
Harvard Asian-American discrimination case opens with packed courtroom - kimsk112
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harvard-asian-american-discrimination-case-opens-packed-courtroom-n920376
======
function_seven
Whatever your views on affirmative action, this logic is hard to follow:

 _Harvard 's legal team denied any discrimination in its opening statement at
Boston's federal courthouse, saying race is just one factor that's considered
and can only help a student's chances of getting admitted._

For institutions that have a limited number of slots available, it's
impossible to say race can only help an applicant. I'm not making a value
judgement here, just balancing a math equation. If we determine as a society
that taking action to correct our structural biases is warranted, then own it.
Not just the plus, but also the minus.

~~~
acchow
Unless the external system already has a negative bias against a race and
you're correcting for that bias inside your own system by adding race into the
equation.

~~~
rococode
I think the issue of affirmative action really comes down to whether people
think this is OK or not. The real question is, "is it more right to give
privileges to the underprivileged than it is wrong to take away privileges
from the privileged?". It'd be nice to just have the former without the
latter, but with a limited number of "privileges" available, there just hasn't
been a good solution yet (and there may not be one).

~~~
sidr
> "is it more right to give privileges to the underprivileged, or take away
> privileges from the privileged?"

In a world with finite resources (admission spots at Harvard) that are already
utilized at their full capacity, it is not possible to have one without the
other.

------
fipple
As an Asian American I hate how we are “white” or “nonwhite” situationally, to
our maximum disadvantage. We’re nonwhite so we get racist jokes in middle
school and don’t get cast as leading actors. But we’re white enough to keep
out of Harvard and for us to count as “whites and Asians” for tech company
hiring.

WTF are “Whites and Asians?” Whites own America, good and bad. They wrote the
Constitution and they wrote the Three Fifths Compromise. They created the
racial oppression system that Asians fought their way out of. And now because
we’re successful we’re just bucketed in with them when convenient to anyone
but us.

~~~
coredog64
> the Three Fifths Compromise

Since this is one of my common beefs...

The compromise was written at the behest of the Northern, non-slave states.
The Southern slave-holding states would have been perfectly fine with five-
fifths representation for each slave. Further, the point of the compromise was
to limit the Congressional power of the Southern slave-holding states and was
not intended as a value judgement as to the worth of slaves.

~~~
googlryas
The compromise was that the Northern states gave southern blacks _any_
representation. The correct value was actually 0/5ths for slaves, not 3/5ths
or 5/5ths. Southerners wanted it both ways in that they could justify slavery
because blacks were property - more akin to a beast of burden than a farmhand
- and not humans with inalienable rights, but when it came to the census, they
wanted blacks to be counted as humans, even though they could not vote and had
no representation in both the state and federal legal system.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> even though they could not vote and had no representation in both the state
> and federal legal system.

That wasn't actually always true. In many places there were no race
requirements for suffrage and if you were a "free negro" who met the other
then-qualifications (male, land owner, etc.) then you could vote. Of course,
hardly any black men of the time did, not least because they didn't even have
_citizenship_.

This is how we, unlike most other countries, ended up with birthright
citizenship after the civil war. It was another compromise. The former slaves
don't get citizenship but their children do.

And the issue with counting non-citizens is still true today -- the census
still counts non-citizens and federal representation is apportioned based on
the census, so the states with large non-citizen populations get
representation disproportionate to their number of eligible voters.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
> In many places there were no race requirements for suffrage and if you were
> a "free negro" who met the other then-qualifications (male, land owner,
> etc.) then you could vote

Assuming the local official followed the law as written (hint: they didn't).
Much like they would have for most of the post-Civil War, pre-Civil Rights Act
era, they would have simply come up with an excuse not to let the rare free
blacks who met the legal qualifications vote.

------
randyrand
> "race is just one factor that's considered and can only help a student's
> chances of getting admitted."

If this is their best argument, they'll fail miserably. You're not considered
in a vacuum. Your resume is considered relative to the others that have
applied. If most other applicants receive +10 bonus points and you don't --
that hurts you. It's not rocket science.

> Yet Mortara argued Monday the lawsuit is not a broader attack on affirmative
> action, saying Harvard has simply gone too far in its "zeal" to consider
> race. "Diversity and its benefits are not on trial here.

I don't see how they can argue this with a straight face. It's all the same
thing just called by different names.

~~~
WillPostForFood
> I don't see how they can argue this with a straight face. It's all the same
> thing just called by different names.

I think you can argue there is a difference between affirmative action
(proactively seeking candidates for racial diversity) and penalizing based on
race to keep the number of a particular race down.

~~~
fipple
But admissions to Harvard is a zero sum game. It’s not like they say before
admissions starts “everyone with 210 points gets in” and then gives 80 points
for SAT score, 80 points for GPA, and 25 points for race. It’s like an Olympic
race where they let the Athlete from the host country start the race 10
seconds early. If the other athletes complained I don’t think “we’re not
hurting you, we’re just helping them” would be very satisfying.

~~~
rayiner
Say there are 100 people racing, and the top 25% get to advance to the next
round. "We're hurting you" is that you have to start 10 seconds late. "We're
helping them" is that a few people get to start 10 seconds early. Would you
assert that the two scenarios are equivalent?

~~~
fipple
Yes, they’re entirely equivalent. I can win the race by 9 seconds and still
lose.

~~~
rayiner
In this hypothetical, 25% of people advance. If you have to start 10 seconds
late, you almost certainly finish outside the top 25% no matter where you were
going to finish otherwise. But if a few people get to start 10 seconds early,
you'll probably still finish in the top 25% unless you were going to be
marginal to begin with.

~~~
fipple
What does it matter how marginal I was? Either I earned it, or I didn’t. Does
a team only get a Super Bowl parade if they win by 14 points?

------
throwawaysea
Reminder: Harvard consistently rates Asian students lower on personality
traits like "likability", which is a part of their admissions process:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-
enrollme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-
applicants.html)

~~~
solveit
Despite alumni interviewers rating Asian students about the same as others, I
might add.

~~~
DevoidSimo
Well presumably if they are alumni then they were given a high enough rating
to get in so the numbers are skewed. Unless this is alumni from other
universities.

~~~
solveit
No, Harvard alumni interviewing candidates is part of the admissions process.
The alumni rated Asian candidates as being just as personable as candidates
from other races. Since the alumni are volunteers from all walks of life
(other than the obvious fact that they all went to Harvard), the idea is that
they aren't affected by whatever is going on inside the admissions office, and
the disparity between alumni ratings and admissions office ratings is evidence
of systemic bias against Asians.

------
fipple
If Harvard is trying to admit the top students academically, they must be race
blind. If they are trying to admit the future powerful citizens of America,
they can use a metric that accounts for that. For example, Beyoncé is more
powerful than me, even though I probably had better grades. It wouldn’t be
outrageous for Harvard to say we want Beyoncé as an alumnus more than me. But
be honest about what you’re doing then, and don’t call your institution an
academic one.

~~~
hackinthebochs
This really gets to the heart of the matter. Harvard wants to increase its
prestige, and it does so by having future CEOs, Senators, and Presidents go to
Harvard. But the distribution of potential leaders of society is not equal to
the distribution of top GPA/test scores. Should Obama have been passed over
from Harvard Law for someone with a higher GPA (or GW Bush for Yale)? If you
want to argue that Harvard _should_ only use the grades/test scores metric,
you have to argue for it, as it is not self-evident.

------
gentaro
Wow, this is a long time coming. Good luck to the Asian-American community.

~~~
rayiner
Some (probably lots of) asian-americans don't support this lawsuit, because
they see it as a veiled attack on affirmative action:
[https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/first-edward-blum-came-
for-t...](https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/first-edward-blum-came-for-the-
voting-rights-act-now-he-aims-to-gut-affirmative-action-with-the-help-of-
asian-americans).

~~~
asianthrowaway
I'm curious as to why any asian american would support affirmative action.

~~~
rayiner
My personal view (as an asian american) is that the United States owes african
americans a debt that overrides the goal of perfect fairness to everyone else.
Almost all asians came here (or their parents came here) voluntarily. The
ancestors of african americans, by contrast, were brought here in slavery and
then legally discriminated against until very recently (if that discrimination
is even over). The United States has an obligation to fix the damage it caused
by that.

I view it not as "discrimination against asians" but a tax to pay for debts
long ago incurred. My family came here long after the decision to go to World
War II, but I'm obligated to pay taxes to pay off the debt we still carry from
that war. Likewise, the United States and the state governments enslaved and
discriminated against african americans long before I got here. But those
governments still exist as going concerns, are obligated to fix the damage
they did, and as someone coming along after the fact benefiting from living in
the U.S., I have to pay my fair share of the "tax" needed to fix that damage.

~~~
asianthrowaway
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. But what about discriminating
against asians to help hispanic numbers? Hispanics are also recent arrivals to
the USA and were not historically enslaved.

And perhaps even more biting: what about discriminating against asians to help
white numbers?

~~~
rohit2412
The last would definitely be a slam dunk case of discrimination. I guess they
are not admitting to discriminating against asians (in favor of whites). How
true is that? I dunno.

------
nradov
This article fails to mention that Harvard (and other elite schools) used to
apply similar subjective criteria to limit the number of Jews they admitted.

~~~
dman
Would appreciate any pointers from people who know more about law than I do
(which is practically nothing) on what arguments Harvard made back in the day
about their discrimination against Jews. Are they structurally similar to the
arguments they are making against Asians now? At some point did Harvard
acknowledge that the policies that discriminated Jews were a mistake?

~~~
nradov
The argument at the time was that Jews were too focused on academics and
didn't play enough sports. Eventually Harvard did acknowledge that religious
discrimination was a mistake. (To be clear I don't support discrimination,
just supplying some context.)

[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-
proble...](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem)

------
liftbigweights
I don't see how anyone could be for race based discrimination.

If we are going to make up for systematic oppression of the past, why not do
so far earlier in a person's life instead of waiting til college?

I think it's fairer to help minority mothers with day care help or schooling
assistance for their children and even out the playing field there rather than
discriminating at the college level to even the playing field.

I just don't see how more discrimination is the answer to past discrimination
against minorities. Especially when it's discrimination against one set of
minorities to make up for the discrimination against another set of minorities
in the past.

~~~
esrauch
It isn't like Harvard is choosing between the two options of "nationwide
welfare program" or "control admissions" and exclusively choosing the latter,
nor are welfare advocates saying "well, Harvard has that admissions program we
don't need improved welfare anymore".

------
glglwty
A few years ago an Indian guy changed his name to get admitted into medical
school. I wonder how it would play out if more Asians do this. They should try
harder messing with the system, forcing schools to do DNA tests, etc.

~~~
calvinbhai
"Vijay Chokal-Ingam" faked being black to get into med school (he himself came
out and explained why he did what he did. Just google his name).

That's how bad it is in the US for Asian kids at every level after High
School.

Another aspect of what ends up happening due to this is that Asian grads from
such universities are always considered to be top notch by default, because it
is assumed that they had to be more competitive to get through the sieve.

------
oh_sigh
> "Race alone is never the reason a student is granted admission," Lee said.
> "And race is never the reason a student is denied."

> He downplayed the influence of any single numerical rating, saying the final
> decision comes down to a 40-person committee that spends weeks reviewing and
> discussing applications.

I love how Harvard's defense is "We aren't 100% racist, we're only a little
racist, but for good!"

~~~
akhilcacharya
Your problem appears to be holistic admission in general. And to that, ok, I
do agree and it's not consistent or deterministic by design. But the idea that
people should get so mad about this that they sue and raise a fit is silly.

There are two competing implicit narratives here -

1) The school you go to doesn't matter and you should do the best where-ever
you are (I personally heard this quite a bit).

2) You will be irreparably harmed for life because you didn't get into School
N instead of School N - 1.

Which is it?

~~~
sincerely
Wait, where are those narratives coming from the same person?

~~~
akhilcacharya
Sometimes, yes! But I've heard both repeatedly! It is absolutely maddening.

------
ruang
People are also taking advantage of affirmative action by claiming to be part
of a race if they had one relative from that race 10 generations back i.e.
Elizabeth Warren. I feel you should have at least 50% of that DNA in order to
be able to claim some racially disadvantaged status.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Elizabeth Warren did not receive affirmative action. She didn't even tell
anyone about her distant Native American ancestry until after she was a
tenured professor.

------
40acres
Students for Fair Admissions is a front organization designed to find cases
that will hopefully reach the Supreme Court and make affirmative action
unconstitutional. Their president, Edward Blum, has stated so on multiple
occasions.

The Asian community has a legitimate beef if some of the details regarding
Harvard's admissions are true. I would hope that the judge is taking this case
with full context and knowledge of SFFA's role, and if they choose to rule in
the favor of SFFA, do so narrowly.

American's need to become more aware of organizations like SFFA and The
Federalist Society and how they are shaping the court. If you thought the
courts were supposed to be a neutral arbiter of law you thought wrong due to
how these organizations operate. When you can easily tell how the Supreme
Court will vote on major issues simply by knowing the party of the president
that appointmented them something is wrong.

------
noetic_techy
It makes we wonder what the emergence of an all Asian Ivy league level school
would look like, with an endowment to match, similar to historically black
colleges. A private college technically can do what they want.

Either you base admission on merit, or you base it on racial % of the US
population, and then take from the top of each racial bucket, splitting it
50/50 for men and women. There are good arguments for both cases, but you
can't really have a system that tries to be both without having massive
exceptions.

If you read Amy Chaus book The Triple Package, its not just Asians that do
historically better than native Whites in the US, but also Indians, Cuban
exiles, Jews, Nigerians, Lebanese, Iranians and even Mormons. Its often
assumed that a merit system favors only Asians and Whites, predominantly Jews,
when this is not entirely true.

~~~
neutralid
Indians, Lebanese and Iranians are Asians.

------
qihqi
Many systems set up to please underrepresented groups such as African
Americans and Latinos indirectly hurts Asians. One of the reasons is that
Asians are never as vocal and numerous as the other 2 groups. However, the
biggest reason is that the white will not set up a system to hurt whites. Only
take away from one minority to give to other minority; then just sit there
watch 2 minority group fight.

------
_archon_
Is Harvard not a private school? Discussions of affirmative action/race aside,
if they're a private institution, can't they do pretty much whatever they
want? By what basis does anyone have authority/standing to sue?

A private club can refuse admittance for any reason, or for no reason. Is this
not the case for private schools?

------
thoughtstheseus
Harvard wants to pick the best students. If they do not select the best
student they will lose their prestige/position over time. They seem to have a
strong incentive. -my 2 cents

------
lewis500
Can someone knowledgeable answer something: if the judgement goes against
Harvard, would this apply to faculty and staff hires, too?

I recall in grad school being in an econ

~~~
sjg007
No, faculty/staff are covered under equal protection employment law.

------
forapurpose
How do we talk about this issue (and others like it)? Ignoring the politics is
as useful and honest as ignoring your black eye when discussing your headache.

We all know the score: For some, it's a way to undermine affirmative action
and also a way to distract from the much larger prevalence of racial
discrimination against African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans - a way of
implying that those issues aren't special problems. Others take the opposing
side in order to push back on these issues.

Let's not pretend it is considered on its merits either here or in wider
society, though most discussions try to talk as if it is. Possibly it will not
be decided on its merits the politicized American judiciary: If it reaches the
Supreme Court, for example, I think by only knowing the politics - and no
facts or law - we could predict how several justices would vote.

I just wish we would discuss it honestly.

