43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[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.