The Trump administration has fingered Yale as discriminating against Asian-American and white applicants, just as an Asian-American student group had made the same claim in lawsuits against Harvard, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a recently filed case against the University of Texas at Austin. A federal judge ruled in Harvard’s favor last year, but i do not believe the decision will stand up on appeal, since it is dishonest and illogical. The Trump Administration is supporting the plaintiffs as it should…as everyone should.
I wrote about the Harvard decision here. As you would expect, the analysis differs not at all from the ethics verdict regarding Yale’s discrimination, which is similarly indefensible. Also as you might expect, the “it isn’t what it is” rationalization (#64!) is rampant while the usual suspects try to defend it now, when the Black Lives Matter mob is demanding discrimination in favor of African Americans in all things—hiring, promotions, ring, college admissions, arrests, prosecutions, casting, honors, running for Vice-President—as if that is anything but racism, flat-out.
The New York Times–of course–is and will be embarking on a course of trying to obscure the obvious right and wrongs of the situation, as well as engaging in some ethics jujitsu to make out the Trump Administration and anyone who thinks that no discrimination on the basis of race means no discrimination on the basis of race as racist villains. In this article, for example, the Times attempts or enables several dishonest arguments to discredit what should be self-evident, including…
- “Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, suggested that the Yale finding was motivated by t’he almost certain fear by Trump administration officials that there’s at least a substantial likelihood that come January, they won’t be here. So they want to put facts on the ground, to try them in a potential Biden administration.'”
- “Legal experts saw the finding as an extension of conservative legal efforts to end race-based college admissions policies, a battle that is expected to eventually reach a Supreme Court that leans more conservative after two appointments by President Trump.”
Finding the concept of “race-based admissions policies” the equivalent of racial discrimination is sinister, apparently, in 1984—I’m sorry, 2020. What was I thinking?
Ann Althouse somehow found a tweet by a writer and independent journalist named Jesse Singal, who commented on the main rationalization in the Times piece, which was that Asian-American students at Yale were supportive of anti-white and anti-Asian American discrimination in favor of black applicants:
When Siddarth Shankar applied to Yale in 2017, he did not hesitate to identify himself as Asian-American, and wrote about how visiting family members in conflict-ridden Kashmir had shaped his worldview.
He did not expect to get in, because he knew he had tough competition as a student at a public high school in the affluent Washington suburb of McLean, Va., where most students were either white or, like him, Asian-American, and many apply to the Ivy League. But he was admitted.
Now he sees the Trump administration’s accusation that Yale discriminated against Asian-American and white applicants, leveled against the university by the Justice Department’s civil rights division on Thursday, as unfathomable and divisive.
“I think this is the oldest tactic in the book, to pit minority groups against each other,” Mr. Shankar, 20, now a junior majoring in economics, said on Friday.
Singal tweeted, “I mean whatever you think of the case itself this is a fantastic scoop by the Times, that the Asian kids who did get in don’t feel discriminated against.”