Hmm...I don know about this. It's a tough one. Although it's interesting that Righty people have been citing this case for a few months as an example of how affirmative action is unfair when it appears from this piece that the most advantaged group from these practices is White Americans
Demographics is just one factor of many and I highly doubt that the Courts are going to sanction Harvard for that, even if they sanction them for the others. African Americans face unique challenges in the US that put them at a distinct and unique disadvantage long before they even sit their SATs. Only a cold heart will want to take away affirmative action.
The chief complaint here seems to be the other 3 criteria that significantly favour Whites over Asians. Is that process fair? That's what needs be probed, IMHO. It might be there is a bias here masquerading as objectivity, considering that Harvard is a school operating in a majority White country.
At the same time, it might be that students who score the highest, whatever their race, just tend to be lacking in the area of personality...some kinda of cost/benefit balance, and it just so happens that more of these geniuses come from Asian communities. Competitiveness and ambition often come with low agreeableness in the big 5 personality test, the only personality test with some scientific credibility. That's just speculation on my part but people at the highest end of any trait to be a bit different. If Asians have a bigger proportion of this top percentile, and the top percentile have low agreeableness due to great competitiveness, It may perhaps be why.
You might also say that Harvard is using these separate criteria to balance out demographics in a way that favours all groups. Maybe one criterion puts one group so low and the other criteria balance it all out. Then they have one for demographics to balance things further if after considering all the 5, there is still a demographic imbalance. Perhaps there are enough Asians among the staff and alumni so that leaving out these guys in the analysis cited changes how things look. Maybe Harvard already knows that it has this many number of Asians already coming in that way that it changes how many Asians it lets in through the other admission process.
A school has a right to value diversity as a core value and one of the things it promises its students, for example. An assumption that Harvard as a school
should value SATs or one characteristic over another is not warranted IMO. I don't think the courts can dictate that to any school.
However, if they are specifically targeting Asian Americans in an unfair way (e.g. they are deliberately lowering their other scores) and if this can be reasonably inferred from the facts, then they need to correct that. There are many ways to see this.
Whoever wins or loses, though, I doubt Harvard will be faulted for affirmative action favouring disadvantaged groups
per se. It's possible to be treating Asians unfairly without the problem being affirmative action in favour of Blacks and Latinos...mainly Blacks, of course. In fact, if I were Harvard, I'd have extra points or criteria for descendants of slavery and poverty or single-parent homes, separate from "demographics".
Edit:....Oh wait! It just occurred to me that all these may be what Harvard is looking at under "demographics"....I immediately assumed demographics is a stand-in for race but this assumption is unwarranted. It also includes women and LGBT for example...At least that's what I assume. Many people assume that Black people are the only ones who benefit from Affirmative action. In fact, I believe women have been the group that's most benefitted...White women to be specific. It may very well be that these agreeable people getting high personality scores are White women. Which is ok IMO.
Topic: Havard ignored their own Implicit Bias Test (Read 3993 times)