Cope. This all started and became known after
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Chinks and stinkerjeets are 1% of the population and still have minority status. Whites don’t, and not only are they discriminated on a systematic level but ALSO a Social level.
Students at the University of California, Berkeley held a day of protest on Friday to demand the creation of additional “safe spaces” for transgender and nonwhite students, during which a human chain was formed on a main campus artery to prevent white students from getting to class.
m.washingtontimes.com
This did not happen to Asians. Now, college is absolutely useless and entirely an artificial design in a dysgenic hell society. That’s because of shit like this.
asians don’t deal with the social scrutiny whites do. Simple as. Harvard isn’t saying “we should destroy Asian ness” like it’s saying we should “destroy whiteness”.
What? No, I think you misunderstand the legal history of affirmative action in the U.S.
Fisher v. UT Austin did not start affirmative action in the 2010s,
Fisher was actually a semi-based ruling holding that affirmative action was subject to strict scrutiny, as opposed to intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review. The legal history of affirmative action dates back to the 1970s, in
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
Rice- and currycels are far more than 1% of the U.S. population, but are still discriminated against in college admissions nonetheless due to their high academic achievement.
It's liberals defending affirmative action who want to make the issue about "white privilege" even though it isn't, it's about disadvantaging ricecels and currycels in favour of blacks. A few years ago, NYC planned to overhaul their admissions process for their most selective public magnet schools, namely Stuyvesant,
which was basically entirely Asian or Jewish. Why? Because the process consisted of a single standardized test.
Speaking of
Fisher, the activist who brought the case against UT Austin, Edward Blum, is bringing another case to the Supreme Court, this time against Harvard. In
SFFA v. Harvard, they're in fact arguing that Harvard discriminates not only against white applicants, but primarily Asians.
According to [Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono], if an Asian-American applicant with certain characteristics (like scores, GPAs, and extracurricular activities, family background) would result in a 25% statistical likelihood of admission, the same applicant, if white, will have a 36% likelihood of admission. A Hispanic and black applicant with the same characteristics will have a 77% and 95% predicted chance of admission, respectively.
www.google.com
