A curious blend of r@c!sm and anti-r@c!sm necessitates discrimination in tertiary education.

Readership: Christians
Theme: Cultural Demise
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes

R@c!st Admission Policies are Baked into the Best Educational Business Models

I remember reading an article about 10 to 15 years ago that made the rounds on social media in Taiwan.  I can’t find that particular article, but here are a few others that are very similar.

The article I read examined the admissions process at Harvard.  The targeted readership of the article was primarily upper class Chinese parents who wanted their children to attend Ivy League and other upper tier western Universities.  These parents were intensely interested in getting the inside scoop on how applicants are selected, hoping to learn something new about how their children might get in.

In this article, an insider on the admissions board at Harvard bluntly stated that they have to preserve a Wh!te majority on the order of 86% or higher.  If they didn’t, then Asian students would flood the campus and Harvard just wouldn’t be Haahvahd anymore.  “At Harvard,” he explained, “we’re not just selling education, we’re also selling the Harvard experience.  Harvard is a predominantly Wh!te academic culture and it’s 200-year-old reputation is based on this image.  If that changes, then Harvard as everyone knows it would no longer exist.”

img-1783682611-6a50d6337a07e2.36878779.jpg

On the face of it, it seems r@yc!ss as ћә11, but it makes perfect sense from a business marketing standpoint.*  I mean, how many Chinese parents would want their children to go to Harvard if the student body was 50% Indian, 30% East Asian, and 15% black?  (The answer is none!) It is because of these policies that Harvard has preserved its legacy as a world famous brand of education with a targeted consumer base.  Courts have allowed it because it preserves the identity of the institution and because it does not constitute an animosity explicitly targeted towards specific races.

* It also makes sense in terms of national immigration.  In fact, many nations have tight requirements on immigration for this purpose, often based on education and race.  For example, Taiwan keeps immigration limited to 4.5%, favors those who are educated and/or wealthy, and has more stringent requirements for non-ethnic Chinese.

Admissions are a Highly Biased and Subjective Dance in a Swirl of Affirmative Action Policies and R@c!st Business Policies

Coming on three years ago, there was a burp in the narrative that was quickly swallowed down and spit under the rug.  Only those who were diligently following F@r R@ght media sources ever had the chance to hear this news.

  1. U.S. Department of Justice: Justice Department Finds Yale Illegally Discriminates Against Asians and Whites in Undergraduate Admissions in Violation of Federal Civil-Rights Laws (2020/8/13)
  2. The Ethnic European: University Charged with Racism (2020/8/14) [Archive]*
  3. Vox Popoli: The Sino-Jewish war (2020/8/14)

* This site was kicked off of WordPress in late 2020, just a couple months after it opened.

img-1783682613-6a50d635370978.09595088.jpg

Long story short, after an intensive two-year investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice found that it is much easier for African Americans to go to college than people of other races, and this was happening in spite of admission practices that favor Wh!tes like the one described above for Harvard.  It was determined that the admission rate of Asian Americans and Wh!tes was between one-tenth and one fourth of the admission rate of African Americans having comparable academic performance.  Evidently, it is easy for this to go unnoticed because blacks are only 13% of the nationwide population and few of them aspire to attend college.

The next year (in 2021) under the Biden administration, the case was withdrawn and the decision was effectively reversed.

Under source [2], one commenter (Outlier88) wrote,

“This is great news.  Of course I’m not referring to the anti-Wh!te r@c!sm, because that is not news.  No, I’m referring to the investigation and accusation of this clear and present anti-wh!te r@c!sm, by the justice department.”

Outlier88 is mistaken.  The Justice Department’s investigation of the discrimination at Yale is not taking on anti-Wh!te r@c!sm within higher education.  If the justice department required Yale to end their pro-Black discriminatory admission quotas, it would NOT have resulted in less anti-Wh!te r@c!sm or more Wh!te students being able to attend.  Instead, it would result in more Asian students, especially Chinese and Indian.

img-1783680532-6a50ce1447d5b7.46285970.jpg

So either way, Wh!tes are going to lose ground on their own turf.

Currently, the racial demographics of Wh!tes in these esteemed tertiary instititutions are less than before. Forbes reports that…

“At both Harvard and Yale, white students make up the largest share of the 2024 class (Harvard is 54% white and Yale, 45%). The second-largest ethnic group at both schools is Asian American. In Harvard’s class of 2024, 24% of undergraduates are Asian American. African Americans make up 15% of the student body and Latinos account for 13%. At Yale, 29% of the 2024 class is Asian American. African Americans comprise 13% of the class and Latinos, 14%. According to census figures, 18% of the U.S. population is Latino. Less than 6% is Asian and almost 13% is Black.”

Forbes: Justice Department’s Withdrawal Of Yale Admissions Discrimination Suit Doesn’t End Affirmative Action Fight (2021/2/3)

Affirmative Action Finally Falls

Now we come to the present news story.

In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme court declared that affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC are unconstitutional.

  1. Legal Insurrection: ‘Tyranny of a Minority’: The Left Freaks Out After Affirmative Action Ruled Unconstitutional (2023/6/29)
  2. Vox Popoli: The End of Affirmative Action (2023/6/29)
  3. InstaPundit: Affirmative Action’s Demise and Higher Education (2023/6/30)
  4. Not the Bee: Dean of Berkeley Law caught on tape explaining how the school gets around anti-discrimination laws for the sake of “diversity” (2023/6/30)

Trump’s legacy endures through the court system.

img-1783682614-6a50d636808d72.12997896.jpg

If we are to honestly reject the inherent r@c!sm of r@ce-consciousness, then we’ll have to recognize that there are some benefits that come with this change, as Sharkly described.

“If Affirmative Action really does get removed from colleges, and the Leftys don’t reflexively force some other way of affirming Blacks and Hispanics at college, the potential is there that within a decade Black and Hispanic college degrees could be viewed as meaning about the same as degrees earned by Wh!tes and Asians.  Right now only the Lefty fools in HR would assume that a Black person’s college degree wasn’t partly a reparations gift.  As always, there are exceptions, but the norm is “disadvantaged” graduates who leave you assuming that somebody must have had their thumb on the scale.  If the playing field gets leveled, then Black and Hispanic educations might gain a similar value to the educations of Wh!tes and Asians.  I see the removal of built in r@c!sm from education as benefitting everyone.  Because honesty is the best public policy.”

Source [1] cites The New York Times as lamenting,

“The major ruling curtails race-conscious college admissions in the U.S., all but ensuring that elite institutions become whiter and more Asian and less Black and Latino.”

Not quite. Just as with the failed case against Yale in 2020-2021, those most benefitted by this ruling will be those of South and East Asian descent.

Source [1] also displays a tweet that states,

“MSNBC claims now that affirmative action has been ruled unconstitutional, there will only be 3 black students per law school class.”

I’m sure readers have seen many other comments, posts, and Tweets conveying similar self-betraying antipathies.

Here, the progressives are inadvertently admitting what they have been denying all along, that on the whole, some races are more academically inclined than others, and that Progressives are the worst r@c!sts of all when it comes to open competition.

img-1783682616-6a50d638289260.94353940.jpg

Conclusions

All these seemingly contradictory policies and rulings may have left the reader with some confusion, so I’ll summarize things here.

College admissions are subject to the following contexts.

  1. College admissions have to jump through many contradictory policies and regulations in order to preserve the reputational integrity and financial solvency of the institution while also conforming to laws geared against discrimination.
  2. Discrimination is sometimes permitted when it protects business and/or the in-group in general.
  3. Apparently, it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race in favor of a business model as long as it does not constitute an explicit animosity towards another race.*
  4. It is sometimes OK TO discriminate AGAINST those who cannot perform well in competition, as long as this discrimination is based on one’s competitive performance and not on race. (The PTB tried to change this in the past.)
  5. Apparently, it is NOT OK to discriminate IN FAVOR of those who cannot perform as well.** (This is what has changed recently.)
  6. Discrimination is unjust when it disenfranchises rights, privileges, and opportunities from those who are otherwise qualified, those who have earned it and/or those who are not already disqualified on the basis of their competitive ability. 

* Catering to the major consumer’s identity is an essential element of a successful business strategy.  Another example is how Tanqueray Gin and Bombay Sapphire often feature blacks and South Asians in their advertisements, since these demographics comprise a large chunk of their consumer base.  Contrapositive examples include how Bud Light and Gillette cut against their consumer identity and lost beaucoup revenue as a result.

** In the context covered here, this discrimination happens to be based on academic performance and race.

Moreover, discrimination is not as demonic as Progressives have been saying for the past 70 years or more. All the MGM’s school marm lectures about “diversity” and “wh!te suprem@cy” are chitlins and giblets concealed in gravy.

Essentially, equalism is inherently r@c!st, and equalism destroys fair competition.

Go W0ke, go broke!

Related