Progressives have taught us many valuable lessons. And perhaps one of the most valuable of all those lessons is that racism is always wrong, except for all the times when it isn’t. Like when it comes to college admissions, for example. If a black applicant is denied acceptance to Harvard in favor of a more qualified Asian applicant, it’s the bad kind of racism. But if an Asian applicant is denied acceptance to Harvard in favor of a less qualified black applicant, it’s the good kind. The great kind, even.
And speaking of that, the New Yorker recently published a piece about “Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court’s Troubled Treatment of Asian Americans,” where what’s “troubled” is apparently the notion that the Supreme Court could rule that race-based admissions are unconstitutional and thus that merit-based admissions might, in fact, be a much fairer way to go.
An odd sentence in the New Yorkers coverage of the Harvard and UNC cases. Schools will ensure that “Asian admissions don’t get unacceptably out of proportion”? pic.twitter.com/MJfog3Y1XH
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) November 15, 2022
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
A reminder of Harvard's history. From the book "The Chosen The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton." pic.twitter.com/U3Vnt677XY
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) November 15, 2022
Ah, yes. We knew we’d heard it somewhere before!
What is an “unacceptable” proportion of Asians?
— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) November 15, 2022
Greater than zero.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
So, if you’ve been keeping score lately, you now know from the New Yorker that parents who want to have a say in their kids’ education are bad and that an “out of proportion” number of Asian students accepted to prestigious universities is “unacceptable.”
Not since William Randolph Hearst has journalism been so dogged in revealing the threat of the Yellow Menacehttps://t.co/oCkMdJtPGb
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 15, 2022
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 15, 2022
100 years ago Harvard had a stealth quota policy to limit the number of Jewish admissions. In 1926 Harvard's defense, at least they were embarrassed by it and not defending it in court.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 15, 2022
Imagine if America's most selective colleges only used race-neutral criteria and suddenly became 60% Asian students. Then imagine why anyone would be upset by this.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 15, 2022
We can’t imagine that. But that’s because we’re not racist jerks.
What's very interesting to me about the Asian college admissions question is it comes the closest of anything to really forcing libs to say the quiet part loud as there is no other way to really talk about it. https://t.co/FDgVC3ds3e
— Foster (@foster_type) November 15, 2022
We see you, woke progs.
I went on a rant. https://t.co/CElmbjzY58
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
Dr. Pradheep Shanker indeed went on a rant about this. And what a fantastic rant it was.
Please enjoy:
Its amazing to me that you can write such a racist, bigoted piece…and a major outlet like @NewYorker will run it…and liberals and progressives will not even be mad, but will APPLAUD IT. This is where we are in modern America. https://t.co/Xxewx1XND8
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
"The cases address Asian Americans’ uncertain place in American society, and the Court is considering them in a period of increased anti-Asian violence.'
WHAT THE F$#*&$.
I know my place in American society. I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, LADY.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
"Several Justices on the Court, which also obviously lacks Asians…"
Trump was very close to nominating Amul Thapar to Court…but several Democrats raised objections. Much like Miguel Estrada, it was mostly because they didn't want a CONSERVATIVE minority judge on the court.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
Progressives will twist themselves into intellectual pretzels in order to defend the idea that some racism is more equal than others.
"The strongest aspect of the discrimination claim against Harvard involves something called the personal rating."
This is same form of bigotry and racism Harvard used FOR ALMOST A CENTURY to keep Jews out.
Because, as progressives said then, 'There were too many of them."
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
Plus ça change, huh?
Wut?
"If the Court prohibits the use of race, so that race-neutral methods become the only permissible means to achieve diversity, schools will likely play with formulas to produce a diverse class in which Asian admissions don’t get unacceptably out of proportion."
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
So, the author is saying that if the Court says race neutral methods must be used, Liberals will STILL USED RACIST METHODS NO MATTER WHAT?
That is literally her argument here.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
NAME ME WHICH FACTOR THIS IS:
"They may reduce reliance on race-neutral factors in which Asians have done well, such as standardized tests, and increase reliance on race-neutral factors in which Asians have not done as well."
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
"The personal rating and similar mushy factors could become far more determinative, because they are places where admissions officers will continue to have great discretion…as they are not consciously using race."
Not if they aren't bigots.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
Is it?
"Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the point most plainly, saying that relying on race-neutral alternatives, including socioeconomic status, are really “all subterfuges to reaching some sort of diversity in race.”"
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
In short, liberals want to use race, and quotas. They were stopped from using the latter in Bakke, and now, GOD FORBID they are stopped from using race based decisions now.
The long and short of it is that THEIR ENTIRE WORLD VIEW IS RACIST.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
Everything in this piece comes down to "How do we use the color of their skin to determine admission, without letting people know we are using the color of their skin???"
Literally. Read the piece. That is the beginning and end of her logic.
And yes, that is bigoted.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
Not just bigoted, but bigoted AF.
I would LOVE to hear what these people define as 'racism'
Or hell, 'structural racism'.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
The fact is Harvard et al are literally arguing for STRUCTURAL RACISM AGAINST ASIANS, to help structural racism against others. That is literally the argument. So when they say that, make sure to point out that still means they are racist.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
“For example, schools may encourage applicants to write of their cultural traditions in the essays they submit…"
Don't forget Justice KBJ literally told Asians to HIDE THEIR CULTURE TO HELP ADMISSION RATES.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
"As Justice David Souter, for whom I clerked, said in his own dissent in Gratz, “Equal protection cannot become an exercise in which the winners are the ones who hide the ball.”
Right. BUT KETANJI BROWN JACKSON TOLD ASIANS TO HIDE THE BALL.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
"Asian Americans whose alleged treatment formed the factual bases of these cases could fairly be saddened to see both sides in the Supreme Court push aside the heart of their complaint in favor of further ball-hiding exercises."
The bigotry is so overt it is mindboggling.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
THIS.
Progressives used to be embarrassed by their bigotry. Now they flaunt it. https://t.co/7A2sgX0LBV
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 15, 2022
***
Related:
***
Help us keep owning the libs! Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code AMERICAFIRST to receive a 25% discount off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member