Want another example of “good racism”…i.e. racism that is both accepted and tolerated by entities which claim to be unalterable opposed to racism?
Here it is, via the following excerpts from Paul Mirengoff’s article at powerlineblog.com:
In 2013, the Harvard Office of Institutional Research found that Asian-Americans would comprise 43.4 percent of the admitted class if they were judged purely on their academic merit.
No college I know of judges all applicants purely on their academic merit, and it’s not race discrimination to consider other factors. However, Harvard’s researchers found that Asian-Americans should have made up 26 percent of the student body even after accounting for the school’s preferences for the children of alumni and recruited athletes. Yet Asian-American representation fell significantly short of that mark.
During his deposition, Mark Hansen, a former Harvard researcher, was asked, “Do you have any explanation other than intentional discrimination for your conclusions regarding the negative association between Asians and the Harvard admissions process?” Hansen responded, “I don’t.”
The findings of the Harvard researchers are confirmed by Duke University Professor Peter Arcidiacono, an expert witness for the plaintiffs. He reviewed six years of admissions data. Because recruited athletes, children of alumni, and those who find their way onto the “Dean and Directors List” are admitted at exceptionally high rates, Arcidiacono excluded them from his analysis. This enabled him to compare applicants who were similarly situated except for their race and their qualifications. His pool contained around 95 percent of applicants and more than two-thirds of admitted applicants.
Where Asian-Americans fall short is where the discrimination occurs — in the personal qualities ratings. These are given not by people who know the applicants, or at least have talked to them, but by the Harvard admissions office. White applicants receive significantly higher ratings than Asian-Americans and Black and Hispanic applicants receive higher ratings than Whites.
The low personal ratings Asian-Americans receive are inconsistent with what Harvard’s own officials say about the personal qualities of this group. For example, Harvard’s Dean of Admissions, William Fitzsimmons, who has read every applicant file for more than 30 years, denied that Asian-Americans have fewer attractive personal qualities than other applicants. He testified that he did not believe Asian-Americans fall short of White applicants in terms of leadership, friendliness, outgoing nature, etc.
The testimony of Harvard’s Director of Admissions, Marlyn McGrath, was the same in this regard. So was the testimony of officials from elite high schools with a very high percentage of Asian-American students. And one of Harvard’s own expert witnesses, the former president of Brown University, described the view that Asian-Americans are less well-rounded than other groups of applicants as “balderdash.”
Still, Harvard contrived to give comparatively low personal qualities to Asian-American applicants. These ratings depressed the rate at which these applicants were admitted.
This is classic discrimination. Imagine if Harvard systematically rated African-American applicants lower on “personal qualities” than other groups, resulting in Blacks being rejected in higher percentages than objective factors like grades, scores, and extracurricular activities indicated they should be. No one would doubt that this was racial discrimination.
Lovely. Way to go, Harvard. How nice to see that you’re so adamantly against racism… as long as it’s the racism you don’t like.
As for the racism you do like? No problem at all, is there?
What hypocrites. What sanctimonious frauds.