Lawsuit Against Harvard For Racial Discrimination: It’s Out in the Open Now; Zionist Discriminate Against Asians and Caucasians

Lawsuit: Harvard Rated Asian-Americans Lower on Personality

(Kevin Ruck/Dreamstime)

Friday, 15 June 2018 04:54 PM

  • Share

In a federal court case deciding if Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants, both parties say the evidence is firmly on their side.

Harvard and the group Students for Fair Admissions filed dueling reports from outside economists Friday, each studying six years of Harvard admissions data and each reaching wildly different conclusions.

The reports were filed in Boston’s federal court as both parties attempted to persuade a judge to end the suit before it reaches trial, which has been scheduled to start in October.

It marks a step forward in a lawsuit that has lasted nearly four years and raises implications for many other colleges that, like Harvard, say they consider race as one of many factors to gather a diverse mix of students.

Edward Blum, a legal strategist who founded Students for Fair Admissions, issued a statement saying his group’s filing “exposes the startling magnitude of Harvard’s discrimination.”

Harvard countered with a statement calling the group’s analysis “incomplete and misleading,” saying it paints a “dangerously inaccurate picture” of the school’s admissions process.

Both sides built their cases on records detailing Harvard’s admissions decisions for individual students who applied from 2010 through 2015.

Students for Fair Admissions relied on an analysis from Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist who says he found evidence of bias against Asian-Americans.

Arcidiacono’s study concluded that if Harvard relied only on the academic scores it assigns to each applicant, more than half of admitted students would have been Asian-American in the six years in question. Instead, they made up just 22 percent.

To blame, he wrote, are subjective rating categories for which Asian-American applicants consistently received lower scores than their white peers.

Asian-Americans, for example, received lower scores than any other racial group in a category for “personal qualities,” and they fared worse than whites in an overall rating category that isn’t based on any particular formula.

Yet Harvard alumni who interview applicants and provide their own ratings generally scored Asian-Americans higher than whites, a contrast that Arcidiacono says suggests bias.

The university attacked his analysis, saying it’s flawed because it excludes applicants believed to have an advantage regardless of race, including relatives of alumni and athletes recruited by the school.

Instead, Harvard sought its own study from David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who found no evidence of discrimination against Asian-Americans.

Looking at a wider pool of applicants and admissions factors, Card found that the effect of being Asian-American was “statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

Both sides also are sparring over a 2013 internal study at Harvard exploring the racial makeup of the admitted class. The inquiry, uncovered by Blum’s group, was conducted amid earlier allegations of discrimination against Harvard.

The study found that even considering factors like legacy status and extracurricular activities, 26 percent of the admitted class would have been expected to be Asian-American. Instead, 19 percent were.

Blum’s group says the report is proof of intentional discrimination and that Harvard “killed the study and quietly buried the reports.”

Harvard counters that the study was never intended to evaluate possible discrimination and that it was “incomplete, preliminary and based on limited inputs.”

University officials have painted the lawsuit as an attack on their ability to consider race in admissions, which they say is necessary to ensure diversity on campus.

In 2016, the Supreme Court examined the topic and upheld race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas, but the justices warned that other colleges still must be able to prove affirmative action is the only way to meet diversity goals.

Blum also was a driving force behind that case, helping Texas student Abigail Fisher sue the university. Fisher is also an executive in Students for Fair Admissions, according to the group’s tax filings.

Friday’s court filings followed a recent battle over a trove of Harvard data reviewed by lawyers during the discovery process.

Harvard argued that its records initially should be filed confidentially to protect students and the admissions process. Blum’s group said the public should have access to the records, and the U.S. Education Department — which is also looking into Harvard’s use of race in admissions — weighed in to agree.

The judge ultimately sided with Harvard, but Blum said Friday that he believes the rest of the records will be released “in the next few weeks.”

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read Newsmax: Lawsuit: Harvard Rated Asian-Americans Lower on Personality |
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump? Vote Here in Poll

Harvard’s First Woman President

As a student at a women’s college, walking into a library adorned with portraits of women didn’t feel refreshing or exceptional so much as it felt expected. But all those portraits of past presidents tended to make me forget that walls like this aren’t all that common. In truth, many institutions don’t even have one woman showcased.

Five days ago, Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust was chosen as the 28th president of Harvard College, the first female leader in its 371-year history. As the successor to Larry Summers, whose tumultuous presidency ended abruptly (the shortest in Harvard’s history) as a result of his confrontational management style, his sexist remarks about women in the sciences, and numerous fall-outs with Black faculty members, Faust’s election is significant on many levels, and her gender does, indeed, matter.

Faust is one of the world’s leading historians on gender issues in 19th century America. After attending Bryn Mawr College — a seven sister school and one of the few remaining women’s colleges in the country — she earned a Ph.D. in American Civilization and became a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She directed Penn’s Women’s Studies program and went on to serve as the dean of the Radcliffe Institute.

To many, like me, who grew up after the Feminist Revolution, the idea of a woman president of any institution (Harvard included) doesn’t seem so stunning. But for those of Faust’s generation, a woman as president of a traditionally male-dominated institution seemed unimaginable. For Faust herself, her own career trajectory alone has come as quite a surprise. In the NY Times, Faust explained: “I’ve always done more than I ever thought I would. Becoming a professor – I never would have imagined that. Writing books – I never would have imagined that. Getting a Ph.D – I’m not sure I would even have imagined that.”

Now that other Ivy League schools have chosen female presidents in recent years, why does the first woman president of Harvard still seem like such an historic occasion? Why does it merit so much marvel and attention? Perhaps it’s because Harvard is the oldest and wealthiest of major American universities, entrenched in a tradition that has been shaped by men. It’s also the university that has the most global power and garners more public attention than any other.

But it may also be that the big fuss made every time a woman breaks into a prominent role that had always been male arises because these breakthroughs come in a world that has changed radically while still seeming the same. Those pictures on the wall and a society shaped by male-centered expectations and dominance have not disappeared.

Whether or not the appointment of Harvard’s first female president makes us marvel or makes us shrug, Faust has a unique opportunity to lead a 17th century institution facing 21st century problems and the potential to make bold changes for the future. But we have to wonder: what kind of difference will it make? Will women simply join men in looking down from the halls of power, or as Bella Abzugused to ask will they change the nature of power itself?


Image: Harvard’s mass discrimination against Asians exposed in shocking investigation… RACIST BIGOTS run the school

(Natural News) White people aren’t the only victims of systemic racism on American college campuses, according to the findings of a new study published by the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO).

At Harvard University, anyway, students of Asian descent are vastly underrepresented, CEO claims – and it’s all because of Harvard’s discriminatory race-based admissions policies.

Compared to the California Institute of Technology, where a whopping 43 percent of the student body is Asian, Harvard claims only 17 percent Asian students. According to CEO, this percentage should be much higher.

“Too many Asian Americans applying to elite schools are discriminated against on account of their race,” wrote CEO chairman and founder Linda Chavez in a recent press release.

“That is the message of our new study, and it is past time that schools quit the morally dubious means of using race or ethnicity as ‘a factor’ in selecting their student bodies.”

CEO says that prospective Asian students are being passed over at Harvard in favor of blacks, Hispanics, and even whites who aren’t as academically qualified. And it’s all due to discriminatory affirmative action policies, the group claims.

Similarly discriminatory admissions policies are also in place at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), CEO claims, which is why that school’s percentage of Asian students is also less than half.

“At both MIT and Harvard there seems to be a limit or ‘ceiling’ on how many Asian American applicants are to be admitted,” reads a list of some of the study’s key points published on the CEO website.

Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: Lab-verified Nascent Iodine solution is a dietary supplement that provides your body with supplemental iodine to help protect your thyroid during radiation exposure. Nuclear accidents such as Fukushima (or nuclear war) can expose your body to radioactive iodine-131, a dangerous radioisotope. Pre-loading your system with stable iodine occupies the iodine receptor sites on your organs, causing your body to naturally expel radioactive iodine you may have been exposed to through air, food, water or milk products. This defensive strategy is recommended by nearly all health authorities, worldwide, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Discover more at this link.

“If there were no such ceiling, both MIT and Harvard would probably enroll a significantly larger number of Asian American applicants. As it is, some of those applicants may conclude they were rejected on account of their race.”

Trump administration’s DoJ to investigate, sue schools for discriminating against white students

The irony here is that this “discrimination” is only problematic at this particular juncture in time now that a non-white group of people – in this case Asians – is feeling some of the pain. If it were only white people being denied admission in favor of lesser-qualified minorities, CEO wouldn’t be making a peep about any of this.

In fact, the group is claiming that Asians are being unfairly denied admissions at MIT and Harvard in favor of whites – a claim that, for all intents and purposes, has absolutely no basis in reality.

Discrimination against white people in higher education has gotten so bad that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is currently in the process of suing a whole slew of American colleges and universities for affirmative action admissions policies that violate federal law.

An internal announcement by the DoJ’s civil rights division to employees explains that the federal agency is actively seeking out lawyers who might be interested in working on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

These investigations will presumably address the concerns of groups like CEO, except that they won’t be selectively limited to just Asians.

Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan administration and early Bush years, told the media that this is a “welcome” and “long overdue” development in addressing prolifically unfair policies that discriminate against whites and other non-protected racial groups.

“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” Clegg told The New York Times (NYT).

More news about the left’s corrosive race-baiting throughout American society is available at


The Story of Opera FAUST selling his soul to the devil:

You may also like...

Translate »