> This amounts to, "sorry, we have enough people of your color, so we're gonna make it harder for you to get in." That's wrong. Period.
"The law of unintended consequences" ... what are they going to do if the target demographic (in this case Asians) start their own merit-based and academic-based colleges and universities?
Sure, it's not cheap, but large communities have done much more expensive things in the educational space before, and of course being pure merit-based means that the graduates will (eventually) be more sought after than the standard colleges[1].
Will someone then cry racism then?
[1] Maybe not to the level that Harvard grads are.
Why even bother doing good parenting when the ideologues in charge want to “fallacy of meritocracy” away any advantages you have given to your kids?
I used to be pretty annoyed by conservatives boasting about "family values". I thought it was just performative virtue signaling. But looking at how the far left views the hard work of parenting as something that ought to be "equalized away" has me thinking maybe the I was wrong.
You can only improve education in a way that is offers support for people in difficult homes. Perhaps their difficult childhood will ultimately hinder them from becoming the best. But then perhaps their children will fare better.
Legally, it should be added... The freedom protected in the first amendment is the freedom of political assembly. The Civil Rights Act has been argued repeatedly in the Supreme Court, and the court has ruled repeatedly that the constitutionally protected freedom of assembly is not curtailed by requiring corporations, incorporated under the rules of the state, to be required to serve everyone in the protected classes.
The court was wrong and will be wrong again.
I would ask how progressives square two contradictory interpretations of the first amendment but then I realized they don’t really support the freedom of non-progressive speech anymore.
I would expect setting up Asian-American universities in which non-Asians need not apply to be highly illegal due to the Civil Rights Act.
Who said anything about non-Asians? I said "merit-based" and "academic-based".
Is it inconceivable that a university that accepts only on academic performance and focuses only on academic performance will end up disproportionally Asian?
[EDIT: Actually, they can make it so that the "merit" test is not in English, but a selection of Asian languages. That'd very quickly make it into an Asian-only university without specifying Capital-R Race]
At the same time you will push out Asian kids from regular Ivy-League school admission processes, after all "they can go to that Asian school".
If you promote the parallel polis, you will get more segregation, not less. That's the very reason you create a parallel polis.
You're asking what people would do if those who couldn't get into university address the issue by building a new university, thereby increasing supply?
"Celebrate," I'd assume.
No, I am asking what you would do if the people discriminated against built their own power structures (out of necessity) that, due to merit, was disproportionately made up of members of their community AND produced superior results for their graduates.
Right now many people are basically ranting that Asians are performing too well, leading them to succeed well above other $GROUP.
What do you think those people will say if the discriminated group sets up structures that further reinforce their success in succeeding generations?
Segregation resulting from discriminating against a particular minority to the level that they go ahead and establish their own structures can backfire immensely.
I've seen this (and currently living it firsthand) happen, to the point that the minority group is around 1.5% of the population but holds around 10% of executive and corporate positions[1].
And of course, the 90% majority is baying for blood...
> "Celebrate," I'd assume.
Segregation is never a reason to celebrate.
[1] Last I checked, anyway, which was about a decade ago.
"Congratulations on achieving the American Dream."
The NAACP already exists. What you're describing as a nightmare scenario is basically the way this has been done historically in America. It's part of the "rugged individualism" mythology that a group that feels marginalized organizes to take care of itself.
If, today, Harvard is keeping Asians out, it means more smart, eager Asian students to be recruited by other universities, which just might rise in status for admitting those students.
