Tag: harvard

Harvard Not Only Discriminates, But Worst Of All Discriminates Based On Skin Color

I’ve written about Harvard based on my work experience with their graduates. To a person, they were not properly trained and always tried some classroom methods that slowed down our work and always failed. We had to undo it and then do things the right way. They consistently over estimated their abilities.

I have the same lack of respect for UNC-CH for the same reason. Additionally, UNC-CH was part of the Fauci gain of function Covid research that took place with the Wuhan labs.

I worked in RTP and while the Tar Heel graduates were at least better workers than those from Harvard, they came with the same attitude that we gave a shit where they went to college vs what they could do to help our company.

HERE IS WHAT THEY DID

Harvard and UNC are being sued because they allegedly (HA) discriminate(d) against Asians. Why? Because they have higher GPA’s and test scores, but are of the wrong skin color for diversity and wokeness.

You’d think that for prestige, you’d want the best and the brightest, but Harvard and by extension the Ivy League and Duke (UNC-CH isn’t that great, I lived there and watched who went and who came out, they didn’t get into Harvard so they wound up there).

Instead, they want to be woke, show diversity, embarrass the Alumni and further taint the reputation and respect for the institution and it’s graduates.

The Petition for review by SCOTUS:

Harvard uses race at every stage of the admissions process. To begin, Harvard recruits high-school students differently based on race. App.154-56. African-American and Hispanic students with PSAT scores of 1100 and up are invited to apply to Harvard, but white and Asian-American students must score a 1350. JA.577:6-581:20; JA.3741. In some parts of the country, Asian-American applicants must score higher than all other racial groups, including whites, to be recruited by Harvard.

* * *

Harvard’s admissions data revealed astonishing racial disparities in admission rates among similarly qualified applicants. SFFA’s expert testified that applicants with the same “academic index” (a metric created by Harvard based on test scores and GPA) had widely different admission rates by race. App.179-80; JA.6008-09. For example, 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%).

THE RESULT

From Legal Insurrection:

The Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Asian students. It provides, in part:

The grand judicial experiment of excusing racial discrimination in university admissions in the hope it would promote the educational objective of diversity of viewpoint has failed, and accordingly, this Court should overrule or modify its holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (“Grutter”). Despite the Court permitting the use of race in higher education admissions, viewpoint diversity is increasingly endangered on campus. Since Grutter, the range of viewpoints permitted on campus, particularly on matters regarding race, has narrowed. It’s time to return to the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination without an exception for education.

It goes on to say:

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.

The higher-ed establishment is brazenly defending its race-conscious admissions in dozens of amicus briefs…

The statistics are shocking. 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%).”

Such unequal treatment followed the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger permitting schools’ temporary, limited use of race as one of many factors for the desired educational objective of viewpoint diversity. 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….

Not a single college or university supported the Asian students. To the contrary, several dozen briefs were filed against SFFA on behalf of hundreds of colleges, universities, higher-education and professional-school associations, teachers unions, more than 1,000 professors and deans and even college basketball coaches.

One of the most striking things about these briefs is the openness with which colleges admit to having racial preferences and their complete lack of sympathy for the Asian victims of discrimination.

The American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, bluntly demanded the court “not ban race-conscious admissions policies.” The University of California president and chancellors argued that “universities must retain the ability to engage in the limited consideration of race.”

A group of highly competitive schools including most of the Ivy League claimed, “No race-neutral alternative presently can fully replace race-conscious individualized and holistic review to obtain the diverse student body.”

Without racial preferences, in other words, these schools could not achieve their desired racial mix….

HURTING MINORITIES

So Harvard lets in those who it knows won’t be able to make it (look up STEM studies, entrance vs graduation), saddle them with excessive student loan debt and then let them get a degree in the Arts, for those who stick it out. They enter the job world penalized by both knowledge and debt.

The rest of them will be ok as long as they stay with their alumni buddies. Work is just the next Ivy League club anyway, going by their definition.

SMH, Harvard Wants To Go Full Communist

Equality of outcome is communism. The benefit of a degree from such a school would mean that you were the elite. Now, you don’t know if they worked hard and learned or coasted. The Harvard benefit is meaningless now.

Real Equality is equal opportunity. People will decide the real outcome no matter what Harvard says because human nature dictates that some will do better or worse than others. To not acknowledge that shows a lack of understanding of history and lack of intelligence. That is what Harvard is striving towards with this Diktat.

Save your money and go to a real school where meritocracy will give you a real education.

The College Fix reports:

Harvard panelists want ‘bold societal change’ which includes ‘equality of outcomes’

Panelists at a Harvard University event on equity last Friday called for “bold societal change” to eradicate the vestiges of racism and sexism.

This includes, according to at least one participant, ensuring “equality of outcomes.”

The Truth and Transformation Conference, hosted by the Kennedy School Ash Center’s Institutional Antiracism and Accountability Project, was hosted by Harvard American Studies PhD candidate Mary McNeil, The Crimson reports.

McNeil’s dissertation asks in part “What critiques did [Black, Native, and Afro-Native peoples] proffer of [Massachusetts] as a crucial site in the development of an anti-Black, settler-colonial nation?”

Asian Americans Advancing Justice President John Yang told the panel “it is important to acknowledge that racial groups experience racism differently.” Eschewing the concept of equal treatment for everyone, Yang said “[T]hat’s not right, because the reality is, different communities have suffered in different ways.”

Yang backs efforts to combat alleged “disinformation,” saying platforms like Facebook and Twitter need to be better at it: “Let’s be clear: there is a campaign out there that is trying to distort a lot of what is happening in society […] part of it is on all of us to make sure that we are contributing to getting the right information that is out there” (emphasis added).

AAAJ purports to “advocate for an America in which all Americans can benefit equally from, and contribute to, the American dream.” Which means it lobbies for progressive initiatives du jour, like overturning former President Trump’s misnamed “Muslim ban.”

Panelist Eric Ward, director of the Western States Center, said all of society needs to “invest in transforming power structures to achieve aspirations surrounding equity.” He added that “recognizing systemic racism and sexism is key to ensuring that everyone can ‘live, love, worship, and work free from fear and bigotry.’”

Ward’s WSC offers “toolkits” for purchase such as that regarding “Indigenizing Love” (“supports Native youth, tribal communities, Two-Spirit and Native LGBTQIA+ collectives”) and “Confronting White Nationalism in Schools.”

Perhaps the most eye-raising statement was from panelist Halima Begum, chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, allegedly the United Kingdom’s “leading independent race equality think tank.” Begum said “non-governmental institutions, such as news platforms and corporations, are also responsible for ensuring ‘equality of outcomes.’”

I can’t lose any more respect for Harvard because I don’t have any. They just met my expectations that are already at the bottom of the barrel.

Dumbing Down Harvard, Again – And How They Went Woke

I wrote about the decline of the education you get there a while back and thought it would improve. I guessed wrong.

You can read about it in the link above, but the old boys club is wearing off. Their most recently famous alums actually were drop outs. They also did the best in life.

Now to the rest of the story.

Of course, there is the Covid madness. The supposedly smartest students have had to go to class online again because of……you guessed it:

“In recent days, we’ve seen a steady rise in breakthrough infections among our student population, despite high vaccination rates and frequent testing”

These idiots have bought into the false narrative, despite the growing evidence (Israel, UK and the opposite in Sweden) that the inoculation (if it were a vaccine it would have worked) is the panacea.

Harvard University states on its website that 95% of students and 96% of employees are vaccinated, and notes that “COVID-19 testing requirements remain in place for every member of the community who is authorized to be on campus this fall, including those who come to campus infrequently. The Dashboard data is relative to individuals, living both on and off campus, authorized to participate in Harvard’s COVID-19 screening.”

From the same article linked above:

Data from Israel reportedly showed earlier this month that “’fully vaccinated’” people are 27 times more likely to be infected and develop COVID-19 symptoms than unvaccinated people with natural immunity,” and “‘fully vaccinated’ people are 8 times more likely to be hospitalized from a ‘breakthrough’ infection.”

WHY THIS MATTERS

Building relationships to take into the business world is the big benefit of going to one of these antiquated halls of ignorance. Harvard creates the biggest “Old Boys Club (including girls)” because of their interaction in group projects and going out together.

This just nixed the big benefit other than bragging that you paid too much to say that you went there.

We already knew in the real business world that outside of NY and Massachusetts, anyone coming in with a degree from Harvard meant that they were going to be a drag on productivity. Some finally came around to what real life teaches you, but we still had to put up with their nonsense until they either left or realized how the world actually works.

CANCEL CULTURE

The students have shown an inability to understand sarcasm from one of their own, a Law Professor with some actually creditable certifications:

Adrian Vermeule, Harvard Law School Professor And Intellectual Iconoclast:

This story of cancel culture would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is so serious. It involves an attempt by four Harvard Law School student groups to interfere in the employment of, and damage the career of, Professor Adrian Vermeule.

This reflects an ongoing attempt by l******g students to purge academia of viewpoints that do not perfectly align with the social justice and Black Lives Matter orthodoxy. Much like during Mao’s Cultural Revolution, students lead the way in belittling and trying to damage dissident professors, with public shaming and institutional ritualized denunciations preferred methods of intimidation.

Here was his crime, tweeting this:

For example, as unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud spread following the election, Prof. Vermeule tweeted “ Lol the election isn’t over until Team Joe fixes up your ballot for you ” and “Kids, not sure if you knew this, but missing ballots have magical properties that make them visible only between midnight and 6am .” His post-election retweets included statements such as “ Even a Saddam Hussein had to make some pretence of not getting 100% of the vote in an Iraqi election … ‘Baghdad on the Delaware .’” And these examples only scratch the surface. Prof. Vermeule may try to play off his statements as a joke, but they amount to a pattern of promoting demonstrably false conspiracy theories. His statements are harmful to democracy and unbelievably divisive. To work at Harvard Law School is to be granted a platform and a level of legitimacy. Prof. Vermeule is abusing this platform in order to undermine democracy and delegitimize the results of the election.

Are you kidding me? This stuff is funny, and even if it’s not funny to some Harvard Law students.

The whole story is here, courtesy of Legal Insurrection, but in quick summary it shows how quick they are to jump to conclusions against their indoctrination and one sided beliefs.

WHY THIS MATTERS

An intelligent mind can entertain both sides of an argument without taking sides to fully understand the context. Whether or not they choose to side with one or the other would result from critical thinking and the ability to judge based on facts and history.

This current group of woke automatons rushes to judgement before the facts are known and worse, believe they are right because of where they are studying rather than being smart.

ENTRANCE EXAM DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MINORITIES

This takes two different paths. They reduce the entrance standards for some minorities who then can’t keep up. They are then stuck with a huge amount of debt and no benefit. They are having to take remedial courses and drop out of STEM studies.

Conversely, Harvard discriminates against those with the ability to qualify, but don’t have the proper heritage.

Here is what I’m referring to:

Adam Mortara, another attorney representing Students for Fair Admissions, accused Harvard of giving Asian-Americans significantly lower ratings for certain personal qualities, such as leadership and compassion, than other races, according to the Washington Post.

“Harvard has engaged in, and continues to engage in, intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans,” Mortara said.

A Harvard University dean testified that the school has different SAT score standards for prospective students based on factors such as race and sex — but insisted that the practice isn’t discriminatory, as a trial alleging racism against Asian-American applicants began this week.

The Ivy League school was sued in 2014 by the group Students for Fair Admissions, which claims that Asian-American students, despite top-notch academic records, had the lowest admission rate among any race.

He said Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.

This discrimination has now reached the Supreme Court.

Exerpt:

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, now at the Supreme Court, has the potential to reshape the course of affirmative action in the United States — for the better.

The case positions a group of highly qualified Asian-American college applicants against the university to which they seek admission, Harvard. These applicants allege that Harvard has practiced longstanding admissions discrimination against them in favor of less-qualified minorities.

GOING WOKE

Being woke is a crime of idiocy. You shouldn’t expect that of an institution heralded (not anymore) for their intelligence and education. Harvard has managed to pull it off spectacularly.

Now, at the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, ‘political correctness’ on campus is taken for granted. But what I experienced then was less the direct coercive tyranny of leftism than a pervasive culture of capitulation and pusillanimity, with everyone from administrators to deans and professors to students and even the campus police looking over his or her shoulder in fear of censure by others. The fear was only justified on the part of those being silenced: at one Harvard event, Ayaan Hirsi Ali required stricter security arrangements than did many heads of state.

The affirmative action that Harvard implemented required lying. Departments looking for the ‘best’ person to fill a position were obliged to demonstrate, not that they had conducted a fair and open search, but rather that they had interviewed an appropriate percentage of women and other ‘minorities’. Since individual merit and group diversity are contradictory goals, the entire process was corrupt irrespective of outcome. At one departmental meeting, when the chair asked us to supply arguments for a member’s candidacy for promotion, someone at the table hooted, ‘Why bother with all this? He’s Hispanic!’ I was the only one who laughed at this eruption of suppressed truth.

There is more at the link above, but political correctness claims another victim.

IN CONCLUSION BUT PROBABLY NOT

Those of us who have been in the real world know that real world experience trumps a diploma. Sure, it will get you in the door, but those with the ability to adapt, lead and have the above stated ability of critical thinking are the ones you want to keep.

If they keep up this idiocy, those outside of the Northeast (OK, California, Portland and Washington – both of them are just as woke and dumb) won’t want them if they intend on surviving.

Save your money unless you have a Wall Street connection ready. Everyone thinking alike and acting with the same wokeness is of little benefit to the concept of an ongoing concern of a business, a FASB standard.