Hacker News Reader

Comment by gentaro | Hacker News Reader

Wow, this is a long time coming. Good luck to the Asian-American community.

Some (probably lots of) asian-americans don't support this lawsuit, because they see it as a veiled attack on affirmative action: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/first-edward-blum-came-for-t....

My understanding is that many Asian Americans are turned away from AA programs because they aren't "traditionally" disenfranchised minorities.

Multiple entries in that article link to the same book which came out within the past two weeks saying that the myth "that Asian-Americans need higher test scores than non-Asian-Americans to get into a highly selective college" is debunked.

Has anyone actually read the book? Is the topic settled?

I have not read the book, but on general principle I doubt that the topic is settled.

If you look at https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07... you can see that indeed Asian Americans do not get in at the rates that their test scores would suggest that they should. That is evidence of bias against them. However it is hard to prove because it is hard to control for all of the other factors that colleges look for.

That and other things that I am aware of strongly suggest that Asians are somewhat discriminated against. Given that, I would be more inclined to suspect bias is more important than fact in anything that claims to be a debunking.

I'm curious as to why any asian american would support affirmative action.

Hi, I'm Asian and never got into an elite institution like Harvard, but did get into UNC Chapel Hill. I'm thoroughly mediocre overall and was when I applied.

I oppose this lawsuit because I see no evidence that this is anything but sour grapes on the part of the aggrieved parties, all of whom seem to have gone to other elite institutions that I could have never gotten into (like Duke). I am fundamentally opposed to the implication of this suit - the acknowledgement that literally any outcome outside of getting into Harvard is a net detriment to life outcomes significant enough to warrant a lawsuit. I believe this to be un-American and incredibly elitist. In addition, the DOJ's tacit support for it appears to be nothing more than a cynical ploy to drive a wedge between Asian-Americans and other people of color. I've seen some analysts claim that this could convince Asian-Americans to start voting Republican again - something I find amusing, because this country and community have significantly larger problems than pearl-clutching about whether one gets into elite school A or elite school B.

> I am fundamentally opposed to the implication of this suit - the acknowledgement that literally any outcome outside of getting into Harvard is a net detriment to life outcomes significant enough to warrant a lawsuit.

I don't think that's the implication. I think the point of the plaintiffs is that the admissions process is racist against asians of equal capability to other races. Now no doubt some of them might be motivated by a personal vendetta against Harvard for being rejected, but I don't think they're asking to be personally admitted to Harvard if their case succeeds.

I'm not american but this is literally institutional racism, and it's bizarre to me how people, and especially asians, seem okay with it.

I hate saying things like this because it's very meaningless, but this time it's a bit too much. UNC Chapel Hill is absolutely an elite institution. It's one of the most prestigious public schools in the world (recall recent Nobels) and has a very low acceptance rate. Beliefs like this mostly come from the absurd favoritism of the society to private schools. Most people I met would consider a private school roughly as prestigious as UNC "elite" and not consider UNC "elite".

I didn't actually end up going there, I went to a school even less prestigious and less notable (our only Nobel is Rajendra Pauchauri) because I initially intended on majoring in something not available there (I later changed my mind). That was probably a mistake, but whatever.

In addition, I'm in-state. For the year before me I believe in-state acceptance was in the 40-50% range, which isn't very competitive IMO.

Again this conversation is absurd but for what it's worth, acceptance rates are very bad way to compare selectivity (which is essentially what I meant but phrased wrong). Berkeley and UCLA have around ~8% - ~13% acceptance rate but Berkeley receives almost half what UCLA receives because Berkeley is much more selective than UCLA so some people don't even apply to Berkeley and apply to other UCs (we can see this if we compare student profile). If you look at sheer numbers Berkeley's 10% acceptance rate seems noob compared to a tiny liberal arts college with 5% acceptance rate but Berkeley is absolutely one of the most prestigious universities in the world, it just accepts hoards of students all over the world. So, it's not that easy.

So because these candidates were more competitive college applicants than you, there's no clear and blatant systematic bias? Harvard and Duke are both more selective/prestigious than UNC, therefore they are equally selective/prestigious? The reason Harvard is at the center of this is, any discrimination at the most selective institution will filter down because the overqualified rejects from the top tier will fill up the second tier, and the overqualified rejects from the second tier will start filling up the third tier, and so on...Also, as lawsuits go, if they get a decision against Harvard, you can be sure Yale and Princeton and Stanford will take a long hard look at their admission policies. Or more suits will be filed until there is a systemic change.

> there's no clear and blatant systematic bias?

I haven't been convinced of it, no.

> Harvard and Duke are both more selective/prestigious than UNC, therefore they are equally selective/prestigious?

No, but some 86% of applicants can't get into Duke and 95% can't get into Harvard so I'm not sure if that extra 9% is really worth complaining over. It reeks of incredible elitism.

For the record, Yale and Stanford are in the same tier. Most of the ordinary folks in this country don't go to competitive schools at all, if they go.

My personal view (as an asian american) is that the United States owes african americans a debt that overrides the goal of perfect fairness to everyone else. Almost all asians came here (or their parents came here) voluntarily. The ancestors of african americans, by contrast, were brought here in slavery and then legally discriminated against until very recently (if that discrimination is even over). The United States has an obligation to fix the damage it caused by that.

I view it not as "discrimination against asians" but a tax to pay for debts long ago incurred. My family came here long after the decision to go to World War II, but I'm obligated to pay taxes to pay off the debt we still carry from that war. Likewise, the United States and the state governments enslaved and discriminated against african americans long before I got here. But those governments still exist as going concerns, are obligated to fix the damage they did, and as someone coming along after the fact benefiting from living in the U.S., I have to pay my fair share of the "tax" needed to fix that damage.

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. But what about discriminating against asians to help hispanic numbers? Hispanics are also recent arrivals to the USA and were not historically enslaved.

And perhaps even more biting: what about discriminating against asians to help white numbers?

The last would definitely be a slam dunk case of discrimination. I guess they are not admitting to discriminating against asians (in favor of whites). How true is that? I dunno.

I don't have any opposition to it, other than that I think African Americans are uniquely situated because of the history.

How about the damage caused by the colonial oppression, the Opium Wars, Vietnam, and all the knock-on effects from those actions? Maybe we call it quits and start level again?

No. India was a colony, and the British exploited India’s resources, but they also built infrastructure and institutions and preserved most of the social structure. Indians were never property of British people. Families weren’t separate with children being bought and sold to other plantations. Indians’ social structure wasn’t completely broken down in order to turn them into a slave class.

More important: what the British did to India isn’t America’s problem. Blacks in America continue to suffer huge disparities compared to whites. They live like second class citizens in their own country. That’s our burden to fix. We can’t absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying “it was before my time.” Our Congress is the same Congress that passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Our Supreme Court is the same Supreme Court that upheld Plessy and Dredd Scott. Especially asians, most of whom came here voluntarily, and who knew the obligations that had been incurred by the society they were trying to be a part of. We can’t avail ourselves of the benefits of being American but then say we are unwilling to help pay down our societal debt because it’s not our problem.

Blacks in the U.S. have a higher median income then blacks anywhere else in the world. They are literally at the top, you cant get a higher ranking then number 1. If the us government is oppressing this group then they are doing a pretty poor job at it.

The vast majority of Asian Americans support the lawsuit. A small contingent of progressive Asian American activists (many of whom happened to luck out and make it to elite universities, thus allowing them to shut the door behind them) oppose the lawsuit and claim to represent Asian Americans at large.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com