Totally agree with your last statement. I think we're on the same page here. Sorry if what I wrote didn't communicate that better.
Harvard
- Thread starter Spartans9312
- Start date
I honestly can’t say I have followed enough about what’s going on at Harvard as far as student actions.
It’s hard when Israel is an ethno-state. Like, is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic? Is criticism of people supporting Israel anti-Semitic? I believe that there logically has to be a line somewhere because I don’t accept that any criticism of any country is de facto racist/bigoted.
With that being said, I’ve looked online and can’t find anything updated, but there are plainly racist organizations that still qualify for 501c3 status as “educational organizations.” If Harvard’s is getting pulled, I’d sure hope these others will follow.
It’s hard when Israel is an ethno-state. Like, is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic? Is criticism of people supporting Israel anti-Semitic? I believe that there logically has to be a line somewhere because I don’t accept that any criticism of any country is de facto racist/bigoted.
With that being said, I’ve looked online and can’t find anything updated, but there are plainly racist organizations that still qualify for 501c3 status as “educational organizations.” If Harvard’s is getting pulled, I’d sure hope these others will follow.
ive been to bob jones. whole thing had a fence around it. weird weird placeI wonder if they'll try to argue that Harvard's DEI policies or allowing Hamas supporters to harass Jewish students violates "fundamental national policy":
The IRS has legal authority to strip organizations of their tax-exempt status, and it occasionally exercises that power. But that is usually due to groups failing to meet tax requirements, like neglecting to file an annual information return for more than three consecutive years.
One famous case involved a university losing its tax-exempt status, Galle and Brunson noted. In the 1970s, Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, a Christian institution, lost its tax-exempt status due to a policy that banned interracial relationships.
That case ended up at the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1983 that the IRS was correct in depriving Bob Jones of the status because its rules had violated a "fundamental national public policy" about racial discrimination in education.
The IRS could argue that Harvard is in violation of public policy either by failing to crack down on protestors rallying against Israel's actions in Gaza or by refusing to comply with the Trump administration's push against diversity, equity and inclusion policies, Brunson said.
Can Trump or the IRS strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status? Here's what to know.
President Trump has suggested stripping Harvard of its tax-exempt status, a step that experts say would be unusual and face legal challenges.www.cbsnews.com
If you wish to receive government benefits….you must comply with the same rules as any other educational institution and with federal law?
Something seems off about those numbers, not the least of which is the 14.6% admissions rate. Here is what Google AI says when I asked about legacy admissions:
At Harvard, legacy status significantly increases the odds of admission. While Harvard's overall acceptance rate is around 3.2%, legacy applicants have a much higher acceptance rate. Studies have shown that nearly 70% of Harvard's legacy applicants are white. In the Class of 2027, approximately 30% of students were legacies.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
- Overall Harvard Acceptance Rate: Around 3.2%.
- Legacy Acceptance Rate: Significantly higher than the overall rate, potentially 2-5 times higher in some years. Some sources indicate a legacy acceptance rate as high as 33%.
-
-
- Legacy Student Percentage in Class of 2027: Approximately 30%.
- Legacy Applicant Demographics: A significant portion of legacy applicants are white.
- Legacy Admissions Advantage: Even without considering legacy status, Harvard students with legacy connections are estimated to be 33% more likely to be admitted than other applicants with similar qualifications, according to Opportunity Insights.
The other missing variable right off hand, does that number nclude athletes? Athletes get priority admission, so yes, if it includes athletes it might skew any set of numbers. 20% of Harvard's student body compete in D1 sports. From AI:
Recruited athletes at Harvard have a significantly higher acceptance rate than the overall Harvard acceptance rate. Specifically, they have an 86% acceptance rate, while the school's overall acceptance rate is 3.6%. This means that being a recruited athlete greatly increases an applicant's chances of getting into Harvard.
I am sure not nearly all 20% are "recruited" athletes, but still, dealing with 2000 total admission per year it doesn't take too many to make a statistical difference. So we would have to know if the numbers you have include athletes and what the racial breakdown is for "recruited" athletes. All this is to say the disparity may not be as much as the Twitter feed suggests. It may be, but the Tweet doesn't present nearly enough information.
There is good reason to question what you see on X.
X Is The Biggest Source Of Fake News And Disinformation, EU Warns
The EU also called upon Google, TikTok, Microsoft and Meta to do more to tackle disinformation—much of it coming from Russia—ahead of upcoming elections on the continent.
www.forbes.com
Reading comprehension Marv... it is taking a specific slice of the pie, not the whole pie. It's talking about the 10th decile of students. The Twitter profile also linked his substack with more details, data and sources.
Affirmative Action at Harvard
Affirmative Action is an issue that universities defend despite it being very unpopular when honestly described as a system of demographic preferences that considers factors like the race and sex of applicants.
therabbithole84.substack.com
Much of this data comes from the lawsuits filed by Asian Americans who were discriminated against for the sake of DEI and AA.
And it wasn't just Harvard (see UNC).
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on June 29 at 4:09 p.m. In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North C
www.scotusblog.com
There is good reason to question what you see on X.
X Is The Biggest Source Of Fake News And Disinformation, EU Warns
The EU also called upon Google, TikTok, Microsoft and Meta to do more to tackle disinformation—much of it coming from Russia—ahead of upcoming elections on the continent.www.forbes.com
Perhaps you should try reading more closely
Reading comprehension Marv... it is taking a specific slice of the pie, not the whole pie. It's talking about the 10th decile of students. The Twitter profile also linked his substack with more details, data and sources.
Affirmative Action at Harvard
Affirmative Action is an issue that universities defend despite it being very unpopular when honestly described as a system of demographic preferences that considers factors like the race and sex of applicants.therabbithole84.substack.com
Much of this data comes from the lawsuits filed by Asian Americans who were discriminated against for the sake of DEI and AA.
And it wasn't just Harvard (see UNC).
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on June 29 at 4:09 p.m. In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Cwww.scotusblog.com
The problem makes sense, and it will take on a whole lot more credibility when we ditch the White legacy advantage. Why is it we care so much that a Black that doesn't match to the highest standards gets in but don't give a damn when a White legacy does? I am all in favor of eliminating both advantages. Which is why I bring legacy up every time this issue arises, if one is evil so is the other. Get rid of both or get rid of neither.
From a fairness standpoint I get your take. I also think legacies enhance the culture of a school and it’s a cool thing for families.
I 100% agree. BUT, you have to acknowledge there is a distinction between legacy where the university relies upon donations from parents, grandparents, etc. In other words, I understand WHY there has been a bias and benefits for legacy admits, but agree with your position that it is unfair that it is a factor.
One final point - legacy status doesn't equate to blatant discrimination based on race or ethnicity though.
It doesn't equate, though it works out that way. Harvard would be on firmer ground on race by giving points based on income, or lack thereof. It would have the same sort of impact. While there are more poor Whites, percentage wise Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be poor. Of course in either scenario Asians are out of luck.
Legacy problem ain't gonna get better with Trump cutting off funds. Rich donors' kid will make up an even larger potion of students. You know, same way he got in.
I don't agree. If you are an administrator, they should be thinking "we need to keep our most important sources of income and reputation happy".
Income doesn't benefit the university financially, though I suppose it could play the "we care about everyone" angle, which may positively impact funding.
Don't get this logic. What if you are a white person who is not a legacy? We just doubly screw them?
Lots of poor Asians. Was just talking to a buddy today whose kid went to Southport for a few years. Said he had a ton of poor Burmese neighbors, but every year a Burmese girl would be the valedictorian.
I don't get the logic you are suggesting, Whites get legacy but no one else gets any advantage? I thought I made it clear both advantages should be eliminated. I am not sure I see the advantage to an all-White Harvard.
Yes, there are poor Asians, but statistically Asian (Americans) are a smaller demographic and are wealthier.
Not all white people get an advantage. Just like not all black people are poor or live in the ghetto.
Quit thinking like that.
70% are White, white's are getting an overall advantage. True or false, if we don't lock 70% in as White more Blacks, Hispanics, Asians will have opportunities for those spots?
That's not his point. You are assuming that just because Harvard is promoting DEI it actually cares about helping those without means. You are right that different racial groups have different socioeconomic status, broadly speaking. But, I think Brad is getting at Harvard taking a black kid from a wealthy school district over an Asian kid from a poorer district, to fulfill racial quotas.
And Hispanics? And Asians? Combined more than 30%
Many of the 2000 will also be foreign, I am not sure how those are treated in the 2000. I heard of a department that had a strict quota on Chinese and Indian graduate students. They said without the quota those would be pretty much all their admits.
And I am confused because I said going to an income based system over racial solved a lot of problems.
Somewhere someone is being turned down so a Legacy with lower scores can get in. Why does this not get hardly any attention? If we want a meritocracy let us have one and not one based on Harvard discrimination for most of it's history.
I think this stuff probably needs to break on missions and if they’re public or private etc too. Wash U grad school down the street is over 50 percent internationals. Not sure such a thing should fly at mizzou. Private wants legacy admission that might be different than a land grant school
The only reason legacy matters is that a White got in 150 years ago when a Black, Latino, or Asian, was not allowed in.
Suppose IU's season ticket system was based only on number of years the ticket has been in your family, and until 20 years ago only Whites were allowed to have tickets. Would Assembly Hall be integrated today? Would, "we are not discriminating today" be valid.
Legacies are at last partially legacies to discrimination. Eventually that would go away. But it is measured in generations.
I understand the insidious bit. I dont know. I’m not even sure about my public private distinction. A place like the citadel is public and big into legacies and I think it enriches the school and it’s culture and it’s community
The locus of racial matters
So now you're lumping "Blacks, Hispanics, Asians" as a meaningful group. I'm guessing Jewish people count as "White" in your racial calculus?
I disagree completely with the notion of "an overall advantage" for a racial group like this. It's meaningless, unless you think racial groups are tribes and they count as something. I don't. This advantage you speak of is not an advantage to me or my kids; it is a detriment.
It does get attention. You've brought it up several times and there are articles published about it. I agree with you and would like to see it ended.
But it gets less attention because it is not illegal. Discriminating based on race is illegal, yet we allowed it for 50 years, which conflicted with our system and our principles.
When are we allowed to look at race and when are we not? We are allowed to look at race it appears when some Blacks are benefitted (not all are, right, not every Black applying to Harvard gets in). We are not allowed to consider race when some Whites benefit, ie, legacy. That really is the rule we go by?
Let me compare it to the frequent discussions on boys not doing as well in school. We are allowed to look at a demographic concept when it is a boy, boys are being left behind so schools are systemically discriminating against boys. At the same point Blacks are being left behind, but we aren't allowed to look at that as a problem because that is viewed the fault of Black culture? We can consider tribalism if, and only if, the proper tribe is chosen? Would anyone be willing to accept that boys are being left behind because of a failure in boy culture?
If we are a meritocracy, we don't confer artificial benefits to race, gender, or dear old great-grandaddy attended. It is that simple. If we are going to say, "screw someone more deserving because great-grandaddy's great grandson wants in but doesn't qualify in normal order" than let's stop pretending this has ANYTHING to do with merit.
I've already said, twice previously, I would prefer economic-based advantages, and by advantage I mean "tie goes to the runner". I know some believe there are clear winners and losers. Simply put, there are 50,000 applications and 2000 admissions. A whole lot of people are sitting there tied at 98.2 points. If someone went to a private academy at $50,000/year and couldn't get daylight ahead of the Pike student who was on free school lunch, I think the Pike student has proven they have more merit.
To be fair, Harvard admitted Blacks in the 1800s. So it isn't the worst example by far, but the numbers were always more limited. Let's face it, no Black from the South was going to Harvard for much of American history for reasons that were not Harvard's fault. But that doesn't change that groups of Americans have gained an advantage that doesn't need to be handed down like a family heirloom. If Harvard is to be believed, going to Harvard itself confers a lifetime advantage. So great-grandpappy's heirs already have an advantage getting in without legacy.
I don't know what I'm saying that is so offensive to you. I haven't defended race-based admissions even though I fully believe racism 1) still exists (though much less than 40 years ago) and 2) impacts Black youth more than it impacts my children or your children. But I don't know how to offset racism through Harvard admissions, so I am not trying to. I have suggested economic-based, replace race with something more race-neutral. I have attacked legacy, but you seem to agree with that. So where am I jumping a shark?
The rule is pretty simple: don’t discriminate based on race. Affirmative action programs discriminate based on race, by definition.
Further, I don’t think talk of racial group X is benefitted by neutral, merit based policy Y makes sense. I don’t think individuals should be judged, good or bad, based on their skin color or said to have received a benefit or a detriment unless that individual actually has.
I’m not offended by you, Marv, I just really hate this racial essentialism, identitarian thought. Once you go down that path, you have a lot of bad stuff to contend with.
Similar threads
