Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Harvard Stands Up for the “R” Word
As many are aware, Harvard is being sued for discriminating against Asians, who apparently have to have an SAT score 140 points higher than other minorities to gain acceptance. All of this is very confusing, but Dr. Faust, President of Harvard, makes a Faustian bargain to explain the veritas:
This email letter is addressed to Alumni (of which I am one) and Friends (of which I am probably no longer, and let’s face it, I may also soon no longer be one of the former). I cannot abide by this kind of immoral behavior. Or is it moral? Which one is it? How can we really know the truth? Answer: matriculate Harvard. They hold all the truth. They are so truthful, they can change “R” to “D.”
Monitum: They alone bestow the truth upon those who they decide are qualifiedly diverse. Well, I certainly ain’t that. So there goes the alumni, and the neighborhood.
Published in General
I am very curious to know what the proof is that the Students for Fair Admissions think they have.
I also wonder if part of Harvard’s defense will be that they are merely meeting standards handed to them by the federal government. I wonder if those standards have somehow caused this problem rather than Harvard’s having a malicious intent to grant admission to fewer Asian candidates. It will be an interesting case to follow.
In the letter, Drew asserts:
“As a university community, we are bound across differences by a shared commitment to learning, to pursuing truth, and to embracing the rigor and respect of argument and evidence. We never give up on the promise of a world made better by an assumption revisited, an understanding expanded, or a truth questioned – again and again and again. “
Unless, of course. the assumption you’d like to revisit, the truth you’d like to question, is the value of Harvard sacrificing excellence on the altar of diversity. Revisiting that assumption, questioning that truth will get you branded as a heretic and blasphemer.
Devil’s advocate time:
What is the actual purpose of a Harvard undergraduate education? Is it to instill knowledge and intellectual skills, or to provide the soft skills and interpersonal strategies for its students to successfully navigate the present employment climate at the highest levels?
I would argue it’s more the latter than the former – for many professions, most Harvard students will already possess most of the required intellectual capabilities simply by being competitive enough to get into Harvard. So the real skill their time at Harvard can provide them is learning how to “play the game”.
Now consider that the job market in which most of these graduates will be entering is also deeply racist and political. Wouldn’t it make sense to expose their students to this scenario in college so they can learn how to successfully navigate it? In other words, if the professional success of most Harvard graduates will depend on their knowing how the PC game is played, isn’t it Harvard’s duty to teach them that game?
The irony of course is that, as a vanguard of high society, Harvard’s policies also promulgate this atmosphere. Nonetheless, were I a sophomore at Harvard looking to become a lawyer, investment banker, or politician, I’d be much more concerned with learning how to speak the current non-offensive language than linear algebra.
Here’s their website.
From Harvard Law Review:
“Deeply” racist? Really?
Yet never defined what she means. If “diversity” is your overriding goal, your differences are more important than anything you have in common, so you have no common purpose, and your enterprise is likely to collapse (“a house divided” etc.)
Her statement
is laughable in its non-truthfulness as evidenced by the the idealogical narrowness of its curricula and professors, and I would suspect the narrowness of the intellectual and socio-economic backgrounds of the students who apply and are accepted. Except, maybe for Harvard students and graduates it could be true – maybe Harvard graduates tend to go into employment and social circles that are as blinkered and narrow as Harvard itself.
Yes, in the sense of also using racial quotas – in many cases quotas which are just as strict as Harvard uses, but in many cases much less transparent (and not subject to Title IX or other federal laws).
Most new Ivy League grads are aiming for positions at institutions which are highly competitive and highly visible – be it investment banks, the tech industry, law schools, or med schools. Given those parameters, it’s not surprising that most of those institutions are under the same type of PC pressure that the Ivies themselves are to “look diverse”.
I can say, in my job hunt, everytime I had to fill out the diversity form, I knew by checking a box as being a white man, that I was hurting my chances.
Of course, the irony is that many of the industries trying desperately to promote their diversity are still dominated by white men. Which is why we get the inevitable, unending stream of “thinkpieces” in left-wing magazines deploring the subtle patriarchy in the tech industry or medical field.
I wasn’t joking above when I said one of the main skills top-tier colleges currently provide their students is lessons in how to navigate the current PC climate.
But it’s not just teaching minorities how to leverage their minority status to get ahead, it’s also about teaching white people how to best convey “I may be white but I really [heart] diversity and social justice” when trying to get a job. It’s about volunteering at the right places, doing internships at the right NGOs, writing the right essays in the school journal, knowing the right networking groups to belong to, etc.
The result is a cadre of white graduates who are very skilled at using the cloak of diversity and social justice to promote their own (white) selves.
Of course it’s racist against Asians, but it’s even more racist against blacks and any other favored minority. It assumes there is no point in holding them to the same standards as others because none of them can reach that standard no matter what they do. If that’s not the meaning of racism what is? And our minorities are told this every day in every way we can imagine by their own leaders, by all liberals and by institution leaders who insist on these discriminatory policies.
Case in point … NYC mayor DiBlasio just set aside 20% of the admissions slots at NYC’s ‘elite’, admissions-testing required, public high schools. These 20% are set aside for diverse and low income kids who couldn’t meet the rigorous admissions-testing requirements.
No, it’s barking up the correct tree. You’re talking about a type of society in which government does not control as much of the economy as it does ours, and in which non-governmental choices matter a lot more than they do in ours.
I did not get those classes, and I am pushing 50, and age discrimination at work is still a big, big thing.
I did land a job for my experience, and am getting paid for it. Still, this is the sort of thing that drives tribalism. If everyone else gets to be given favors, eventually, white men are going to decide the only way to get ahead is to demand them too. The Right has got to push back harder against this. Suits like this area good weapon.
Really? You must be assuming the ruling will be based on the Constitution, equal opportunity, and other idealistic nonsense. Do you really think a judge will rule on the law instead of the consequences of his ruling?
Interesting.
They are saying the standard exists and they admit fewer Asians. Therefore, there is discrimination. I think this is all the SFFA has to do to win their case.
That’s why Faust’s PR offensive. Harvard is going to lose this.
That said, holy cow, how could they have been so stupid? I’ve heard this allegation about the use of SAT scores to keep Asians out of the Ivies, but I’ve never believed it. It was blatantly against the law.
It is so stupid–the laws have been clear for decades–that someone in the executive suite in the Harvard Corporation should be sued for management malpractice.
RA,
Well said, but it is even worse than that. Diversity is a hopelessly vague non-standard standard. It will end, as we are seeing, in a system far more prejudiced than the system it claimed to be correcting. That’s a Faustian bargain. You give away much too much and what you get is worse than nothing.
You know, sort of like the Iran Deal or Obamacare.
Regards,
Jim
You didn’t? Why not? It’s been blatantly true of affirmative action programs generally for decades – blacks and favored minorities with scores hundreds of points below standard get in, whites and disfavored minorities (Asians) don’t.
Somewhere in this post there should be a reference about the diversity and veritas of Elizabeth Warren, one of the most infamous Harvard (law) school grads.
Yes, the laws have been clear for decades. The law is affirmative action, which requires discrimination. If Harvard loses (it should, but I predict it won’t), it will be a put a major hole in the bottom of the swamp, causing flash floods which will impact every college in America.
Marci, I don’t think there’s any question that they do it. They try not to talk about it (that’s what all the “diversity” talk is about) but they don’t deny it. The only question is, is it ok?
Truly the opposite of diversity is university.
She is Native American because she feels she is. She is Native American by training.
I could not tell from the president’s letter what Harvard’s admissions principles actually are. How do they get a racially diverse student body without establishing quotas for all the relevant diversity categories? I would assume they claim to cut down on the number of Asians they accept, for example, by looking at criteria other than the SAT or grades, but I suspect that Asians can stand toe to toe with any group on any criteria — community service, extracurricular activities, etc. So I don’t see how Harvard can do it without a quota.
Oh, well. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics. Time to die, Harvard.
Over time, all they’ll accomplish is diluting the cachet of a Harvard degree. The most impressive ones will be the ones earned before the PC mob turned everything upside-down. And people will think twice before going to a doctor, lawyer, or other professional who belongs to a protected minority group because what if they were a C student allowed in for diversity rather than achievement?
Part of the rules of the game are that you never actually offer up the numbers. Instead you talk about nice sounding things like “diversity” and “opportunity.” No one needs to know how the sausage is made. I did a little research on this lawsuit and the big fight they just had was over whether this information could be put in the public record or whether Harvard could keep it under seal. Why did Harvard want to keep it under seal? You be the judge.
JM,
We know that there are at least 47 genders according to last known estimates. Exactly how many different ethnic backgrounds are there? Suppose I wanted to open a law practice and specialize in cultural appropriation, I’d like a complete list. Of course, as Warren actually claims to ‘be’ Native American we can’t get her on appropriation.
Perhaps we could either go for fraud or have her committed (just the thought makes me happy). Listen JM, I’ve got to make a buck like everybody else. This is a growth industry. I think we should incorporate and sell shares.
When making rational sense isn’t important anymore the sky is the limit and then some.
Regards,
Jim
It is a bit like “gender” versus “sex” – you have to be really, really smart to be able to deny the things that are so obvious that every child gets them.
Jim,
Count me in. I feel like this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship!
iWe,
Dude, its what you feel you are that counts. Credentials, accomplishment, and hard work is for oppressors, not the victims and oppressed.
Today, I feel that I am an airplane. Excuse me while I jump off my roof and fly.
😉
With more being discovered all the time. There was a flyer on the subway for some LGBTQWERTY….. alliance group or other. It featured two people one a “non-binary pansexual” and one “lesbian Demi-girl”. Does that make 49 total or are they already in the 47?