I've noted that the "disparate impact" policies/litigation-strategy of Obama administration and of the NAACP will have the effect of increasing actual racial discrimination against Asian-Americans. Ron Unz and Charles Murray have a wealth of data to suggest that the Ivy Leagues are already engaging in explicit racial discrimination against Asians, with what appears to be a de facto cap on Asian-American admissions, even as the percentage of Asian-Americans goes up, and the percentage of high-achieving American students who are of Asian descent rises even higher.
Some day a lawyer is going to be the first to start bringing these cases and make himself very rich. But left-wing legal entrepreneurs will be uncomfortable about the politics of these cases, because they undermine the disparate-impact paradigm; and right-wingers with the entrepreneurial spirit tend to go into business, rather than law or policy.
Update: coincidentally, the debate is joined today in the New York Times.




Ivy leagues and top colleges eliminating Asian-American quotas will hurt white applicants much more than black applicants.
The percent of blacks applying and admitted are much lower and Asians and whites.
If the Asian ivy leagues quotas are lifted (and admissions are totally based on academic scores) then the white and black ivy league percentages would go down significantly.
See CalTech, which is 39% Asian now...
And...is this a bad thing? What ever happened to meritocracy?
Let the best get in, period. Asians study on average 16 hours a week in middle and high school. Whites study under 6. The results should reflect that until all Americans study 15-20. It will be good for all of us to keep up with the competition. And I'm white by the way. This is just the truth.