43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[alexf.1990]

Huh? When did I call SFFA a white supremacist organization? You were the only person in this thread who used the term "white supremacist." You're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. Embarrassing. 

Maybe you should read some court cases on disparate impact. 

Federal laws prohibit job discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, religion, age, military status, equal pay, pregnancy, disability or genetic information and prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/disparateimpactdisparatetreatment.aspx

https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

You said that ALDC admissions policies support white supremacy. You stated that SFFA was started by a "white man" and then asked why they weren't going after other ALDC policies. Its quite clear what you were implying.

Disparate impact has never been applied to college admissions. Moreover, disparate impact cases allow for discriminatory practices if there is a business necessity. Let's say you're in the business of selecting the most intelligent students to attend your university. It would be trivial to argue that considering SAT scores and GPAs are a necessary process, regardless of the ethnic makeup of  the resulting class ends up. If that same university were to whimsically decide they were going to use race as a factor to make up for "historic oppression," that would be a case of disparate impact per se.

That's a reach. You can't use a perjorative without using the perjorative. And, Ivy League schools' reasoning for putting ALDC in place decades ago is not connected to SFFA's mission. What I said pretty plainly is that SFFA wants to get rid of certain non-merit preferences without having a negative impact on White applicants. 

I brought up disparate impact because ALDC has a disparate impact on Asian applicants. Legacy and child of employee preferences are not based on merit. They do not bring in the brightest students. At least donor preferences directly bring in money, and athlete preferences indirectly bring in money, but they're not bringing in the smartest students.

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.

[sanantone]

You said that ALDC admissions policies support white supremacy. You stated that SFFA was started by a "white man" and then asked why they weren't going after other ALDC policies. Its quite clear what you were implying.

Disparate impact has never been applied to college admissions. Moreover, disparate impact cases allow for discriminatory practices if there is a business necessity. Let's say you're in the business of selecting the most intelligent students to attend your university. It would be trivial to argue that considering SAT scores and GPAs are a necessary process, regardless of the ethnic makeup of  the resulting class ends up. If that same university were to whimsically decide they were going to use race as a factor to make up for "historic oppression," that would be a case of disparate impact per se.

That's a reach. You can't use a perjorative without using the perjorative. And, Ivy League schools' reasoning for putting ALDC in place decades ago is not connected to SFFA's mission. What I said pretty plainly is that SFFA wants to get rid of certain non-merit preferences without having a negative impact on White applicants. 

I brought up disparate impact because ALDC has a disparate impact on Asian applicants. Legacy and child of employee preferences are not based on merit. They do not bring in the brightest students. At least donor preferences directly bring in money, and athlete preferences indirectly bring in money, but they're not bringing in the smartest students.

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.

[alexf.1990]

That's a reach. You can't use a perjorative without using the perjorative. And, Ivy League schools' reasoning for putting ALDC in place decades ago is not connected to SFFA's mission. What I said pretty plainly is that SFFA wants to get rid of certain non-merit preferences without having a negative impact on White applicants. 

I brought up disparate impact because ALDC has a disparate impact on Asian applicants. Legacy and child of employee preferences are not based on merit. They do not bring in the brightest students. At least donor preferences directly bring in money, and athlete preferences indirectly bring in money, but they're not bringing in the smartest students.

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.

[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.

[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.

[sanantone]

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.

A hidden agenda automatically means white supremacy? Do you even know what white supremacy means? You don't seem to be very strong in vocabulary. Someone of superior intellect wouldn't need ALDC preferences. If a white supremacist thought they needed ALDC preferences, they wouldn't be a very good white supremacist. 

Clearly, you haven't read all of the documents going back to 2014, and a brief is not an entire case. LOL. Read the court opinions and supporting documents. 

In Grutter v. Ballinger, the Supreme Court set a precedent that diversity is a compelling interest for college admissions. Of course, the current justices could overrule that precedent, and I am confident Justice Thomas is against it based on his opinion in the Fisher case. But, your assertion that diversity can't be considered a compelling interest is demonstrably incorrect.  

If you're going to challenge a claim, why would you challenge it with an old claim that's already been determined to be unsubstantiated? How is that a good strategy? 

You're hilarious. A person who can't read well and makes all of these incorrect assumptions thinks that his or her opinion on someone's intelligence matters. It seems to really bother you that I am a PhD student for some strange reason. You've mentioned it probably about a dozen times. It's a weird obsession. For your information, I have business, social science, information systems, and life science degrees. Now, who or what would I believe regarding my intelligence? My test scores in elementary school that led to me being placed in honors classes in middle school? My academic performances in my pre-AP and AP classes in high school? My above average SAT scores? My superior GRE scores? All of the times I was one of the or the top scorer on civil service tests? My excellent job performance evaluations? Or, would I believe a stranger online who has inferior verbal intelligence? Why would someone who has always performed better than most students academically, including White students, need AA for college admissions? And, have you never advocated for less fortunate people? Maybe that's not in your character. According to your logic, if someone argues for a policy that helps poor people, that advocate must be poor. However, in this case, I am not even arguing for underqualified students to be admitted based on race. I am arguing that the impact of these policies is being exaggerated and that other policies with disparate impact are mostly being ignored. 

Law is a humanities field that requires high verbal intelligence to do well in. Maybe that's why you're struggling with it.

[alexf.1990]

A hidden agenda automatically means white supremacy? Do you even know what white supremacy means? You don't seem to be very strong in vocabulary. Someone of superior intellect wouldn't need ALDC preferences. If a white supremacist thought they needed ALDC preferences, they wouldn't be a very good white supremacist. 

Clearly, you haven't read all of the documents going back to 2014, and a brief is not an entire case. LOL. Read the court opinions and supporting documents. 

In Grutter v. Ballinger, the Supreme Court set a precedent that diversity is a compelling interest for college admissions. Of course, the current justices could overrule that precedent, and I am confident Justice Thomas is against it based on his opinion in the Fisher case. But, your assertion that diversity can't be considered a compelling interest is demonstrably incorrect.  

If you're going to challenge a claim, why would you challenge it with an old claim that's already been determined to be unsubstantiated? How is that a good strategy? 

You're hilarious. A person who can't read well and makes all of these incorrect assumptions thinks that his or her opinion on someone's intelligence matters. It seems to really bother you that I am a PhD student for some strange reason. You've mentioned it probably about a dozen times. It's a weird obsession. For your information, I have business, social science, information systems, and life science degrees. Now, who or what would I believe regarding my intelligence? My test scores in elementary school that led to me being placed in honors classes in middle school? My academic performances in my pre-AP and AP classes in high school? My above average SAT scores? My superior GRE scores? All of the times I was one of the or the top scorer on civil service tests? My excellent job performance evaluations? Or, would I believe a stranger online who has inferior verbal intelligence? Why would someone who has always performed better than most students academically, including White students, need AA for college admissions? And, have you never advocated for less fortunate people? Maybe that's not in your character. According to your logic, if someone argues for a policy that helps poor people, that advocate must be poor. However, in this case, I am not even arguing for underqualified students to be admitted based on race. I am arguing that the impact of these policies is being exaggerated and that other policies with disparate impact are mostly being ignored. 

Law is a humanities field that requires high verbal intelligence to do well in. Maybe that's why you're struggling with it.

I keep bringing up you being a PhD candidate because I'm genuinely shocked. I'm a high school student that is knocking out a bunch of CLEPs and DSSTs before college. I always assumed that by the time someone got through their bachelors they would have a firm grasp of how to conduct research and how to form a coherent argument. To see such misinformation and petty discourse spread by a PhD candidate is disappointing. I take some solace in knowing that if someone like you can earn a PhD, then I shouldn't have any trouble getting into a great program when its my time.

No, a hidden agenda doesn't automatically mean white supremacist. That's not even close to what I argued. You're misconstruing my argument because you're either unable or unwilling to address my real argument. You said that ALDC was motivated by white supremacy (with the evidence of a Business Insider article, I might add), then you said that SFFA isn't an Asian organization because it was founded by a "white man," then you said they are ignoring ALDC even though its an easier case to win because they have a "hidden agenda." It's abundantly obvious what you are implying. At least take ownership of your arguments instead of trying to hide behind sophistry. If SFFA isn't a white supremacist organization, what is their "hidden agenda" and why are you so adament that they aren't an Asian organization, even though they represent 20,000 Asians?

You expressly said that SFFA was arguing disparate impact. I showed you in their brief that they weren't arguing disparate impact. In fact, they acknowledge that SCOTUS has foreclosed any argument for disparate impact in admissions. You can't even get the standard of review accurate, why are you pretending to understand this case? At what point do you have the humility to either admit you have no clue what you're talking about or spend 10 minutes to brush up on the subject before running your mouth? I'm a high schooler. I shouldn't have to explain the necessity of research to a PhD candidate.

On intelligence, they proof is in the pudding. You don't even have the intelligence to understand your own ignorance of the law in this case. There's absolutely no excuse for your ignorance. All the briefs are posted online. There are YouTube videos explaining federal civil procedure. Google Scholar has every published Federal case. You'd rather spend months arguing about a subject than spend 5 minutes researching the subject to see if you're even correct. Perhaps you realize you're incorrect about disparate impact and refuse to admit as much. Either way, this subject speaks to your intellectual integrity.

[sanantone]

LOL. You're a teenager, you don't have a college degree, and you haven't been able to finish one the four years you've been on this website. On top of that, your goal is to earn a master's degree at an extension school that has earn-your-way admissions. You obviously don't know what you don't know. That's typical for teenagers and young adults.

Not only have I read more court documents about this case than you have, but I took multiple courses on court systems and law at the undergraduate and doctoral levels from attorneys. I've also been enforcing law for years. I'm not wasting any more time "debating" with a clueless child who doesn't even think he has the qualifications to get into a competitive program. The lack of maturity and logic all makes sense now. We can debate after you turn 25 and your brain is fully formed.

[alexf.1990]

LOL. You're a teenager, you don't have a college degree, and you haven't been able to finish one the four years you've been on this website. On top of that, your goal is to earn a master's degree at an extension school that has earn-your-way admissions. You obviously don't know what you don't know. That's typical for teenagers and young adults.

Not only have I read more court documents about this case than you have, but I took multiple courses on court systems and law at the undergraduate and doctoral levels from attorneys. I've also been enforcing law for years. I'm not wasting any more time "debating" with a clueless child who doesn't even think he has the qualifications to get into a competitive program. The lack of maturity and logic all makes sense now. We can debate after you turn 25 and your brain is fully formed.

If you've read more court documents than me, you'd understand why your argument on disparate impact is patently false. You're losing an argument to someone who can't even drink yet.

Disparate impact is foreclosed by Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). There is absolutely no scenario where SFFA was or is arguing disparate impact. Its embarassing that you can't even understand the standard of review after taking "multiple courses on court systems and law." I'm in high school. Why do I need to explain this shit to a PhD candidate. Affirmative Action is great and all, but at some point your employer is going to figure out you're a fraud.

[jsd]

I'm a high school student

This argument makes a lot more sense now.