if a judge today wrote that blacks or Hispanics excel at sports and have outgoing personalities, so it would be really surprising if they flourished academically as well, liberals would be calling for his head.

Harvard is a private school but receives federal funding. That makes it subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws racial discrimination. Supreme Court rulings dating to the 1970s ban “racial balancing” and racial quotas in college admissions. But the court also has said schools may use an applicant’s race as a “plus factor” so long as it isn’t the determining one. The upshot is that colleges find endless ways to discriminate racially without being too obvious about it. And we get rulings like Judge Burroughs’s, which pretends there are “no quotas” in place at Harvard while acknowledging that the school “uses the racial makeup of admitted students to help determine how many students it should admit overall.”

Students for Fair Admissions says it will appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Until the justices resolve the matter, expect more of the same admissions-office antics and convoluted lower-court decisions. Do we want preferences for favored groups, or equal treatment of individuals? We can’t have both.

MP: Just like you have to make a choice: Do you want to be an equal opportunity employer, or do you want to be an affirmative action employer? You can’t be both, although many universities like the University of Michigan claim to be an “equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.” Sorry, Michigan you gotta make a choice. See Venn diagram version below.



Source link

You might also like

close
Thanks !

Thanks for sharing this, you are awesome !