Some 52 years after Martin Luther King Jr’s death and one week after the three-day weekend for which he is now remembered, Harvard says it discriminates against people with bad personalities. After all, what good is knowledge, morality and dreams if you’re no fun?
To the fun-loving bureaucrats running Harvard, personality is measurable by your skin color and your sex life. They believe that good personalities are found in blacks, Hispanics, gays, transgenders, whites and just about everyone else, in roughly that order.
You might reasonably ask: How did Harvard decide that Asians have bad personalities?
Plenty of objective personality tests are out there, but Harvard doesn’t use them. It instead uses a subjective evaluation of the applicant by one of those fun-loving bureaucrats. At an in-person interview, the bureaucrat takes note of whether the applicant is Asian has a bad personality.
I suppose it’s a lucky thing for Harvard that Asians have bad personalities. Because otherwise their high merit would get more of them admitted at the expense of lower-merit whites, blacks, Hispanics, gays and transgenders.
The result would be too many Asians at Harvard, according to social engineers with low SAT scores who are constructing our campus racial utopias because they couldn’t get through college calculus in order to be real engineers.
Too many Asians at Harvard would be bad not just for Harvard but also for the Asians. Think about it. When society believes that a racial or ethnic group has become over-abundant, history tells us that society’s remedy is typically not pleasant for that group.
So, you see, Harvard has to discriminate against Asians for two reasons: (1) To stop racial discrimination, and (2) To protect Asians. If you can’t understand that, then you’re just plain bad at the social kind of mathematics.
By the way, it stands to reason that the few Asians who do get into Harvard – with SAT scores way higher than the non-Asians – get better grades than the non-Asians. How long before the social engineers outlaw that inconvenient outcome?
And Asians later tend to earn more money in their careers. How long before the social engineers impose special taxes on them? Because fairness.
I’ll now disclose that I’m biased about this issue in two ways. First, I dated an Asian woman in college a zillion years ago. At least compared to me, she was not only personable but smart and HAWT. Even though she was an engineering major.
My second bias is that I think judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character is morally wrong, despite what the wokesters say on MLK Day. For that, call me un-woke.
Ah geez, just call me racist. If you don’t like what I’m saying, you will anyway.
Back to Harvard, which is definitely not un-woke. Consistent with their bad personalities, some Asians rudely sued them for racial discrimination.
The case went to trial recently in Harvard’s home court of Boston, where an Obama-appointed judge presided. In an opinion last October, she sided with Harvard.
The judge explained that it’s no surprise Asians with great SAT scores have bad personalities. Apparently unaware of my college friend, she said a person can’t possibly excel in everything.
In short, she held as a matter of law that there’s an inverse correlation between smarts and personality, though I doubt she knows what “inverse correlation” means.
Of course, sometimes a black or white person will score as well as an Asian in the SAT. In that event, Harvard admits the white or black person while rejecting the Asian. The judge offered no reason why those Asian kids’ achievements come at the expense of their personality, but those black or white kids’ achievements don’t.
Enough silliness. Some of our federal judges think these games are not the way to overcome racial discrimination and are probably unconstitutional to boot. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion some years ago a maxim that must make Harvard cringe. He said:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
When this case reaches the Supreme Court a year or two from now, we’ll see whether Roberts still has the wisdom and stones that penned that line or he too has succumbed to politically correct stupidity.
Two interesting footnotes:
(1) Five of the ten judges in the Boston court that will hear this appeal are Harvard grads. Because the case will be heard by a panel of three of them, it’s entirely possible that all three will be Harvard grads and likely that at least one or two will be. Will they also be Harvard donors?
(2) The plaintiffs in this case filed their notice of appeal just a few days after the district court’s decision almost four months ago. For no apparent reason, the appeals court has not set up a briefing schedule yet – something that usually happens within a few weeks – and so the plaintiffs took the extraordinary step of expressly requesting them to do so. As of this writing, the appeals court still has not.