<p>The Supreme Court has held that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination by schools that receive federal funds-a category that includes almost all American universities-holds private universities to the same standards regarding racial discrimination as public universities are held to under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. So, whatever forms of affirmative action the court prohibits Michigan and other state schools to engage in will be forbidden to schools such as Yale, Princeton, and Amherst, as well.</p>
<p>This is true. Espenshade, being a scrupulous researcher, has repeatedly stated that it is quite possible that the soft factors keep Asians out, even though the hard factors show that Asians are far ahead. Now, let’s parse this a bit, shall we? Let’s say the same was practiced by an employer. On a routine basis, they would turn down a racial minority on the basis that while the statistics are clearly favorable, it was the soft factor - which, of course, cannot be quantified, hence there is no need to defend it - that keeps the racial minority from getting a job.</p>
<p>That would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. One can make the soft factors anything that they like and practice racism behind that facade. Which, frankly, is what is going on.</p>
<p>Imagine there is a physics theory that - after centuries of waiting - is proved by an experiment. Imagine you never accepted the theory, and hence request that the theory be proved without referring to that experiment …</p>
<p>Can you please tell me what criteria and evidence would work for you, so that I can find a study that fits? The problem with your position is that any study that is presented would be rejected by you by claiming circumstantial evidence and ill-defined criteria. So let’s set the goalposts first.</p>
Could you point to the section of this study that you believe proves your point? </p>
<p>Since I have a degree in physics, and one in engineering, I generally wait for proof before fully accepting something as valid. At least multiple validating experiments.</p>
<p>The article that you cite contradicts your assertion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to private academic institutions: private schools, which are not subject to the 14th Amendment’s ban on discriminatory government action.
[Let</a> Private Colleges Practice Affirmative Action | David E. Bernstein | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary](<a href=“http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3137]Let”>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3137)</p>
<p>Your observation that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to private academic institutions that receive federal funds is correct.</p>
<p>I would also encourage you to research for any peer-reviewed articles that disprove that there is a racial bias against Asians in college admissions. I searched, and there is not a single one. As you will understand, “people” claiming errors in studies and research scientists proving errors in studies are two different things. So, I request a fair exchange of research materials.</p>
<p>Since there are scarce if any private academic institutions that don’t accept Federal funds in some way or other, the above observation essentially means that if the USSC agrees that UMich can’t discriminate based on race, Harvard and the like won’t be able to do it either.</p>
<p>I am waiting for the appeals. It is good that the UMich case lost, as the appeals will now take it outside of the state and into Federal courts. We need a Federal judge to ban the use of race in college admissions.</p>
<p>Many times people will ask me, “Do your results prove that there is discrimination against Asian applicants?” And I say, “No, they don’t.” Even though in our data we have much information about the students and what they present in their application folders, most of what we have are quantifiable data. We don’t have the “softer” variables – the personal statements that the students wrote, their teacher recommendations, a full list of extracurricular activities. Because we don’t have access to all of the information that the admission office has access to, it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.
[Princeton</a> University - Perspective on: Affirmative action and the racial achievement gap](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/34/81K42/index.xml]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/34/81K42/index.xml)</p>
<p>Start reading around pages 9 or 10. I am respectful of your position that multiple experiments are needed, hence I liked this study, as it showed the same result in three different states, with very different levels of Asian American concentration. </p>
<p>What we need is an experiment that covers the Ivies.</p>
<p>Anyway, I have a side question for you. Since you believe that there is no racial discrimination against Asians, do you also believe that if colleges were forced to disregard race in their admissions process the composition of the student body would remain unchanged? As a physicist, surely you understand where I am going with this line of reasoning.</p>
This article is based primarily, once again, on Epenshade. It’s got some other stuff in there, but most of that is conecture. It’s not new. It’s been argued on both sides ad nauseum. It doesn’t prove anything.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I’m not looking to disprove anything. I’m not all that interested. I’m looking to read something new.</p></li>
<li><p>The California study you presented is interesting. I think it’s the best argument. But it’s been made and debated here many times, and it is not a slam dunk either. It talks about Asians filling the spots formerly held by URMs, but in the white enrollment sections it explains away much of the loss of admissions spots by white males with demographic changes and gains by white females. So with respect to white vs. Asian head to head comparisons I do not find it particularly convincing evidence. This is the same case that has been made on here many, many times. And please remember, my feeling is that you are correct in your assumption. I just cannot discount valid arguments because of my feelings.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
This is why I think these arguments are pointless. I point you to my highlighted text above. This is about the fifth time I’ve written a similar thing in this thread, and I think the second time I’ve expressed this opinion to you specifically. I don’t know how I could be more clear about my position. That’s why I don’t think you are even reading my posts.</p>
<p>And the hard factors aren’t as so straightforward as well, if you consider ‘hard’ factors to be SAT scores and other numerical data. So, the SAT people report that Asians do have an overall better average SAT score, but while they are above all ethnic groups in the math score, they are not in the critical reading. So it’s hard to claim that Asians are ‘far ahead’ here.</p>
<p>And if you look at ACT scores, nationally, it appears that Asian Americans do outscore most groups (in 2009) with a 23.2 overall ACT, but the next highest group, Causcasian Americans, have a 22.2 I wouldn’t exactly say that a one point difference is ‘far ahead’.</p>
<p>It is not necessary to prove that there is a racial bias against Asians. Proving that in absence of that bias Asians would displace URMs is enough. </p>
<p>I do think that there is a bias towards Caucasians, but I don’t think that is due to race. Caucasians have many more hooks. In a generation or two, Asians will have the same hooks and parity will be reached. As someone who is hooked in two Ivies (though second tier, I was never very good), and plan to take full advantage of that when it comes to my kid (if needed, hopefully I won’t), I am all for hooks.</p>