ADVERTISEMENT

How Many Royals Have to Die...

What Would Jesus Do? said:
Before a mixed-race, half-American sits on the British throne?
Click to expand...
There is something going down that you lunatic liberals will find weally, weally scary. Asian students are suing Harvard for "race neutral" admissions instead of the current "affirmative action" racism.


Harvard admissions goes on trial as university faces claim of bias against Asian Americans

Lawsuit in federal court provides new chapter in affirmative action debate

Nick Anderson
October 15 at 9:12 AM

BOSTON — A trial will open here in federal court Monday to weigh accusations that Harvard University’s famously competitive undergraduate admissions system is rigged against Asian Americans, a case that could become another landmark in the nation’s long debate over affirmative action.

Students for Fair Admissions, a group representing Asian American applicants, alleges in the lawsuit that Harvard violates civil rights in multiple ways through an admissions process in which race is a known factor.

The plaintiff contends that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans when rating their personal qualities such as leadership and compassion and that every year engineers a precise racial balance of admission offers that gives an unfair edge to less-qualified applicants from other groups. The plaintiff also charges that Harvard gives too much weight to race and fails to comply with a Supreme Court mandate to consider race-neutral alternatives for assembling a diverse class.

Harvard denies all the allegations and says it considers race only in a limited way, following court precedents dating to the 1970s that have cited the university’s methods with approval. The university says that a race-conscious admissions process is essential to ensuring that students are exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Expected to last three or more weeks, the trial presents a new twist on an old controversy. In several previous major cases, white applicants sued to challenge affirmative action in admissions. This time, a minority group is at the center of the fight.

The trial here will also put Harvard officials on the witness stand in a spectacle that promises to shine light on details of admissions that ordinarily would remain a mystery. Every year, Harvard and other selective schools promise to give “holistic review” to all who apply, looking at their grades, test scores, transcripts, recommendations, family background and other information, including race and ethnicity.

But most applicants don’t quite know what that means.

Some details emerging from the trial could cast Harvard in a positive light, explaining the many layers of review it gives to more than 40,000 applications before making nearly 2,000 admission offers a year. Some could be unflattering.

The pretrial phase of the suit exposed that Harvard received internal warnings about potential bias against Asian Americans in recent years but apparently did little to follow up. Also revealed in that phase were highly sensitive summaries of the edge that Harvard gives to applicants who are recruited athletes, children of alumni and others deemed worthy of special attention. More is expected to be disclosed during the trial through evidence collected from Harvard officials in pretrial depositions that so far has been kept under seal.

William R. Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s longtime dean of admissions and one of the most influential figures in the field, is expected to be the first witness in the trial. Former Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust is also on the list of expected witnesses.

Barring a surprise change in strategy, the plaintiff’s attorneys do not plan to call as witnesses any Asian Americans who allege that they were victimized by Harvard. Some alleged victims gave pretrial depositions under oath, but their identities remain anonymous.

However, some Harvard students and graduates who are Asian American plan to testify in support of the university’s admissions policy and diversity goals.

Dueling experts are expected to testify about the arcana of Harvard admissions data. Duke University economist Peter S. Arcidiacono, the plaintiff’s analyst, says the data reveal patterns of significant bias, with Asian Americans subject to a “penalty” relative to white applicants in certain respects. Economist David Card of the University of California at Berkeley, whom Harvard retained, says the data show no such penalty, and he disputes Arcidiacono’s methodology.

On Harvard’s legal team are attorneys from the firm WilmerHale, including William F. Lee, who is also senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, one of the university’s governing boards, and Seth Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general. The plaintiff’s lead attorney is William S. Consovoy, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2014 and has been spearheaded by Edward Blum, a well-known opponent of racial preferences in college admissions, who is white. Prominent schools from the Ivy League and elsewhere have filed briefs in support of Harvard, a sign of the gravity of the case. The Trump administration has weighed in on the side of the plaintiff.

Separately, the Justice Department has opened civil rights investigations into complaints that Harvard and Yale discriminate against Asian Americans. Both universities deny those allegations.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the trial and expects to issue a verdict after it ends. There will be no jury. Attorneys for both sides are assuming Burroughs will not have the final word because any verdict faces a near-certain appeal. Eventually, the case could reach the Supreme Court.

The last time the high court ruled on affirmative action in admissions, in 2016, it narrowly upheld a race-conscious policy at the University of Texas. But the pivotal vote in that ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, has since retired. The recent arrival of Kennedy’s replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, strengthened the court’s conservative majority and could signal a new approach if it revisits the issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...ainst-asian-americans/?utm_term=.794fdf8b8777
 
Quix0te said:
What Would Jesus Do? said:
Before a mixed-race, half-American sits on the British throne?
Click to expand...
There is something going down that you lunatic liberals will find weally, weally scary. Asian students are suing Harvard for "race neutral" admissions instead of the current "affirmative action" racism.


Harvard admissions goes on trial as university faces claim of bias against Asian Americans

Lawsuit in federal court provides new chapter in affirmative action debate

Nick Anderson
October 15 at 9:12 AM

BOSTON — A trial will open here in federal court Monday to weigh accusations that Harvard University’s famously competitive undergraduate admissions system is rigged against Asian Americans, a case that could become another landmark in the nation’s long debate over affirmative action.

Students for Fair Admissions, a group representing Asian American applicants, alleges in the lawsuit that Harvard violates civil rights in multiple ways through an admissions process in which race is a known factor.

The plaintiff contends that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans when rating their personal qualities such as leadership and compassion and that every year engineers a precise racial balance of admission offers that gives an unfair edge to less-qualified applicants from other groups. The plaintiff also charges that Harvard gives too much weight to race and fails to comply with a Supreme Court mandate to consider race-neutral alternatives for assembling a diverse class.

Harvard denies all the allegations and says it considers race only in a limited way, following court precedents dating to the 1970s that have cited the university’s methods with approval. The university says that a race-conscious admissions process is essential to ensuring that students are exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Expected to last three or more weeks, the trial presents a new twist on an old controversy. In several previous major cases, white applicants sued to challenge affirmative action in admissions. This time, a minority group is at the center of the fight.

The trial here will also put Harvard officials on the witness stand in a spectacle that promises to shine light on details of admissions that ordinarily would remain a mystery. Every year, Harvard and other selective schools promise to give “holistic review” to all who apply, looking at their grades, test scores, transcripts, recommendations, family background and other information, including race and ethnicity.

But most applicants don’t quite know what that means.

Some details emerging from the trial could cast Harvard in a positive light, explaining the many layers of review it gives to more than 40,000 applications before making nearly 2,000 admission offers a year. Some could be unflattering.

The pretrial phase of the suit exposed that Harvard received internal warnings about potential bias against Asian Americans in recent years but apparently did little to follow up. Also revealed in that phase were highly sensitive summaries of the edge that Harvard gives to applicants who are recruited athletes, children of alumni and others deemed worthy of special attention. More is expected to be disclosed during the trial through evidence collected from Harvard officials in pretrial depositions that so far has been kept under seal.

William R. Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s longtime dean of admissions and one of the most influential figures in the field, is expected to be the first witness in the trial. Former Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust is also on the list of expected witnesses.

Barring a surprise change in strategy, the plaintiff’s attorneys do not plan to call as witnesses any Asian Americans who allege that they were victimized by Harvard. Some alleged victims gave pretrial depositions under oath, but their identities remain anonymous.

However, some Harvard students and graduates who are Asian American plan to testify in support of the university’s admissions policy and diversity goals.

Dueling experts are expected to testify about the arcana of Harvard admissions data. Duke University economist Peter S. Arcidiacono, the plaintiff’s analyst, says the data reveal patterns of significant bias, with Asian Americans subject to a “penalty” relative to white applicants in certain respects. Economist David Card of the University of California at Berkeley, whom Harvard retained, says the data show no such penalty, and he disputes Arcidiacono’s methodology.

On Harvard’s legal team are attorneys from the firm WilmerHale, including William F. Lee, who is also senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, one of the university’s governing boards, and Seth Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general. The plaintiff’s lead attorney is William S. Consovoy, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2014 and has been spearheaded by Edward Blum, a well-known opponent of racial preferences in college admissions, who is white. Prominent schools from the Ivy League and elsewhere have filed briefs in support of Harvard, a sign of the gravity of the case. The Trump administration has weighed in on the side of the plaintiff.

Separately, the Justice Department has opened civil rights investigations into complaints that Harvard and Yale discriminate against Asian Americans. Both universities deny those allegations.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the trial and expects to issue a verdict after it ends. There will be no jury. Attorneys for both sides are assuming Burroughs will not have the final word because any verdict faces a near-certain appeal. Eventually, the case could reach the Supreme Court.

The last time the high court ruled on affirmative action in admissions, in 2016, it narrowly upheld a race-conscious policy at the University of Texas. But the pivotal vote in that ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, has since retired. The recent arrival of Kennedy’s replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, strengthened the court’s conservative majority and could signal a new approach if it revisits the issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...ainst-asian-americans/?utm_term=.794fdf8b8777
Click to expand...
I hope they win. My people have been discriminated against more than any other race in the US the last 100 years including blacks. We were forced into “slave labor”, put in concentration camps on US soil, refused free stuff the other non-whites got. Why? Because we refused to bitch and moan about it and say life isn’t fair. Well that time has come to an end. We are (rightfully) going to start complaining about life not being fair due to our race.

Also, I thought this was going to be a baseball thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: What Would Jesus Do?
Huh, if we only admit students on Merit all of our colleges will be all asian. Where will the white, black, and hispanic kids go to school?
 
Quix0te said:
There is something going down that you lunatic liberals will find weally, weally scary. Asian students are suing Harvard for "race neutral" admissions instead of the current "affirmative action" racism.


Harvard admissions goes on trial as university faces claim of bias against Asian Americans

Lawsuit in federal court provides new chapter in affirmative action debate

Nick Anderson
October 15 at 9:12 AM

BOSTON — A trial will open here in federal court Monday to weigh accusations that Harvard University’s famously competitive undergraduate admissions system is rigged against Asian Americans, a case that could become another landmark in the nation’s long debate over affirmative action.

Students for Fair Admissions, a group representing Asian American applicants, alleges in the lawsuit that Harvard violates civil rights in multiple ways through an admissions process in which race is a known factor.

The plaintiff contends that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans when rating their personal qualities such as leadership and compassion and that every year engineers a precise racial balance of admission offers that gives an unfair edge to less-qualified applicants from other groups. The plaintiff also charges that Harvard gives too much weight to race and fails to comply with a Supreme Court mandate to consider race-neutral alternatives for assembling a diverse class.

Harvard denies all the allegations and says it considers race only in a limited way, following court precedents dating to the 1970s that have cited the university’s methods with approval. The university says that a race-conscious admissions process is essential to ensuring that students are exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Expected to last three or more weeks, the trial presents a new twist on an old controversy. In several previous major cases, white applicants sued to challenge affirmative action in admissions. This time, a minority group is at the center of the fight.

The trial here will also put Harvard officials on the witness stand in a spectacle that promises to shine light on details of admissions that ordinarily would remain a mystery. Every year, Harvard and other selective schools promise to give “holistic review” to all who apply, looking at their grades, test scores, transcripts, recommendations, family background and other information, including race and ethnicity.

But most applicants don’t quite know what that means.

Some details emerging from the trial could cast Harvard in a positive light, explaining the many layers of review it gives to more than 40,000 applications before making nearly 2,000 admission offers a year. Some could be unflattering.

The pretrial phase of the suit exposed that Harvard received internal warnings about potential bias against Asian Americans in recent years but apparently did little to follow up. Also revealed in that phase were highly sensitive summaries of the edge that Harvard gives to applicants who are recruited athletes, children of alumni and others deemed worthy of special attention. More is expected to be disclosed during the trial through evidence collected from Harvard officials in pretrial depositions that so far has been kept under seal.

William R. Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s longtime dean of admissions and one of the most influential figures in the field, is expected to be the first witness in the trial. Former Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust is also on the list of expected witnesses.

Barring a surprise change in strategy, the plaintiff’s attorneys do not plan to call as witnesses any Asian Americans who allege that they were victimized by Harvard. Some alleged victims gave pretrial depositions under oath, but their identities remain anonymous.

However, some Harvard students and graduates who are Asian American plan to testify in support of the university’s admissions policy and diversity goals.

Dueling experts are expected to testify about the arcana of Harvard admissions data. Duke University economist Peter S. Arcidiacono, the plaintiff’s analyst, says the data reveal patterns of significant bias, with Asian Americans subject to a “penalty” relative to white applicants in certain respects. Economist David Card of the University of California at Berkeley, whom Harvard retained, says the data show no such penalty, and he disputes Arcidiacono’s methodology.

On Harvard’s legal team are attorneys from the firm WilmerHale, including William F. Lee, who is also senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, one of the university’s governing boards, and Seth Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general. The plaintiff’s lead attorney is William S. Consovoy, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2014 and has been spearheaded by Edward Blum, a well-known opponent of racial preferences in college admissions, who is white. Prominent schools from the Ivy League and elsewhere have filed briefs in support of Harvard, a sign of the gravity of the case. The Trump administration has weighed in on the side of the plaintiff.

Separately, the Justice Department has opened civil rights investigations into complaints that Harvard and Yale discriminate against Asian Americans. Both universities deny those allegations.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the trial and expects to issue a verdict after it ends. There will be no jury. Attorneys for both sides are assuming Burroughs will not have the final word because any verdict faces a near-certain appeal. Eventually, the case could reach the Supreme Court.

The last time the high court ruled on affirmative action in admissions, in 2016, it narrowly upheld a race-conscious policy at the University of Texas. But the pivotal vote in that ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, has since retired. The recent arrival of Kennedy’s replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, strengthened the court’s conservative majority and could signal a new approach if it revisits the issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...ainst-asian-americans/?utm_term=.794fdf8b8777
Click to expand...
Umm, yeah, that’s relevant to the thread....
 
thewop said:
Huh, if we only admit students on Merit all of our colleges will be all asian. Where will the white, black, and hispanic kids go to school?
Click to expand...
There’s far more to merit than just grades and test scores. If you’re worried about black people just add another football team or something.
 
What Would Jesus Do? said:
Ha.

We could just add them in as separate states. England(?), Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.

I'm guessing N.Ireland would be a red state, Scotland a blue state. Not sure about the rest.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure nearly all of the United Kingdom would be blue when it comes to US politics.

Their conservative party in the UK affirms support for universal health care, a minimum wage that is significantly higher then our own, paid parental leave, and free childcare for working parents.

In the UK a conservative is basically a moderate democrat in the United States. The closest thing to the Republican party in the US is the UK Independence Party which garners very little support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWolf74 and What Would Jesus Do?
What Would Jesus Do? said:
Before a mixed-race, half-American sits on the British throne?

edit: I just heard the child will be 7th in line.
Click to expand...
No idea how the line of succession works except that births in family X can be ahead of the current #7 from family Y. I'm sure there's some prince X ahead of whichever this prince Y is and I'm pretty sure the youngest X kid would supplant the oldest Y kid in the line.

I think. Could be wrong.
 
Suppose they decide to live in the US and when the kid is 35 he or she runs for president. And wins. And then (due to a series of "accidents") becomes king or queen of the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Judge: Iowa hospice program told worker to ‘let people die’

Replies
16
Views
251
Off Topic
Joes Place
Joes Place
BrianNole777

How many trans people do you know personally?

Replies
165
Views
3K
Off Topic
Rifler
Rifler
Mister Hawkeyes

How Long Have You Been on HROT?

Replies
80
Views
1K
Off Topic
Finance85
Finance85
BrianNole777

Have you ever seen a person die right in front of you?

Replies
100
Views
2K
Off Topic
stickman80
stickman80
The-Dude-Abides

How Long Can Classic Rock Stations Survive?

Replies
43
Views
792
Off Topic
billanole
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back