Harvard has been under fire for its discrimination against Asian students, which was brought to light by Students for Fair Admissions. Harvard and other schools have used this loophole to drive de facto illegal racial quotas, using admissions subterfuges like personal scores and a “holistic” approach reminiscent of the methodologies Harvard developed a century ago to limit Jewish enrollment. Bollinger permitting schools’ temporary, limited use of race as one of many factors for the desired educational objective of viewpoint diversity. Such unequal treatment followed the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. As SFFA noted in its Harvard petition, “an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%) but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”

It’s terrified the cases, which the court just announced it will hear in October, could spell the end of racial affirmative action. The higher-ed establishment is brazenly defending its race-conscious admissions in dozens of amicus briefs just filed in the US Supreme Court opposing SFFA’s discrimination suits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The dirty little secret of higher-ed admissions is that achieving a desired “diverse” racial mix means discriminating against Asian applicants - or at least, secret until Students for Fair Admissions exposed it. Staying ‘relevant’: SAT exam is going digital, will be shorter by 2024Įnd to affirmative action? Supreme Court to hear challenge to Harvard, UNC race admission policy Why all kids should take the SAT: Student’s defense of standardized testingįlorida teen gets into every Ivy League college

Flotato vs unite