Joe Rogan on affirmative action and anti-Asian discrimination

It’s great that Joe Rogan is addressing this. I was surprised that he had so much to say about it, and I’m glad he takes Asian American people to task for not complaining about it. There’s obvious racism behind the current racial policies on American campuses; it’s nice to hear someone with an audience pointing it out. I hope his video reaches a lot of people.

56 thoughts on “Joe Rogan on affirmative action and anti-Asian discrimination

  1. I’m glad he takes Asian American people to task for not complaining about it.

    If the 64 Asian American organizations teaming up to file a lawsuit against Harvard isn’t complaining, nothing is. Asians have been fighting school quotas since the 80s. However, they get accused by liberals of being selfish, privileged, and racist when they complain. Asian Americans simply lack the social and institutional power to make their voices heard the way other groups can.

    As a thought experiment, imagine if today’s liberals spoke about Jewish quotas the same way they speak about Asian quotas today. They’d be decried as fascists and people would be punching them in the streets. Most of the protestors would likely not even be Jewish.

    Complaining isn’t the answer. Gaining power is. Just that idea alone upsets anti-Asian racists.

  2. Asians are stupid for wanting to give money to racist institutions like the Ivies that profited off the sweat and blood of Asians.

    Money talks, BS walks. Vote with your wallet and the ballot.

  3. @ aardvark

    If Asians are stupid for attending Ivies, then the Ivies are even more stupid for imposing a quota on them. What do you make of the Ivies bending over backwards for protected minorities? The fact that they insist on keeping affirmative action because it benefits themselves speaks for itself.

    Racists will fight tooth and nail to defend preferences for themselves while supporting restrictions on Asians. Let’s not give them what they want.

  4. Yes, give money to racists because they’re racists and laugh at how subservient Asians are. They do not want money?

  5. They do not want money?

    If they wanted Asians’ money, they’d remove the quotas. They haven’t, so I guess not.

  6. You think the other “URMs” don’t pay them money and only Asians do? Asians are even more stupid than I thought according to you then.

  7. Now you’re running in circles. You say Ivies want Asians’ money but that they’re racist for imposing Asian quotas. By your logic, the Ivies must love Asians because they have the decency to make it harder for Asians to give them money. Which is it?

  8. I know James Lamb-Fang isn’t around these days to troll and spin-doctor and distort words and reality, however your distortion of words and Strawman is close enough that I have call out your lies.

    I wrote above “Asians are stupid for wanting to give Ivies money.” This is a statement about Asians only, and nothing about Ivy School policies and their funding.

    Obviously, Ivy schools want money as much as they can, but they already have it: legacies and upper/-middle-class “URM” students, or children of African and Latin-American dictators.

    I was making a sarcastic comment above on your comment that apparently you fail to grasp, but IMO: Asians are small pittance of that overall legacy and CIA funded students which Asians can never hope to “compete” against in terms of giving them money.

    You’re conflating rich FOB Asians that are also trying to become legacies, with those of the hardworking bootstrap immigrant students.

    So yes, Ivies want money, but they already have it from legacies and 3rd world dictators. URMs are social engineering agendas at the detriment of Asians and Asians are stupid for wanting to give their hard earned money to those racist institutions.

    Indeed, even with Harvard’s disingenuous PR move to get rid of tuition for low income students, they know that not many low income students will be able to take advantage of it as compared to the rich legacies on the East Coast.

  9. As I’ve said many times, the “scarcity” of available seats for elite schools is a contrived scarcity. Satellite campuses, online classes, and the admission of a few new worthy universities into the “Ivy League” could more than double the current enrollment. Most students who apply are not denied because they don’t fit the academic requirements, they are denied in order to keep the illusion of an elite educational class to remain much smaller than it actually is.

  10. Why do Asians want to go to elite schools? So they can have better chance of getting a job working for the white men.
    Asian culture is to blame for the pathetic situation of Asian men. People wrong asians and they don’t complain? What? Why not? Cuz the Asian culture forbids standing up. That’s so stupid. Asian culture is so stupid. It was created by the ruling class in ancient China for the one and only reason – so the peasants shut their mouth and work hard to further enrich and secure the ruling class.
    That idiotic philosophy has so ingrained in asian brain that they see the white men as the ruling class now. They keep their mouth shut and work hard despite severe and hostile discrimination.
    If they immigrate here they are no longer asian asians, they are Americans now. And Americans get the 2nd amendment for a reason.

  11. @ aardvark

    URMs are social engineering agendas at the detriment of Asians and Asians are stupid for wanting to give their hard earned money to those racist institutions.

    There you go again, running in circles, only faster this time. If giving money to Ivies is stupid, then Asians should be happy that quotas are making it harder to give away their money. Nothing to complain about. Maybe advocating for a complete ban on Asians at Ivies will help Asians save more money.

    @ King

    If competition for spots at top schools truly were a “contrived scarcity”, then people would have no problem banning affirmative action at schools. But the massive pushback against that makes clear that it is in fact a limited resource. Actions speak louder than words.

  12. @kyrie That is the most stupidest thing ive heard,are you a white guy trying to make us all look like deranged maniacs? There is a difference between being assertive and being a homocidal maniac. The latter seems to be more up your alley but dont shove your dysfunctional thinking on others.

  13. “If competition for spots at top schools truly were a “contrived scarcity”, then people would have no problem banning affirmative action at schools.”

    Really? Which people?

    There is no way to argue that spots at elite schools could easily be doubled with today’s technology. In fact, most of the tools are already being used in the postgraduate programs for Ivy league universities. But for some reason the same crumbs are still being offered at the undergraduate level. Crumbs to fight over instead of asking for a bigger cake.

  14. Why do Asians want to go to elite schools? So they can have better chance of getting a job working for the white men

    This pretty much sums up the reason why Asians are in America.

  15. @King,

    On a serious note, I also agree that with today’s tech and Kahn Academy, Lynda, Udemy, et al, there’s no real incentive for name brand, other than it’s name brand.

    The best courses are already available online for everybody to teach themselves. The only missing ingredient is hands-on labs and materials designed around STEAM projects.

    And it is about STEAM and not STEM if humanity in the 21st century is to think creatively and start solving problems like global climate change and soil erosion and overall poverty/hunger around the world.

    The current outdated British Empire schooling system of indoctrination for creating replaceable human calculators needs to go and better systems tailored towards individual learning need to be created (and it’s not the “common core holistic math” BS) that help kids to achieve individually what school systems have been failing for years as a result of political hijacking and pandering.

  16. Asians in America fail to make inroads in the upper echelon of American society, including the Ivy League Club, due to their lack of sociopathy or psychopathy. The nice guy finish last mantra, which is an American one, applies to most Asians.

  17. @ aardvark

    I agree. What we should be interested in, when it comes to elite education is OUTCOME. If you stayed at home and had the tenacity to study subjects from any sources one wanted, but could pass standard exit exams near the top of the curve, I would say go for it.

  18. @ King

    Really? Which people?

    Really? You’ve never met an affirmative action supporter? We must live in different worlds.

    Arguing that school admissions is not a zero-sum game is disingenuous because it avoids the issue that no matter how big the cake is, certain groups will still be taking slices from others under the current system of affirmative action. Just flip the losing and winning groups of affirmative action around and watch how quickly its supporters’ attitudes sour.

  19. Hey Y’all,

    I just posted about online learning over here:

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2017/10/moocs-and-online-learning/

    I’m in general agreement with King when he says that technology has made knowledge available to the masses, and that various “elite” universities could double or triple or quadruple the number of students. It’s probably worth pointing out something that I didn’t realize when I was young–the university’s education isn’t often so much about knowledge, but rather about learning to work and collaborate with others. That’s probably the most valuable skill that a university can impart. So in that way, perhaps it’s best to think of these colleges as clubs, rather than as gateways to knowledge. Again I agree with King, but I think it’s important that we recognize that it’s not about knowledge. Quite possibly it never was about knowledge.

  20. “Arguing that school admissions is not a zero-sum game is disingenuous because it avoids the issue that no matter how big the cake is, certain groups will still be taking slices from others under the current system of affirmative action.”

    @ Kiwi
    I think you may be missing my point. Elite education is essentially a product. It’s cost and availability are subject to the forces of supply and demand, just like everything else in a market economy. If you increase the supply, the demand (scarcity) of the product decreases proportionately. If there is enough supply, then you actually have what amounts to a surplus of product and nobody has to “take slices” from anybody else.

    As a nation, it makes sense for us to want as many people to be as highly educated as possible. It makes the country stronger in almost every way. So what I am saying is that instead of the elite “clubs” that Byron suggests, it would make more sense to simply fund higher education to the degree that rationing access is unnecessary on any level. In other words, create as many “seats” as there are elite students to fill them. Everything in the current system points to a plan that intentionally creates scarcity in order to inflate both the price of the product, as well as the prestige of those who purchase it. Free market forces are good for many things but not everything.

    @ WOWO
    I agree with your points. About the club and collaboration, I notice that these same schools, in their post-graduate courses have online video classes, online video study groups, requirements for online face-to-face time with the professors or instructors. I think that as time goes on, it will be less and less possible to say that people have to literally be sitting in the same room in order for them to collaborate. I notice that at work this threshold has already been crossed. There used to be a requirement that if you wanted to work for a certain region that you needed to live within that region. Today we have people all over the country working for our Pacific region but living back East, in the Midwest or South. We all communicate by phone, by video, by email and text. We all have cell phones in our pockets for immediate access. Collaboration doesn’t require proximity.

  21. Kiwi wrote:

    There you go again, running in circles, only faster this time. If giving money to Ivies is stupid, then Asians should be happy that quotas are making it harder to give away their money. Nothing to complain about. Maybe advocating for a complete ban on Asians at Ivies will help Asians save more money.

    NO! YOU’RE THE ONE WHO’S MAKING CIRCULAR STRAWMANS!

    Asians are stupid because they’re happy to give racist Ivies money. Because most Asians are prestige whores and think nothing of facts and logic, but only how to appease and uplift the racist social hierarchy in USofA.

    In fact, I’d support a racist Ivy ban on Asians, at least then it’s blatant just what the racists think and feel. However, in reality they’ll only ban Asian men and admit Asian women and take their parents’ money. Colonalism sexual conquest 101.

  22. Kiwi wrote:

    If competition for spots at top schools truly were a “contrived scarcity”, then people would have no problem banning affirmative action at schools. But the massive pushback against that makes clear that it is in fact a limited resource. Actions speak louder than words.

    You really need some reality 101 classes and basic marketing classes. The idea of false scarcity is very much engineered in order to make it appear as if something is more prestigious and brand name than it really is.

    The diamond cartels knows all about this for starters, and so do retail stores with their fake sales.

  23. Kiwi wrote:

    Just flip the losing and winning groups of affirmative action around and watch how quickly its supporters’ attitudes sour.

    Like I wrote many times before: it’s social engineering to pit one group against another for false scarcity in order to keep the elites in power. When the powerless fight against each other, only the elite powerful win.

    Divide-and-conquer 101.

  24. @bigWOWO,

    I agree with mostly what you write about the alcohol fueled inebriation of greeks at the Ivy Schools. However, that’s exactly it as the old system: an elitist country club for the scions of rich elites to further their good old boy networks.

    In theory, higher education is a good place to learn for learning’s sake, but in reality these days it’s a business only to further the bottom line of administrators’ pockets and social prestige.

    I’ve known tons of high school grads who are smarter than Ivy school grads, but they just didn’t have the silver spoons to hobnob at the country clubs.

    The education system of the future will have to account for individual talent and not cookie cutter system to crank out human calculators like the obsolete 19th century system currently in existence.

    Besides, there won’t be much jobs around in 20-30 years anyhow…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvs7f4UaKLo

  25. King,

    I think it probably once again depends on the subject.

    For example, my son does chess lessons online. In many ways, it’s BETTER than meeting the coach in person. There’s no video screen, just a chessboard, so he can concentrate on what needs to be learned. I don’t have to drive him anywhere, and he can focus solely on the ideas within chess. It does have its drawbacks–for example, he gets swayed by the tech, and the coach can’t watch him as closely. But overall, the benefits outweigh the costs–if he concentrates.

    But other things can’t be done as well online. Talking about literature, for example, doesn’t work as well on Skype. I know of people who swear by online language lessons, such as the ones found on iTalki, but honestly, I just can’t see that being as useful as learning in front of a real person who is able to put the power of emotional connection behind words.

    Even within computer collaboration there seems to be a preference for in-person collaboration. Most of those boot camps (the computer ones, not the ones with slimy dudes with bad haircuts trying to pick up women with stupid lines) tend to be in-person. Yahoo even barred people from working remotely. Of course, this isn’t true of all computer-related jobs–your company, for example, seems to have made the transition. But I think that that’s probably more the exception than the rule.

    So I’m thinking that a college–a good college, that is–still needs to have a strong focus on in-person collaboration. Whether this will change in the future…I don’t know. But for now, I think we humans mostly still prefer to work best face-to-face.

  26. Aardvark,

    As I said, I don’t think it’s about being smart. That hobnobbing that you talk about…I agree it’s hobnobbing. But that may be the best way to get things done. If you think about it, that seems to be the only way that we humans get things done, regardless of what venture we’re trying. For example, look at how the SJW’s hobnob. They’re as elitist and snobby as the worst of us. But that’s how stuff gets done. Without hobnobbing, it’s impossible to do big stuff, whether it’s a logistical undertaking like running a corporation, or whether it’s a spindoctoring PR move like turning a vicious violent criminal like Michael Brown into a folk hero. In all cases, it requires lots and lots of elitist hobnobbing.

  27. I’d definitely agree with teamwork and sociability, but that’s different than “hobnobbing” and “brow-nosing” at the corporations. In fact, I’m entrenched in toxic clique mentality again at my current place and it’s going down because more of the higher-ups are interested in “social” hierarchies than in actual technology and getting things done.

    It’s just the way things are, until we can all get robots to do the job and WALL-E is in our future. =]

  28. @ aardvark

    I’d support a racist Ivy ban on Asians

    Good luck with that. To build on your argument, I’d support a racist ban on Asians in America. Asians are dumb for wanting to immigrate to and live in a country that’s racist against them. Better pack your bags.

    @ King

    instead of the elite “clubs” that Byron suggests, it would make more sense to simply fund higher education to the degree that rationing access is unnecessary

    That’s already been done. America has thousands of colleges, to the point of excess, that anyone who wants to can attend. The issue is about competition for spots in top schools. Funding more schools won’t change anything because the rankings will stay the same.

  29. @ WOWO

    I think that there is a big difference between general “online classes” and an online degree program. In your non-accredited classes, the goal is student convenience. As long as you pay the money for the class, they try to make going at your own pace, and flexibility priorities.

    However, when you are getting an online degree from an accredited college or university, you then find yourself in a more traditional student role with more familiar requirements. You often have to have video face time with your entire class on a certain schedule. You also may be required to join a study group for each subject you are taking. Many of the assignments require collaboration with online student cohorts.

    But also students are required to show up on campus several times a year, sometimes for testing or other reasons. My point is that this is being done already at Harvard and Yale and Princeton. It’s being done mostly at the post-graduate level, but it’s being done, and it works. Other schools offer it at all levels.

    Sure, I personally like the feeling of walking into a physical classroom on campus twice a week, plopping down into a familiar desk, and watching as my fellow students trickle in as the professor writes out the lesson highlights on the whiteboard. The problem is THAT is exactly what leads of educational Affirmative Action and other educational rationing. At our present level of technology, there is room for every elite student who qualifies as long as we can use that technology to create spots online. So which is preferable? Should ethic minorities continue to fight each other over different ideas of what “fairness” looks like? Or should we kill all the arguments and simply accommodate everyone?

    I personally think that the Ivy League has had an enormous influence on the direction of our country. How many Presidents, Senators, and even Congressmen have been Ivy League graduates over the years? The Ivies have offered education, but also have offered a way to keep a certain class in control. And that is why they still resist the idea of truly expanding enrollment to all the people who academically qualify. Most of the added applicants are simply not “their kind of people.”

  30. @ Kiwi

    But I’m not talking about funding more colleges. I agree, we have a lot of those (although in urban areas it’s getting harder to get through those in 4 years anymore because of overcrowding). But anyway, what I’m talking about is funding top-ranked colleges so that they can accept more top-ranked applicants. Make it a national priority. If a student tests high enough and can demonstrate a record of rigorous study then we should prioritize getting those students into top-level universities Like the Ivies back east, or Stanford or MIT or Cal Tech… whatever.

  31. @ King

    Then I agree with your argument. A lot of schools are just diploma mills.

    But in order to make it a national priority, the national culture needs to change. Mainstream American culture has an anti-intellectual, profit-driven streak. Its abysmal math, science, and reading scores compared to other rich countries are proof of that. This is not due to lack of funding because you see it even in suburbia. It’s because of the culture.

  32. King,

    I agree that there’s a difference between online classes and online degrees. I’ve heard that some of these programs do, as you say, require a scheduled appearance of every student. I also agree that some “elite” colleges are running correspondence courses at the post-grad level.

    But I don’t think that works for undergrads. Colleges are looking to instill a feeling of belonging and camaraderie, which is why many require that first-year students (and sometimes second-year students) live on campus. They want the in-person experience. Whether top colleges want to go that route is really debatable. It’s not just the top ten either; I’d guess that the top 200 or so colleges in the U.S. try to replicate that campus feeling. I just took a quick look at the US News report, and the University of Oregon is #103. The University of Oregon is a really good school (which shows that we’ve got great colleges in this country if 100 schools are the same or better). But even they require that first-year students live on campus.

    It’s not a money thing either. If you look at Harvard’s endowment, it’s obvious they don’t need more money. Harvard is NOT looking to accommodate more students. They’re trying to spend more on the students they already have. Part of Harvard’s appeal is the fact that so many people don’t make the cut. It’s not in Harvard’s best interest to expand their undergrad class, although they have nothing to lose by making more material available online, which they’re already doing. But a Harvard undergrad degree means that you spent four years attending class in Boston, and I think that’s unlikely to change.

    Honestly, I think it’s just the culture, and I don’t see that ever changing. Saying someone played in the NBA, for example, means that they’re pretty darn good at basketball, even though many minor leaguers come pretty close or (in some cases) are better. The truth is, I’ve met lots of U of O kids who are smarter than your average Ivy kid. U of O has tremendous resources; in terms of the differences among the top 100 or so schools, it’s often just a question of the brand. Lots of really smart kids who can’t afford, say, Georgetown (supposedly #20), end up going to Suny Buffalo (supposedly #97), but is there really a significant difference between the two? I would say that the smartest students from Suny Buffalo are as smart as the smartest from Georgetown, regardless of what one thinks of the two schools. I would also say that Suny Buffalo doesn’t suffer from a lack of resources–you can get nearly any kind of education you want there. It’s still a top 100 school for a reason.

    It would make sense to view a Harvard degree as being equal to a UC Berkeley degree–they’re in the same tier, or at least they should be. But people often don’t see this. It’s not a problem with Harvard or UC Berkeley needing more resources; it’s a problem with the way society likes to create hierarchies, even when they don’t really exist.

  33. @ Kiwi

    I can’t argue with you there. It seems that many colleges are strictly diploma mills. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve run into people in the workplace and I find out where they went to school and I wonder, “How could the possibly be as stupid as they are if they graduated from that school?” I honestly can’t understand how that happens.

  34. @kiwi:

    Asians are dumb for wanting to immigrate to and live in a country that’s racist against them. Better pack your bags.

    The hallmark of a true right wingnut racist: tell others to leave the country of their birth if they don’t like the policies and zeitgeist. Come up with something new other than the Chinese exclusion act and anti-Asian immigration acts for over 200 years.

    On the other hand, if said policies are made public these days, at least I give Trump credit for having the balls to say it out loud in public. The regressive left racists just hide it under guise of “equality for URMs” to push out Asians from schools and the country.

    But it’s truly USofA loss that it’s going to ban high-tech coolies from Asian countries, because the current atrocious state of STEM research means the USofA is falling dangerously behind the rest of the world in key areas. Keep at it, though, because it’s nobody else’s loss with America’s racism.

  35. @King,

    How many Presidents, Senators, and even Congressmen have been Ivy League graduates over the years?

    LOLZ! Bush#2 went to Harvard and Yale and Trump went to UPenn. All Ivy League graduates…

    It’s just an elitist social club for rich legacies with some pretense at equality and justice. Why does somebody want to throw money at racist country clubs that set out to banish them based on skin color and eye shape?

  36. @ aardvark

    Either ban Asians from both the Ivies and the US or lift all bans. You can’t have it both ways. Picking and choosing just exposes logical inconsistency.

    Next we’ll be arguing that Asians are dumb for giving their money to a racist country (e.g.: taxes, spending, etc). May as well ask all Asians of the world to boycott America, even though that’ll hurt Asians more than America.

  37. Last I checked the Ivies are private institutions/clubs ciphering public money, whereas the USofA is a nation-state spouting off democracy and freedom for all of its citizens, not a totalitarian regime. I don’t see your logical inconsistency of equating the two as the same.

    The US wants/needs Asian money, especially its racist Haolewood propaganda arm. Asians are definitely stupid for giving money into racist private institutions/clubs. Whereas government institutions like the IRS enact laws that would make it illegal for citizens to not pay income tax – despite it being a fairly recent 20th century system for maintaining the military industrial complex.

    Have I schooled you enough now? ^_^

  38. @ aardvark

    Asians are definitely stupid for giving money into racist private institutions/clubs.

    And they are also stupid for immigrating to a racist country to pay its taxes. It’s the same thing.

  39. No Asians had a choice as to what country they’re born into, but all Asians have a choice as to which school they want to apply to.

    I know you fail at basic logic concepts, but hopefully read the above sentence 100x will make you understand this simple idea. ^_^

  40. @ aardvark

    All Asian immigrants have a choice of what country they move to. Any racism their kids face could have been prevented by not immigrating to racist countries. Check your reading comprehension. It’s the same thing.

  41. Boycotting is not effective when you apply King’s “contrived scarcity” limited vs. unlimited into the equation. When the seats are limited, boycotting your $dollar DOES NOT affect their bottom line, so boycotting only hurts YOURSELF (or hurt Asians). On the other hand when the seats are unlimited, boycotting with your $dollar DOES affect their bottom line. Let’s implement this theory into real life tests.

    Scenario 1: When Asians boycott racist Abercrombie & Fitch, it affects their bottom line because their products are unlimited, meaning the buying power of Asian consumers affect their bottom line as these are extra profits into their pockets that cannot be replaced/fulfilled.

    Scenario 2: When Asians boycott racist whitewashed Haolewood movies (ie Ghost in the Shell), this directly affects their bottom line because their ticket seatings are unlimited, so the buying power of Asian consumers directly affect their ticket sales bottom line as these are extra profits into their pockets that cannot be replaced/fulfilled.

    Scenario 3: When Asians boycott the racist country of USA, this does NOT affect Americans (racists love to tell Asians to go back to their countries) as the quota for immigrants into this country per year is about 900K, it’s LIMITED, so Asians choosing not to come here only hurting themselves, as Americans don’t care. When newly immigrants arrive here it ensues a burden on tax payers’ money to be compromised and dissipated to be spent on supporting these new immigrants. This hurts tax payers’ bottom line. So if Asians choose not to come here only hurting themselves, as the limited applicants will be replaced/fulfilled by Mexicans or other international immigrants.

    Scenario 4: Each of the 8 Ivie schools has a limited seatings of about 2000 for new yearly applicants, so when Asians boycott and choose not to apply only hurting themselves, this does not hurt the schools one bit. Part of their big fundings come from endowments, so if Asians apply or not why would that hurt the schools? They wouldn’t care one bit if Asians don’t come, the schools would be happy and replace/fulfill Asian applicants with Hispanics or Black applicants.

    Let’s say the Ivies decide to double or triple their seatings from 2000 to 6000 per school, this does not stop applicants from crying racism. Even at 6000, there are still 34000 out of 40000 applicants will be left out and they will cry racism anyway, so doubling or tripling the seats wouldn’t help.

    For Harvard’s Admission class of 2021
    Applicants 39,506
    Admitted 2,037

    African American 14.6%
    Asian American 22.2%
    Hispanic or Latino 11.6%
    Native American or Pacific Islander 2.5%
    Whites 49%

    https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
    http://features.thecrimson.com/2017/freshman-survey/makeup/

  42. Warning, reading comprehension needed for this post. It’s a bit of rambling on my part, but the final point is the Ivies are not racist.

    Looking at the Harvard’s stats above, if all 8 Ivie schools have similar quotas, I’m convinced the Ivies are NOT racists. 22% is a very generous quota for Asian Americans and with the schools’ efforts to be inclusive and diversified, how would that be scrutinized as racists? 22% is more than 3 times the Asian American demographic, Blacks at 14% are exactly at their demographic while 11% for Hispanics are 4% lower than their demographic. The group that hurts the most are Whites with 13% lower than their demographic and they are the biggest contributors/donators to the Ivies’ endowment, so does that make White people stupid for pouring their money into institutions that are racists against them? I appreciate Joe Rogan for standing up for Asian Americans, but I don’t think the Ivies can do any better or have any other options to not be racists. This is one of those catch 22 “damned if they do, damned if they don’t”, SJW will use the victimology card to decry racism anyway, no matter what.

    To demostrate what I’m talking about, again I’m going to utilize the “I only date white guys” AFCC Club. We all can agree that this kind of mindset is racist when their dating preference is 90% whites with 10% blacks while excluding Asian guys and Hispanic guys. We can also agree that Haolewood is racist for casting 95% whites and 5% blacks for leads while excluding Asians and Hispanics.
    So with this same logic, if the Ivies admit 65% whites with 35% Asians while excluding Blacks and Hispanics, we all would conclude that the Ivies are racists.

    Then what’s not racist? What’s not racist is to be inclusive of all 4 races.

    That’s exactly what the Ivies are doing, they included all 4 races into their admission selections, so how can they be racists? If the AFCC Club included all 4 races into their dating selections, would you guys still call them racists? Include Asian guys into their dating selection is the opposite of what they’re doing now, they would be deemed as NOT racists, correct? That’s exactly what the Ivies are doing.

    My conclusion is the Ivies’ efforts to be inclusive and diversified with all 4 races, they are not racists.

    22% admittance rate for Asian Americans is not racist, what does Joe Rogan and the SJW expect? 35% to 45% for Asians? that’s too greedy. How many Universities across the country can claim to have the admission rates of over 22% for Asians?

    Lets’s look at the Non-Ivie schools’ admission rates for Asian Americans. Stanford for Asians is 22%, only a few schools like Berkeley, MIT, UCLA have the admittance rate higher than 22% for Asian Americans. So the rest of the thousands of Universities across the country with under 22% admittance rate for Asian Americans, are all racists?

  43. Prestige

    Ivies alone do not get the top billing in bragging rights in the Asian community, it’s about longevity as in what occupations determine the top billing bragging rights, it is usually Physicians. From the rankings for Medical schools, only 4 Ivies made the top 25, that means 21 Non-Ivie schools can claim bragging rights in this field.

    https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-medical-schools/research-rankings

    Same with any other majors in the STEM fields, the Ivies don’t get exclusive bragging rights as the Non-Ivie schools can ranked just as high or higher in these fields. In the Asian community, the bragging rights go from Physicians to Dentists to Scientists to Pharmacists to Lawyers to PHDs to Engineers, etc. The Universities are just an add-on bonus. If someone went to Harvard with a communications degree and spent his entire career teaching English, he’s not going to get the bragging rights over someone who is a Physician and went to an obscured Med school like Mercer University.

  44. Kiwi the right wingnut lackey wrote:

    All Asian immigrants have a choice of what country they move to. Any racism their kids face could have been prevented by not immigrating to racist countries. Check your reading comprehension. It’s the same thing.

    Conflating Asian-Americans with FOB immigrants aside, Asian immigrants applying to Ivies are not aware of racist USofA history. Their kids, however, have a choice despite “listening” to the FOB immigrants.

    However, FOB parents pretty soon realize the racism but no have choice because of financial ties to USofA and lack of it in their home countries.

    Once again, your racist notion that Asian Americans are FOBs and not native born indicates your racist gweilo agendas.

  45. @NightTown,

    By definition your wording of “quota” is racist and illegal by law. However, the racist Ivies skirt around it by saying “affirmation action” (affirmative discrimination by any other wording) and “diversity.”

    The fact remains, right now the USofA STEM is going downhill because of xenophobia and developing BRICS are stepping up their research. Go to any STEM lab at any university or tech startups in Silicon Valley, you’ll see the abundance of Asians and former Soviet-bloc Eastern Europeans.

  46. NightTown wrote:

    22% admittance rate for Asian Americans is not racist, what does Joe Rogan and the SJW expect? 35% to 45% for Asians? that’s too greedy. How many Universities across the country can claim to have the admission rates of over 22% for Asians?

    It’s greedy for the UC and CalState system to have consistently 60% Asians are among the top public universities in the world? What a load of croc!

    The first step is to release the DATA on why certain applicants are picked over others and applicants by race numbers.

    The fact that white legacies are still admitted over other great white students who are poor just goes to show the hypocrisy of the Ivies as elitist racist good old boys’ clubs.

    Academics and schools are different than racist Haolewood, because the expectation is “meritocracy” as measured by some useful gauge of score points and other achievements.

    Haolewood base their discrimination on nebulous terms like “artistic preference” and can’t be quantified or qualified, but only individual tastes and that leans towards vanilla.

  47. The fact remains, right now the USofA STEM is going downhill because of xenophobia and developing BRICS are stepping up their research. Go to any STEM lab at any university or tech startups in Silicon Valley, you’ll see the abundance of Asians and former Soviet-bloc Eastern Europeans.

    True, but BRiCS will affect more in the lower tier jobs such as assembly line, programmers, tech, lower tier engineering, etc. It’s not going to replace Physicians, Lawyers, Dentists, Pharmacists, Scientists, Registered Nurses, etc.

    It’s greedy for the UC and CalState system to have consistently 60% Asians are among the top public universities in the world? What a load of croc!

    That was my point, even if all California Universities have well over 22% for Asians, it’s still very few considering there are over 2.5 thousand public and private universities across the US. At least 80% of those schools do not have 22% Asian admittance rate like the Ivies, does that make those Non-Ivie schools racist too? Two points to keep in mind is Cali has the biggest Asian American population, and the 8 Ivies are not located in Cali.

    The first step is to release the DATA on why certain applicants are picked over others and applicants by race numbers.

    Good idea

    The fact that white legacies are still admitted over other great white students who are poor just goes to show the hypocrisy of the Ivies as elitist racist good old boys’ clubs.

    If this is the case, white people have every right to cry racism. They choose white legacies over other white students have nothing to do with Asians, right? Do they choose Asian legacies over other great Asian students too? If not, then I still don’t see why this is racist against Asians.

    Academics and schools are different than racist Haolewood, because the expectation is “meritocracy” as measured by some useful gauge of score points and other achievements.

    Haolewood base their discrimination on nebulous terms like “artistic preference” and can’t be quantified or qualified, but only individual tastes and that leans towards vanilla.

    Haolewood based their racist merits on their belief as fact system that whites are the best actors and whites equals to the bottom line as bringing in box office sales. Merits for AFCC club are that whites are taller, bigger package, blah, blah, blah. That’s their racist belief systems (or merit) for only choosing 1 certain race “white”.

    Even in the NBA where hard stats can prove merit is not racist, but Jeremy Lin said he and John Wall were the fastest in his draft, but racist scouts didn’t see that, that’s why he went undrafted. At minute 2:23
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paSH0Ip9pcU

    The Ivies using meritocracy based only on SAT scores can be deemed as racist, considering they’re overlooking the other important aspects/factors for graduated workers. Such as … 1) Leadership skills 2) communication skills, 3) getting along with others skills,

    Let’s say the top 10 Elite Fortune 500 companies engage in racist hiring practices by hiring only White people and Asian people based on merits, while they exclude Blacks, Hispanics and all other minorities. Wouldn’t you say these elite companies are racists?

  48. @ aardvark

    Unlike you, I oppose Asian quotas. The fact is that at the end of the day, you have more in common with anti-Asian racists than with people who’ve actually contributed to fighting racist policies. People like you do more to harm Asians than Whites and other races ever could.

  49. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Asian_enrollment_at_Ivy_League_schools%2C_1980%E2%80%932011.svg

    According to this chart, the peak of Asian enrollment rate was highest at 23% in 1993, then it dipped and stayed stagnant at 15%-18% for 10 years from 2003 to 2012. For the future, that percentage seems to be going up back to its peak, so I can’t complain much about affirmative action.

    Columbia – 29% Asian American admissions for the class of 2021
    http://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/classprofile/2021

    Princeton – 22% Asian American admissions for the class of 2021
    https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics

    Harvard – 22% Asian American admissions for the class of 2021
    https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

    Dartmouth – 17% Asian American admissions for the class of 2020
    https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/facts-advice/facts/class-profile

    Kiwi, I will join your cause when Asian enrollment rates start dipping below 10%.

    By definition your wording of “quota” is racist and illegal by law.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made “quota” for employment and education legal, the Supreme Court upheld that law and the Ivies can have race-conscious admissions.

    U.S. Supreme Court upholds race-based college admissions
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-affirmativeaction/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-race-based-college-admissions-idUSKCN0Z91N3

    “Since 1978, the Supreme Court has allowed universities to defend race-conscious admissions policies on the same grounds that the amici brief describes”
    http://cornellsun.com/2016/10/16/does-the-ivy-league-discriminate-against-asian-american-applicants/

    Pres Bush’s Civil Rights Act of 1991 granted employees more entitlement rights to sue institutions for discrimination, it didn’t remove the numerus clausus or “quota” that the Ivies or some companies were implementing.

  50. @ NightTown

    I consider lawyers and SOME dentists and physicians and RNs as social parasites. Heck, I’ve worked enough with various types of “scientists” to know they’re full of croock sometimes too.

    Nonetheless it’s the USofA loss for barring STEM workers.

    t’s still very few considering there are over 2.5 thousand public and private universities across the US. At least 80% of those schools do not have 22% Asian admittance rate like the Ivies, does that make those Non-Ivie schools racist too?

    Obviously we’re talking about prestige factor and Asians in Nebraska (HOWEVER FEW THERE ARE DEMOGRAPHICS) won’t be applying to Nebraska in numbers like the coastal cities do to the Ivies.

    You even fail at simple demographics by states, despite your calls for racist quotas.

    the 8 Ivies are not located in Cali.

    Depends on how you include Stanford or not. Leland Stanford was one of the worst racists against Chinese and Asian Americans, but kids are stupid to want to throw money at the racists when the UC and CalState system does much better research than the private schools here.

    Do they choose Asian legacies over other great Asian students too? If not, then I still don’t see why this is racist against Asians.

    There no data. They need to release the data as a first step for public scrutiny. Beyond that, it’s very likely there aren’t enough 2nd generation Asian legacies.

    The fact there’s a functional quota system means it’s illegal. Because you’re too dense to not see it, doesn’t mean others can’t and are suing the racists.

    The Ivies using meritocracy based only on SAT scores can be deemed as racist, considering they’re overlooking the other important aspects/factors for graduated workers. Such as … 1) Leadership skills 2) communication skills, 3) getting along with others skills,

    I hear about this BS all day long at work, and except for BS there’s no such metrics that can gauge these attributes except for cronyism and favoritism. Show me the PUBLIC DATA the racist Ivies use to gauge and determine these factors.

    Otherwise, it’s nothing more than racist Haolewood lies to social engineer based on arbitrary and SPECIOUS fuzzy semantics.

    Let’s say the top 10 Elite Fortune 500 companies engage in racist hiring practices by hiring only White people and Asian people based on merits, while they exclude Blacks, Hispanics and all other minorities. Wouldn’t you say these elite companies are racists?

    What’s your point here for simplistic statement? The EEOC keep tabs on corporations and these numbers to at least make attempts at PUBLIC DATA. The hiring aspects are indeed racist good old boy networks, but ultimately for corporations to succeed, they know it still has to be performance based.

    The racist Ivies have no such available data points.

  51. Kiwi the racist wrote:

    Unlike you, I oppose Asian quotas. The fact is that at the end of the day, you have more in common with anti-Asian racists than with people who’ve actually contributed to fighting racist policies. People like you do more to harm Asians than Whites and other races ever could.

    Classic Strawman BS. I never wrote I was supporter of quotas, but that Asians are stupid for wanting to give money to racist Ivies.

    Asians are also stupid for giving money to racist Haolewood like Phil Yu for promoting CRA like crazy.

    At least with apartheid it’s honest, but now you have sellouts like Kiwi, the Fangs and yomyomf promoting the racist agendas in Haolewood and at the Ivies.

  52. I consider lawyers and SOME dentists and physicians and RNs as social parasites. Heck, I’ve worked enough with various types of “scientists” to know they’re full of croock sometimes too.

    Nonetheless it’s the USofA loss for barring STEM workers.

    I’m not denying that, my point wasn’t denying prestige in the Asian community, my point was Asians don’t need to go to Ivies to get prestige. Hence, I pulled up the Medical schools rankings because there are just as highly regarded elite Non-Ivie schools for Asians to consider. Comprehension 101.

    Obviously we’re talking about prestige factor and Asians in Nebraska (HOWEVER FEW THERE ARE DEMOGRAPHICS) won’t be applying to Nebraska in numbers like the coastal cities do to the Ivies

    John Hopkins, Duke, Stanford are examples of Elite Non-Ivie medical schools with similar admission rates for Asians as the Ivies. Wait, Columbia with 29% for Asians for the class of 2021 is actually higher. If the Ivies are racists, what does that make the Elite Non-Ivie schools? Racists too by your logic. Everything is racist for SJW these days. Asians do apply to Elite Non-Ivie schools in abundance too.

    Depends on how you include Stanford or not. Leland Stanford was one of the worst racists against Chinese and Asian Americans, but kids are stupid to want to throw money at the racists when the UC and CalState system does much better research than the private schools here.

    You’re stupid for not competing. I already explained this, due to scarsity they don’t care if you come or not, Asians’ boycott will be replaced by Blacks or Hispanics and they will pay the same tuition fees as Asians do. The Uni’s don’t lose anything, it’s Asians’ loss, not them. When the seats are unlimited, Asians’ boycott means the schools’ loss. Simple economics 101.

    There no data. They need to release the data as a first step for public scrutiny. Beyond that, it’s very likely there aren’t enough 2nd generation Asian legacies.

    Replacing great Asian students with Asian legacies is “Elitism”, this has nothing to do with race because both candidates are Asians. I’m against legacies, but the Uni’s will just simply deny racism as this is a case of Classism or Elitism.

    The fact there’s a functional quota system means it’s illegal. Because you’re too dense to not see it, doesn’t mean others can’t and are suing the racists.

    You’re throwing childlike shades will just get the same shades thrown back at you for being thick headed imbecile. I’m against quotas, I don’t support quotas, what I post are to point out the facts. When you talk about legality, you need to prove it and show me which law your crazy arse talking about. Where’s your link source for the law stating “numerus clausus or quotas” are illegal?

    I already showed you the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not amend it. Racists like James Lamb and the Pro-Affirmative Action cronies will deny quotas and call it illegal until the day they die, you’re SJW as them for following their suit by dancing around with PC logic that quota is illegal.

    There are short-term data stats proving there are some instances the Ivies do use quota.

    there’s no such metrics that can gauge these attributes except for cronyism and favoritism.

    This I can agree with you, these are reasons why Asians hit the Bamboo ceiling in the corporate ladder.

    Show me the PUBLIC DATA the racist Ivies use to gauge and determine these factors.

    That was my point, the Ivies don’t attempt to gauge these criterias, how do you expect to get data?

    Otherwise, it’s nothing more than racist Haolewood lies to social engineer based on arbitrary and SPECIOUS fuzzy semantics.

    promoting the racist agendas in Haolewood and at the Ivies.

    Your doctorspinning needs to stop at this point. How do you gauge performance based in Haolewood? They use cronyism, favoritism, legacism, that’s how they do it. Haolewood and the Ivies are opposites, the Ivies have quotas, Haolewood does not have quotas. Haolewood only picks white actors for the top spots, the Ivies choose all 4 races for the limited 2000 seats/spots at each school. If Haolewood is racist, then the Ivies are not. If the Ivies are racist, then Haolewood is not.

    Since when does Haolewood have equal employment opportunities for Asians? Don’t get twisted and call both sides racist, it’s a contradiction and hypocritical.

    What’s your point here for simplistic statement? The EEOC keep tabs on corporations and these numbers to at least make attempts at PUBLIC DATA. The hiring aspects are indeed racist good old boy networks, but ultimately for corporations to succeed, they know it still has to be performance based.

    The racist Ivies have no such available data points.

    To you, corporations are good old boy racists, then the Ivies are racists regardless if they release their data or not, your SJW radar will still trigger cry racism. So according to you, the only way for them to not be racist is to release/remove the quota system and enroll all of qualified Asian applicants.

    That’s fine, if that’s what you believe in.

    For me, I think it’s in the unreleased data that I believe they’re not racist. The rejection rates for all 4 races are probably about the same rate in the unreleased data, so if they have similar rejection rates for a 4 races, that means they have race quotas for all 4 races. When they have quotas for all 4 races mean they don’t have race quota just specifically for Asians. I don’t see them specifically singling Asians out, for that I don’t see them as racists, that’s just my speculation.

    Let’s take Harvard for instance. 39,506 applicants with 2,037 accepted, that’s a 95% rejection rate. That means Asians can not get worse than 95% rejection, in which case Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites must be in this range of 95% rejection rates as well.

    If this is the case, to me they are treating all 4 races equally, that’s not racist.

  53. NightTown the racist wrote:

    Columbia with 29% for Asians for the class of 2021 is actually higher. If the Ivies are racists, what does that make the Elite Non-Ivie schools? Racists too by your logic. Everything is racist for SJW these days. Asians do apply to Elite Non-Ivie schools in abundance too.

    Trying to lump me with the SJW just takes the cake as far right-wingnuts and irrational finger pointing/wagging for the opposition. As far your racist quota system goes, you’re more like the SJWs than the moderates here.

    If there’s no functional quota at the Ivies and these functional Ivies (not old money), then there would be even more Asians like the UC system. I’ve stated many times already that Asians are prestige whores and these “competitive” schools single out Asians for functional quotas with their affirmative discrimination racist systems.

    Once again: Asians are stupid for going to crazy extremes to give money to racist institutions.

    Asians’ boycott will be replaced by Blacks or Hispanics and they will pay the same tuition fees as Asians do. The Uni’s don’t lose anything, it’s Asians’ loss, not them.

    The UCs have already proven this: by not limiting Asian students, their research and reputation has actually outcompeted any racist private institutions. Asians going to public institutions where they’re held accountable to the public with their admissions criteria will only help the public institutions to prosper and get ahead.

    Asians boycotting racist private institutions will make those schools lose their prestige status because of the downgraded racist admissions policies. Your racist idea that private schools are elite without Asians is specious and laughable.

    The data has already proven with the UCs and CalState with more Asian students, their research and prestige goes up.

    simply deny racism as this is a case of Classism or Elitism.

    In good old white boy networks of USofA, it’s basically the same thing. And for your racist notion that Asian legacies will dominate is classic Strawman and reification of ideology that has no bearing in reality. Prove it with data!

    You’re throwing childlike shades will just get the same shades thrown back at you for being thick headed imbecile. I’m against quotas, I don’t support quotas

    You’re just trolling, but I’m going to set the record straight about your racist Haole discrimination: you’ve made the statement over and over that Asians are overrepresented at the private schools: something which is quota system and racist and illegal.

    you’re SJW as them for following their suit by dancing around with PC logic that quota is illegal.

    Goes to show your racist affirmative discrimination agendas. Go read up on actual history before spouting nonsense:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v._Bakke

    That was my point, the Ivies don’t attempt to gauge these criterias, how do you expect to get data?

    You can’t be serious that these institutions which take public money in many cases aren’t held accountable with recording their admissions criteria and demographics when they go thru paperwork in detail every year.

    It’s disingenuous to say they can’t get data when they do nothing except to social engineer based on selective applicant data every year.

    Your doctorspinning needs to stop at this point. How do you gauge performance based in Haolewood?… If Haolewood is racist, then the Ivies are not. If the Ivies are racist, then Haolewood is not.

    What sorts of BS spin doctoring is your hypocrisy here? Both can be and are racists. Haolewood can resort to other arguments than quantifiable data and that’s why it’s so important that minimally everybody demand organizations which take public money to release their data.

    the only way for them to not be racist is to release/remove the quota system and enroll all of qualified Asian applicants.

    They’ll never admit to it, since it’s lawsuits waiting to happen: just release the data. I’m against the Ivy schools and think Asians are stupid for throwing money at those organizations.

    However, nobody argues against releasing the data, because it’s blatant the racist institutions that persist by the regressive left.

    I don’t see them specifically singling Asians out, for that I don’t see them as racists, that’s just my speculation.

    RELEASE THE DATA!

    Otherwise, all you write is racist lies and hypocrisy like your affirmative discrimination Ivy schoolmasters!

  54. Aardvark the racist spinning SJW clown wrote:

    takes the cake as far right-wingnuts and irrational finger pointing/wagging for the opposition

    You’re not only a racist spinning SJW clown, you’re also a complete extremist idiot, your trash has so many holes it’s easy to school you.

    So pro-affirmative action for diversity are right wingers now? LOL, moron.

    As far your racist quota system goes, you’re more like the SJWs than the moderates here.

    You are an extreme moderate, not a smart one at that.

    Go read up on actual history before spouting nonsense:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v._Bakke

    You and your racist SJW lies. I’m going to debunk this first.

    That case was in 1978, it’s been debunked by the facts I already posted. You must be too illerate to comprehend.

    U.S. Supreme Court upholds race-based college admissions
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-affirmativeaction/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-race-based-college-admissions-idUSKCN0Z91N3

    “Since 1978, the Supreme Court has allowed universities to defend race-conscious admissions policies”
    http://cornellsun.com/2016/10/16/does-the-ivy-league-discriminate-against-asian-american-applicants/

    Another problem with your case is that it’s a California law, state law doesn’t necessarily translate to federal law. What’s legal in Cali doesn’t apply to the rest of the universities around country. That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that Abigail Fisher case in Texas.

    You need to learn the difference between blue vs. red states. California is a Liberal state, blue state, while Texas is a conservative state, red state. That Bakke case of yours might work in blue states, but it failed in the red state of Texas.

    Obviously we’re talking about prestige factor and Asians in Nebraska (HOWEVER FEW THERE ARE DEMOGRAPHICS) won’t be applying to Nebraska in numbers like the coastal cities do to the Ivies.

    RELEASE THE DATA!

    Otherwise this is nothing more than just another one of your LIES. How the f’ do you guarantee that once Asians start to apply here, they won’t use the Ivies, Duke, and John Hopkins Policies? There’s no guarantees here, other than your racist LIES.

    THIS IS A RED STATE, not a Liberal Blue state like California. Do you really think Nebraskans are going to allow NO QUOTA up to 50% or 60% Asian student body when they barely see any Asians in their state? Just another one of your racist LIES.

    Show me the DATA that Nebraska University guarantees they’ll be using California policies.

    By you encouraging Asians to come this these type of schools, you’re going against your own moronic belief that Asians shouldn’t be pouring their money into racist institutions.

    MAKE SURE THESE PROGRAMS/SCHOOLS don’t use the Ivie policies first before your stupid arse asking Asians to pour their hard earned money into these programs.

    If there’s no functional quota at the Ivies and these functional Ivies (not old money), then there would be even more Asians like the UC system.

    I’ve said there’s a legal functional quota at the Ivies, it was your racist PC spinning lies to call quotas illegal, you and your James Lamb buddy.

    I wrote this above “There are short-term data stats proving there are some instances the Ivies do use quota.” Look it up what I wrote above if you want to double check.

    I also wrote this above ” I’m against quotas, I don’t support quotas, what I post are to point out the facts.”

    I’m against Asian quota, period.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_quota

    I call them not racist because from my analytical skills, they don’t speciffically single out Asians with a quota. They have quotas for ALL 4 RACES. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics have quotas too. Well this is my opinion anyway, since the Ivies don’t release the data.

    You don’t have to believe me, but I’m entitled to my own opinion and I believe they treat all 4 races EQUALLY with quotas. To me, that’s not racist

    I’ve stated many times already that Asians are prestige whores and these “competitive” schools single out Asians for functional quotas with their affirmative discrimination racist systems.

    This is stupid, and it’s bear pounding.

    “single out Asians ”
    You need to prove this with data , the Ivies don’t even release the data, how the hell do you know they “singled out Asians” ? So out of the 37,000 people rejected, there are no Blacks or Hispanics got rejected?

    And of all the 2037 applicants got accepted at Harvard, there were no Blacks or Hispanics scored higher on the S.A.T. than Asians? How the F’ do you know without looking at the UNRELEASED DATA ?

    Just another one of your stupid SPINNING LIES.

    I agree the date should be RELEASED, but all you’re doing is spinning and speculating, while calling me lying for speculating. You’re sh!thead is doing the same thing.

    I’ve stated many times already that Asians are prestige whores and these “competitive” schools single out Asians for functional quotas with their affirmative discrimination racist systems.

    Once again: Asians are stupid for going to crazy extremes to give money to racist institutions.

    You give racists a yard, they’ll take a mile, that’s your stupidity. You want Asians to give racists the Ivies, next thing racists will take is whatever your favorite job is for asians.

    What’s your favorite job for Asians? Engineering?

    Racists will take that away from Asians too, claiming Asians shouldn’t work for the racist white man, and they’re be telling Asians to open their own restaurants instead to be their own boss. You’re stupid enough to handover and rollover like good ol boy lapdogs.

    You can’t be serious that these institutions which take public money in many cases aren’t held accountable with recording their admissions criteria and demographics when they go thru paperwork in detail every year.

    It’s disingenuous to say they can’t get data when they do nothing except to social engineer based on selective applicant data every year.

    My point was most institutions solely gauge on SAT scores to enroll/admit students, something YOU are also encouraging with your UC and CSU schools’ metrics policy. That’s why Asians come out lacking “leadership, communication, getting along with other SKILLS” which hurt them in the long run by hitting the corporate ladder’s Bamboo ceiling.

    RELEASE THE DATA!

    I never disagreed to this, another one of your spinning LIES.

    When you wrote:

    The first step is to release the DATA on why certain applicants are picked over others and applicants by race numbers.

    I remember I specifically wrote:

    “Good idea”

    You seem to have some type of mental issue, just look up above when you loss memory.

  55. That’s right, Asians have no business to be in America. America isn’t Asia. America is a place for people who play power and tribal politics at the expense of the other. Only Asian parents teach their kids that playing by the rules is what makes them good people in America.

  56. aardvark the retard wrote:

    I never wrote I was supporter of quotas

    In fact, I’d support a racist Ivy ban on Asians

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *