Quotas Are Illegal in the US Education System

One common misconception on Affirmative Action is to equate it to a quotas system. As a matter of fact, quotas are explicitly prohibited by law in the US.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (1865) is often cited as the legal root for equal protection. The US has come a long way since then on its record of race-based systematic discrimination. Women had not been allowed to vote until 1920, and segregation continued in many southern states well into the second half of the 20th century. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 makes Chinese the only ethics group to be legally discriminated by the federal government in the history of the US.

Quotas system sets aside a specific fix amount of seats for a specific group of people by skin color, religion, country of origin, gender or sexual orientation, etc. Quotas System was designed as a tool of discrimination in early 1920s in the height of antisemitism, echoing the hate sentiment in Europe. Elite universities such as Harvard and Yale set quotas for Jewish applicants. Regardless of their dedication to education and hard working, Jewish students were capped to a fixed ratio for twenty years.

Throughout the US history, Quotas system has been use as an effective way of systematic discrimination against some ethics groups or practitioners of certain religion. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, quotas system was mistakenly used by activists in higher education to promote African American representation. In Regents of the University of California v. Baake (1978), the Supreme Court ruled specific quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minorities by the University of California Davis School of Medicine, was unconstitutional.

The Affirmative Action was a policy introduced in the form of an Executive Order 10925 by President JFK in 1961. Affirmative Action is not a quotas system. Instead, it encourages government and employers to promote minority representation in a specific area.

In other words, the Affirmative Action allows a school to make additional effort to take racial into consideration into setting a goal of fair representation. For example, a university may set up a basketball team to 'attract' African American students, however, it is illegal to admit an unqualified African American student to displace an otherwise qualified white student. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court ruled the admission procedure used by the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it assigned a fix points to minority applicants.

In the domain of K-12 public education, the Supreme Court ruled in Parents v. Seattle (2007) that assigning students to schools partially based on their race was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court called the method extreme means of 'discriminating among individual students based on race by replying upon racial classifications in making school assignments'. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, in which he likened Seattle School District's policy of assigning students based on their race classification to high schools to boost diversity to segregation. Roberts wrote:

Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. . . . The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

In an Affirmative Action legal guidance issued jointly by the Department of Education and Department of Justice in 2011, it states, a school may adopt individual racial classifications based approach to achieve a diverse student body only after they can demonstrate a race-neutral approach would not be workable to achieve its compelling interests. In implementation, no student should be insulated based on his or her race from an assessment or comparison to other student applicants. In addition, a student should not be evaluated in a way that makes a student's race his or her defining feature.

Over decades, the Affirmative Action policy has helped minority to realize their dreams in education and at workplace. Recently, the quotas system, on the contrary, is advocated by white supremacists to discriminate against real minorities, such as Asian. The 2010 demographics composition in the US sees about 72.4% white, 16.4 Hispanic or Latino, 12.6% African American and 4.8% Asian (notice that the total is more than 100% because one can select multiple options). White supremacists employed quotas system to counter the effect of the Affirmative Action to suppress Asian who are considered working too hard. Although quotas system is still illegal in the US, the undercurrent is gaining popularity among many racists working in the government and education systems. If the Asian community does not put up a fight, it could be institutionalized in a short time riding a conservative drive in era of grass-root politics.

The Princeton Dude Needs to Check his Facts

A Princeton freshman found himself under the liberal bombardment because of a paper he wrote on his family past. In the paper, Tal Fortgang, a grandson of Polish Jewish immigrants who worked their butts off with a clear vision to support their family and see their children success. Tal did not understand the bias against white people who earned their success through hard work with a deep believe in education and family value. Fortgang concluded his paper "Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege" which was published by the Princeton Tory journal in April with the sentence ".. I apologize for nothing."

Having a discussion is always a better scenario then suppressing any idea that is not officially endorsed. Mr. Fortgang is brave to touch a very sensitive and often volatile topic. However, the possible history or political science major needs some training in fact checking before speaking out in public. For one, if not thanks to Affirmative Action and Princeton University's distorted admission standard, Mr. Fortgang probably wouldn't even be able to find a seat on the privileged campus.

In the article, Fortgang recounted his parents's immigration to the US, "a country that grants equal protection under the law to its citizens". This history major should have heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law passed by the US federal government and signed by the President of the United States, to specifically suppress Chinese Americans. No, there was never anything close to this to any other groups of ethnics, not Africans, not Hispanics, not Polish nor Jews.

Fortgang needs to look back no further than seven years, when a Chinese student Jian Li filed a civil complaint against Princeton University, after denied admission because of his race.

In response, the Daily Princetonian, who billed itself the second college newspaper in the nation to publish daily since 1892, ridiculed Li with a parody, which mocked Li's parents for doing hard labor in a Chinese restaurant to support their children's education. The article goes like this in an obvious broken English perceived spoke by illiterate Chinese Americans such as restaurant operators, and the Seagull quoted here

"I so good at math and science...My dad from Kung Pao Province....Lots of bulldogs here for me to eat."

It is worth noting that this piece of dog shit was endorsed by then Princetonian editor in chief Chanakya Sethi, and supported by a Harvard student journalist Sahik K Mahtani, both Indian. There is no secret that Chinese and Indian are the two groups who directly compete at all fronts in the US. Therefore on one side it's a pity Indians could go so low, on the other side, it's a shame the Princeton University knows how to play a house underclass to fence off a filed underclass.

The Princeton University tried to launch a smear campaign to throw the stereotype of first generation Chinatown Chinese restaurant workers on a promising young scholar. In the real world, Jian Li graduated top 1% from Livingston High School, which has been consistently ranked a top school in the US. Li scored 2400 on the SAT, as well as perfect or near-perfect scores SAT subject tests in Math Level 2, Physics, and Chemistry.

Recent peered reviewed academic papers showed that with all other factors equal, it took Chinese a whole 50 more points in SAT then white students to get admitted by elite universities because of the racially motivated quota system imposed by schools such as the Princeton University.

Mr. Fortgang and his peers alike at the Princeton University better take a good look at the reflections from the puddle of their own pee, and ask themselves this question: would they have gotten where they were, if it were not their skin color?

What Espenshade/Radford/Nieli Did not Say

Being a Jew himself probably offered Russell Nieli the courage to speak out on the systematic discrimination against kids of Asian heritage. However, anyone who had watched the Japanese movie Rashomon knew, the real truth was left out for an unspecific reason which is often darker than one would dare to face.

The prevailing racially motivated discrimination in education opportunities are in fact crafted by the elite white people to preserve an otherwise unjustified self-interests, as Espenshade, Radford and Nieli pointed out. But that was not new information.

Racial discrimination against Asian kids in the education system in the US is a well accepted common sense that does not need any number to prove. What could be a better topic is 'why' do they do that? Why did the elite what intentionally hurt the most hard working and high productive class in the US, especially at a time when advent of information technology has made the world flat thus the US is facing mounting competition from outside.

The words that nobody is mentioning is 'affirmative action', the most corrupt power-sharing framework designed by the elite to serve themselves at the cost of everyone else, including the African Americans. By bribing the African Americans (and late comers such as the Latinos), the elite class in exchange is allowed to use holistic standard in the admission process to get their own kids into places they would not be able to reach.

It is equally important to point out that although the victims are Asian kids, but those who benefited are the 'elite' class rather than a specific ethic group. Justice Sotomayor, a lucky AA product, impromptu defended the legacy preferences in an exchange with lawyers on the Michigan case because she too wanted to guaranteed seats for her own children, even though lawyers argued that it was obvious beneficial for increasing minority admission to see the Legacy Preference gone.

For low information followers, the message that the elite what to get out is that they are being saved by the elite from harms of competition from Asian kids who work unnecessarily too hard. The elite portrait themvselves as the saviors and guardians for the Blacks and Latinos. They plays the tricks of fears to cohort Blacks and Latinos into their political allies. As a result they got to keep the preferences admission.

Nieli correctly pointed out that by means of preferences admission, the elite not only blocked hard working Asian kids education opportunity only because of their skin color, but also sent unqualified offspring of their own to top schools. As a byproduct, it effectively killed self-esteem of Blacks, Latinos and Indians. All in all, the elite successfully secure the most favorable scheme for their own prosperity.

What the elite fail to learn from history lessons are: 1) once people realized what they have done, they would be recognized as thugs and treated as such; 2) after they had brought the entire country down, there would be little room for their own kids to enjoy.

How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others
By Russell K. Nieli
July 12, 2010

When college presidents and academic administrators pay their usual obeisance to "diversity" you know they are talking first and foremost about race. More specifically, they are talking about blacks. A diverse college campus is understood as one that has a student body that--at a minimum--is 5 to 7 percent black (i.e., equivalent to roughly half the proportion of blacks in the general population). A college or university that is only one, two, or three percent black would not be considered "diverse" by college administrators regardless of how demographically diverse its student body might be in other ways. The blacks in question need not be African Americans--indeed at many of the most competitive colleges today, including many Ivy League schools, an estimated 40-50 percent of those categorized as black are Afro-Caribbean or African immigrants, or the children of such immigrants.

As a secondary meaning "diversity" can also encompass Hispanics, who together with blacks are often subsumed by college administrators and admissions officers under the single race category "underrepresented minorities." Most colleges and universities seeking "diversity" seek a similar proportion of Hispanics in their student body as blacks (since blacks and Hispanics are about equal in number in the general population), though meeting the black diversity goal usually has a much higher priority than meeting the Hispanic one.

Asians, unlike blacks and Hispanics, receive no boost in admissions. Indeed, the opposite is often the case, as the quota-like mentality that leads college administrators to conclude they may have "too many" Asians. Despite the much lower number of Asians in the general high-school population, high-achieving Asian students--those, for instance, with SAT scores in the high 700s--are much more numerous than comparably high-achieving blacks and Hispanics, often by a factor of ten or more. Thinking as they do in racial balancing and racial quota terms, college admissions officers at the most competitive institutions almost always set the bar for admitting Asians far above that for Hispanics and even farther above that for admitting blacks.

"Diversity" came to be so closely associated with race in the wake of the Supreme Court's Bakke decision in 1978. In his decisive opinion, Justice Lewis Powell rejected arguments for racial preferences based on generalized "societal discrimination," social justice, or the contemporary needs of American society as insufficiently weighty to overrule the color-blind imperative of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. That imperative, however, could be overruled, Powell said, by a university's legitimate concern for the educational benefits of a demographically diverse student body.

Virtually all competitive colleges after Bakke continued with their racial preference policies ("affirmative action"), though after Powell's decision they had to cloak their true meaning and purpose behind a misleading or dishonest rhetoric of "diversity." Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a critic of racial preferences, accurately explains the situation: "The raison d'etre for race-specific affirmative action programs," Dershowitz writes, "has simply never been diversity for the sake of education. The checkered history of 'diversity' demonstrates that it was designed largely as a cover to achieve other legally, morally, and politically controversial goals. In recent years, it has been invoked--especially in the professional schools--as a clever post facto justification for increasing the number of minority group students in the student body."

While almost all college administrators and college admissions officers at the most elite institutions think in racial balancing and racial quota-like terms when they assemble their student body, they almost always deny this publicly in a blizzard of rhetoric about a more far-flung "diversity." Indeed, there is probably no other area where college administrators are more likely to lie or conceal the truth of what they are doing than in the area of admissions and race.

Most elite universities seem to have little interest in diversifying their student bodies when it comes to the numbers of born-again Christians from the Bible belt, students from Appalachia and other rural and small-town areas, people who have served in the U.S. military, those who have grown up on farms or ranches, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, lower-middle-class Catholics, working class "white ethnics," social and political conservatives, wheelchair users, married students, married students with children, or older students first starting out in college after raising children or spending several years in the workforce. Students in these categories are often very rare at the more competitive colleges, especially the Ivy League. While these kinds of people would surely add to the diverse viewpoints and life-experiences represented on college campuses, in practice "diversity" on campus is largely a code word for the presence of a substantial proportion of those in the "underrepresented" racial minority groups.

The Diversity Colleges Want

A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want--or don't want--on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of "diversity" they seek. The Espenshade/Radford study draws from a new data set, the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), which was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities (entering freshmen SAT scores: 1360). Data was collected on over 245,000 applicants from three separate application years, and over 9,000 enrolled students filled out extensive questionnaires. Because of confidentiality agreements Espenshade and Radford could not name the institutions but they assure us that their statistical profile shows they fit nicely within the top 50 colleges and universities listed in the U.S. News & World Report ratings.

Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an "other things equal basis," where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points.

The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student's chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550. Here the Espenshade/Radford results are consistent with other studies, including those of William Bowen and Derek Bok in their book The Shape of the River, though they go beyond this influential study in showing both the substantial Hispanic admissions advantage and the huge admissions penalty suffered by Asian applicants. Although all highly competitive colleges and universities will deny that they have racial quotas--either minimum quotas or ceiling quotas--the huge boosts they give to the lower-achieving black and Hispanic applicants, and the admissions penalties they extract from their higher-achieving Asian applicants, clearly suggest otherwise.

Espenshade and Radford also take up very thoroughly the question of "class based preferences" and what they find clearly shows a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites. Other studies, including a 2005 analysis of nineteen highly selective public and private universities by William Bowen, Martin Kurzweil, and Eugene Tobin, in their 2003 book, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, found very little if any advantage in the admissions process accorded to whites from economically or educationally disadvantaged families compared to whites from wealthier or better educated homes. Espenshade and Radford cite this study and summarize it as follows: "These researchers find that, for non-minority [i.e., white] applicants with the same SAT scores, there is no perceptible difference in admission chances between applicants from families in the bottom income quartile, applicants who would be the first in their families to attend college, and all other (non-minority) applicants from families at higher levels of socioeconomic status. When controls are added for other student and institutional characteristics, these authors find that "on an other-things-equal basis, [white] applicants from low-SES backgrounds, whether defined by family income or parental education, get essentially no break in the admissions process; they fare neither better nor worse than other [white] applicants."

Distressing as many might consider this to be--since the same institutions that give no special consideration to poor white applicants boast about their commitment to "diversity" and give enormous admissions breaks to blacks, even to those from relatively affluent homes--Espenshade and Radford in their survey found the actual situation to be much more troubling. At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability). Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant's admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it. The opposite class trend was seen among non-whites, where the poorer the applicant the greater the probability of acceptance when all other factors are taken into account. Class-based affirmative action does exist within the three non-white ethno-racial groupings, but among the whites the groups advanced are those with money.

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

Poor Non-White Students: "Counting Twice"

The enormous disadvantage incurred by lower-class whites in comparison to non-whites and wealthier whites is partially explained by Espenshade and Radford as a result of the fact that, except for the very wealthiest institutions like Harvard and Princeton, private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing "racial minorities." Poor whites are apparently given little weight as enhancers of campus diversity, while poor non-whites count twice in the diversity tally, once as racial minorities and a second time as socio-economically deprived. Private institutions, Espenshade and Radford suggest, "intentionally save their scarce financial aid dollars for students who will help them look good on their numbers of minority students." Quoting a study by NYU researcher Mitchell Stevens, they write: "ultimate evaluative preference for members of disadvantaged groups was reserved for applicants who could be counted in the college's multicultural statistics. This caused some admissions officers no small amount of ethical dismay."

There are problems, however, with this explanation. While it explains why scarce financial aid dollars might be reserved for minority "twofers," it cannot explain why well-qualified lower-class whites are not at least offered admission without financial aid. The mere offer of admission is costless, and at least a few among the poor whites accepted would probably be able to come up with outside scholarship aid. But even if they couldn't, knowing they did well enough in their high school studies to get accepted to a competitive private college would surely sit well with most of them even if they couldn't afford the high tuition. Espenshade and Radford do not address this conundrum but the answer is easy to discern. The ugly truth is that most colleges, especially the more competitive private ones, are fiercely concerned with their ratings by rating organizations like U.S. News & World Report. And an important part of those ratings consist of a numerical acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received to those accepted) and a yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll). The lower the acceptance rate and the higher the yield score the more favorably colleges are looked upon. In extending admissions to well-qualified but financially strapped whites who are unlikely to enroll, a college would be driving both its acceptance rate and its yield score in the wrong direction. Academic bureaucrats rarely act against either their own or their organization's best interests (as they perceive them), and while their treatment of lower-class whites may for some be a source of "no small amount of ethical dismay," that's just how it goes. Some of the private colleges Espenshade and Radford describe would do well to come clean with their act and admit the truth: "Poor Whites Need Not Apply!"

Besides the bias against lower-class whites, the private colleges in the Espenshade/Radford study seem to display what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study's treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities -- including community service activities, performing arts activities, and "cultural diversity" activities -- conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant's chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here -- every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.

But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call "career-oriented activities" was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student's chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. "Being an officer or winning awards" for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, "has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions." Excelling in these activities "is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission."

Espenshade and Radford don't have much of an explanation for this find, which seems to place the private colleges even more at variance with their stated commitment to broadly based campus diversity. In his Bakke ruling Lewis Powell was impressed by the argument Harvard College offered defending the educational value of a demographically diverse student body: "A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer." The Espenshade/Radford study suggests that those farm boys from Idaho would do well to stay out of their local 4-H clubs or FFA organizations -- or if they do join, they had better not list their membership on their college application forms. This is especially true if they were officers in any of these organizations. Future farmers of America don't seem to count in the diversity-enhancement game played out at some of our more competitive private colleges, and are not only not recruited, but seem to be actually shunned. It is hard to explain this development other than as a case of ideological and cultural bias.

This same kind of bias seems to lurk behind the negative association found between acceptance odds and holding leadership positions in high school ROTC. This is most troubling because a divorce between the campus culture of its universities and its military is poisonous for any society, and doesn't do the military or the civilian society any good. The lack of comfort with many military commanders that our current president is said to have seems to be due not only to his own lack of military experience but to the fact of having spent so many of his formative years on university campuses like Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago, where people with military experience are largely absent and the campus culture is often hostile to military values and military personnel.

In an attempt to find out what kind of diversity exists -- or doesn't exist -- on the Princeton University campus, I once asked students in a ten-member discussion group to raise their hands if they knew one or more Princeton undergraduates who had served a year or more on active military duty (in the late 1940s or early 1950s, of course, undergraduates at Princeton would have encountered legions of such people coming back from WWII and the Korean War). I made it plain that I wasn't asking if the students had a close friend or roommate who was a veteran, just a single person with military experience that they had at sometime encountered during their Princeton undergraduate careers. Only one student -- a female -- raised her hand: this student once met someone who had served in the Israeli military. On a second occasion I asked this question to a larger group and again only one hand went up -- this student once met a Princeton undergraduate who had served in the Turkish military.

Many universities, including Princeton, are interested in enrolling foreign students, along with students from disparate regions of the U.S. But the more competitive private universities seem to have little interest in diversifying their student bodies when it comes to people who have served in the American military or people who intend to make a career out of military service. Even if they don't shun such people, or hold their military service or aspirations against them, they clearly don't seek them out or court them the way they do "underrepresented" racial minorities. And while many universities host college-level ROTC programs (often for financial reasons), the military/civilian relationship on campus is usually far from amicable.

Military veterans and aspiring military officers, like poor whites and future American farmers, are clearly not what most competitive private colleges have in mind when they speak of the need for "diversity". If nothing else the new Espenshade/Radford study helps to document what knowledgeable observers have long known: "diversity" at competitive colleges today involves a politically engineered stew of different groups. drawn from the ingredients selected by reigning campus ideology. Since that ideology is mainly dictated by the Left, it is no surprise that the diversity achieved is what the larger American landscape looks like when it is viewed through a leftist lens. I suggest a different approach: elite colleges should get out of the diversity business altogether and focus on enrolling students who are the most academically talented and the most eager to learn. These students should make up the bulk of their entering classes. Call it the Cal Tech Model since the California Institute of Technology seems to be the only elite institution that comes close to realizing such an ideal. Or call it the U.S. Olympic Team Model, or the Major League All-Stars Model, since it is based on the same strict merit-selection principle governing our Olympic sports teams and our major league baseball all-star teams. Let the diversity chips fall where they may and focus on recruiting the most intelligent, most creative, and most energetic of the rising generation of young people. In my naive way this is what I always thought elite universities were supposed to be about.

------------------------------------------------------
Russell K. Nieli received his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Princeton University and currently works for Princeton's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He has been a lecturer in Princeton's Politics Department and for ten years was an academic adviser to Princeton freshmen.

Senator, I salute your 1/32 Cherokee heritage

One high school graduating senior spoke up on the public discrimination against non-privileged white students in name of Affirmative Action.

Suzy Lee Weiss earned high marks in tests, interned at the US Senate, but still, was rejected by a score of elite ivy league schools.

The admission process of elite colleges has become a black box trading platform of money and political clout. The 'Affirmative Action' label serves as a DMCA recognized fake lock, on no other purpose but to reject public inquiries.

It's nothing about equality; the system has been rewired for the new segregation.

Offsprings from privileged families hard wired themselves in, and covered it with the AA. They claim any transparency, being academic or not, would hurt the AA. The end results are hardworking students from hard working families were kept out, regardless how hard they had worked, and regardless how hard their families had worked their asses off to educate them.

You can't move your eyes off from this obvious trading table without calling it what it is, Discrimination.

It is also the new Segregation. The admission offices at elite colleges controlled by ill-minded racists and their puppies invented this system to permanently separate those have to those don't. The flowability of the society is cut by removing the entire central piece from it.

Like familiar scenes in Blockbuster movies or Nintendo console games, the evil only grows stronger after every defeat. The new Segregation is more effective when the education system excludes the central segment out of consideration, so that no one could threaten the privileged few by climbing up the ladder, as there is no ladder.

The smart designers succeeded in making a deal with some minority leaders to cover this new Segregation as the alias to Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is portrayed as the treasure, rather than a path. Utilizing their monopoly of news outlets and academic positions, privileged elites make it a political taboo questioning of this systematic Segregation.

The signature of the Affirmative Action college admission is its opaqueness. No quantifiable achievement can guarantee a seat in a classroom in elite colleges. Scoring full grade in SAT or ACT are not a pass to elite education, nor is winning in an international academic contests. Colleges insisted on the opaqueness, and claimed the 'diversity' would have been killed if any internal formulas were revealed. It is no secret that internal formulas were in existence, as the public learned accidentally from the University of Illinois, where each politician were ranked and assessed on their 'clout factor' in making admission decisions on their kids. Your skin color is also measured with help of a 18% gray card.

By waving an AA banner, scam artists hired by the privileged few, convinced the nation the Segregation is what they want.

The Asian community had been the biggest victim in this Segregation. Study had found a high school graduate with Chinese parents needs to score 430 points higher (out of 2400 points total) to get in a good education system than an African American student with comparable background in every non-academic fields. She/he will also have to score 100 higher than a white peer for the same opportunity to be considered by an elite college. Separate study found all elite college who exercise the 'opaque' admission procedure kept a strict quota system on number of Asian students, despite the growing representation of Asian students in high school graduates population.

Suzy's letter hit it right on the head on the scam. New Segregationists use the Affirmative Action as the glorified rationale to reject any measurable factors in the consideration for college admission. However, what they did not say was that only academic measurement was excluded. They do measure you on other factors that they had an advantage, such as volunteering on an African vacation trip. Kids from hardworking Americans do not have money to go to Africa. Instead, they have to help the family flipping burgers in local McDonald's. However, according to rules set up by New Segregationists that did not count.

To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me

By SUZY LEE WEISS

Like me, millions of high-school seniors with sour grapes are asking themselves this week how they failed to get into the colleges of their dreams. It's simple: For years, they—we—were lied to.

Colleges tell you, "Just be yourself." That is great advice, as long as yourself has nine extracurriculars, six leadership positions, three varsity sports, killer SAT scores and two moms. Then by all means, be yourself! If you work at a local pizza shop and are the slowest person on the cross-country team, consider taking your business elsewhere.

What could I have done differently over the past years?

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage. Related Video

I also probably should have started a fake charity. Providing veterinary services for homeless people's pets. Collecting donations for the underprivileged chimpanzees of the Congo. Raising awareness for Chapped-Lips-in-the-Winter Syndrome. Fun-runs, dance-a-thons, bake sales—as long as you're using someone else's misfortunes to try to propel yourself into the Ivy League, you're golden.

Having a tiger mom helps, too. As the youngest of four daughters, I noticed long ago that my parents gave up on parenting me. It has been great in certain ways: Instead of "Be home by 11," it's "Don't wake us up when you come through the door, we're trying to sleep." But my parents also left me with a dearth of hobbies that make admissions committees salivate. I've never sat down at a piano, never plucked a violin. Karate lasted about a week and the swim team didn't last past the first lap. Why couldn't Amy Chua have adopted me as one of her cubs?

Then there was summer camp. I should've done what I knew was best—go to Africa, scoop up some suffering child, take a few pictures, and write my essays about how spending that afternoon with Kinto changed my life. Because everyone knows that if you don't have anything difficult going on in your own life, you should just hop on a plane so you're able to talk about what other people have to deal with.

Or at least hop to an internship. Get a precocious-sounding title to put on your resume. "Assistant Director of Mail Services." "Chairwoman of Coffee Logistics." I could have been a gopher in the office of someone I was related to. Work experience!

To those kids who by age 14 got their doctorate, cured a disease, or discovered a guilt-free brownie recipe: My parents make me watch your "60 Minutes" segments, and they've clipped your newspaper articles for me to read before bed. You make us mere mortals look bad. (Also, I am desperately jealous and willing to pay a lot to learn your secrets.)

To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—"The Real Housewives" is on.

How Affirmative Action Will Bring Down the US

Believers of the Affirmative Action (AA) policy are invited to have a good look at pictures on the left, which depict the daily journey a group of 50 elementary students take to receive education.

These young men and women, aged 5 to 12 of Xinmin Village, Shimen Township, Weining County of Guizhou Province, get up before 5:00 in the morning, cook their own breakfast while they parents are working in some sweatshops somewhere hundreds of miles away. They will gather around 5:30 am and start marching to their elementary school 2 hours ahead, passing through dirty roads, mountains, graveyards and deserted illegal mining caves. Little boy Li Lei (with black and blue backpack, green sneakers) has heart problems. He will set out 20 minutes earlier accompanied by his sister Li Yao, so that he can take some breaks on their way and still get to the school on time.

After a full day's learning, they hack back together to the village via the same route to complete the daily routine.

These pictures were taken on February 28th, 2013.

Chinese across the world, rich and poor, study this hard when they have an opportunity. In the US, there are many Chinese who are professional with high income, but there are more first generation immigrants coming from poor countryside villages such as the one depicted in the pictures on the left who represents the bottom of the lower income society. Still, they work hard and educate their children to study hard, as they see that is the only way to change their fate through hard working. Look at these people, do they deserved to be punished by the Affirmative Action admission policy, just because they work too hard?

All men and women are born equal. Chinese are not more intelligent, and they too would prefer living on government welfare then working their butt off if that is a choice.

Imagine what if some US politicians descend from the sky and tell the kids that they will receive $500 each month for doing nothing. And that they will be rewarded with a 400 point advantage when applying to college. And the catch will be that they must not take learning seriously. They should not go to school unless there would be a shining school bus waiting and free meals provided. Most importantly, They must not score a passing grade otherwise not only all benefits would be gone but also they would be punished by openly discrimination in college admission process.

The US raised to the No. 1 economy in the world through hard working by late generations, not food stamp or affirmative action admission. Who should weep for the fall of the US? When?

Asian Americans Called on SCOUS to End Discrimination in College Admission

It was filed on behalf of the 80-20 National Asian-American Educational Foundation, the National Federation of Indian American Associations, the Indian American Forum for Political Education, the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. (The latter group focuses on discrimination against Jewish Americans, and the brief argues that today's admissions policies have the same impact on Asian-American applicants as previous generations' policies had on Jewish applicants.)

The brief focuses heavily on research studies such as the work that produced the 2009 book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Princeton University Press), which argued that -- when controlling for various factors -- one could find the relative "advantage" in admissions of members of different ethnic and racial groups.

The book suggested that private institutions essentially admit black students with SAT scores 310 points below those of comparable white students. And the book argued that Asian-American applicants need SAT scores 140 points higher than those of white students to stand the same chances of admission. The brief also quotes from accounts of guidance counselors and others (including this account in Inside Higher Ed) talking about widely held beliefs in high schools with many Asian-American students that they must have higher academic credentials than all others to gain admission to elite institutions.

via Inside Higher Ed