America’s colleges are known for their bias towards the modern social justice movement. It was 2016 when Harvard University, the country’s most prestigious educational institution, was caught in media criticism for unethical left-wing activism. Consider their virtue signals of opposing campus racism, praising Yale’s SJW activists who condemned “racist” Halloween costumes, as well as the social justice placemat scandal which forced Harvard to apologize for providing students scripted answers when talking to their families about complex issues such as “Islamophobia,” the refugee crisis, and black crime.
For a time, Harvard’s commitment to the anti-racist cause of leftism was unquestioned. Until, of course, a lawsuit was brought about later that year by the Students for Fair Admissions, the political action group founded by conservative strategist Edward Blum, who state they’re committed to ending all racist enrolment tactics within the United States educational system.
The New York Times examined the group’s analysis which found that more than 160,000 applicants who applied for Harvard University, between the years 2000 to 2015, were discriminated against during the enrolment process despite their positive academic results. The investigation found that Asian Americans scored higher than other racial groups on measures such as academic test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, while the university consistently rated them lower than others on arbitrary traits such as “likability,” “kindness,” and “positive personality.” The analysis found these Asian-American students, despite all their academic output, were “significantly dragged down” by their personality output when judged by university faculty.
According to court documents examined by The Times, which were filed through a federal court in Boston, Harvard countered the group’s analysis by saying that it was “incomplete,” “preliminary,” and had not reached that conclusion, though didn’t provide counter-evidence. They contradict the findings of Harvard’s own internal investigation into their enrolment policies around 2013, which also found that the bias against their Asian-American applicants was real. This investigation, however, was never public knowledge until the lawsuit was brought forth, with no indications they have improved their process since then.
Trustworthy ‘allies’ against racism don’t try to cover up their discrimination, surely.
The report went on to say Asian Americans would comprise 43% of admissions if only academic qualifications were considered and 26% when extracurricular activities and personal ratings were considered, according to details found by The Guardian. They went on to note Asian Americans only made up 19% of the share of admitted students despite having the highest academic expertise across all races.
“There is no excuse for this, and Harvard cannot offer a single exculpatory explanation that a rational fact-finder could accept,’’ the plaintiffs said in court documents. “Asian American applicants to Harvard are just as ‘helpful’, ‘courageous’, and ‘kind’ as white applicants. It turns out that the suspicions of Asian American alumni, students and applicants were right all along,” the group continued. “Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s.”
This brings into question whether the university’s “unprecedented racial diversity” in admissions, as cited by Harvard Magazine, is just PR to serve their fake neo-liberal narrative. They clearly want to appear progressive. Why else would they hail their success with the Class Of 2020, Harvard’s form of organized planning where they outright wanted to increase the admission numbers among African Americans and Latino American applicants?
Let’s entertain Harvard’s numbers and well-meaning intent for a second. They claim since 2016, 14 percent of admitted students per year are black, 12.7 are Latino and Asian Americans comprise 22.1 percent (an increase from the 19 percent in 2013 when discrimination was found). Let’s also entertain their court filings that tell us they consider seeking diversity — a political concept — to be a “valuable part” of their student selection, according to The Times. Is this not an example of the progressive stack at work through unspoken quotas?
Discrimination, regardless of intent, will always be the favoring of one group at the expense of the other. Diversity, through this kind of discriminatory progressive politics, seems no different. A class with an organized even split between the races — the diversity utopia — is still unfair on an individual basis if they were all decided on subjective views and characteristics they can’t change, not their academic merits.
The progressive stack, which seems to inflate these admission numbers based on the importance of identity, makes Harvard truly problematic. To consider race a factor all, hiding this through social opinions of “likability” over academic records, is institutional racism. Affirmative action can’t apply to those who are the ones doing the discriminating against other races. Doing such would be an unearned privilege, revealing that racists of all stripes would rather benefit from the system rather than dismantle it entirely. This could be debunked if the university were transparent, welcoming organizations to conduct investigations into their selection methods, but their continued attempts to hide the results suggest they wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny.