针对personal rating, Justice Alito对哈弗律师Waxman在supreme court hearing中的提问： JUSTICE ALITO: -- Mr. Waxman, let me stop you there because you referred to the personal score, and that''''s a score that Harvard gives based on character traits such as integrity, courage, kindness, and empathy, but the record shows that Asian student applicants get the lowest personal scores of any other group. What accounts for that? Is it -- it has to be one of two things. It has to be that they really do lack integrity, courage, kindness, and empathy to the same degree as students of other races, or there has to be something wrong with this personal score. MR. WAXMAN: That''''s -- that is -- I mean, I want to get to what the evidence was there, but that -- that syllogism, with all due respect, is wrong. There was, for example, a study that was done in 1983 that looked at why it was that female applicants to graduate school at the University of -- JUSTICE ALITO: No, just address this. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. Here''''s -- JUSTICE ALITO: The personal score that''''s given to Asian applicants to Harvard, why do they -- why are they given a lower score than any other group? MR. WAXMAN: Okay. So the answer to why they -- as a group, why there is a slight numerical disparity with respect to the personal rating of Asian Americans, but -- and also a slight numerical disparity to the advantage of Asian Americans with respect to the extracurricular rating and the academic rating was the answer that their expert gave with respect to the latter two, which is that the only way that you can -- the only model that can be created to figure out what was going into the personal rating couldn''''t look at almost anything that admissions officers look at in those ratings. It can''''t -- there''''s no way that it could model what the guidance counselor letters said, what the teacher letters said, what the essays said, what the interviewers'''' letters said. In other words, what they -- JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I thought the interviewers did not rate the applicants lower than other -- than other applicants based on race. MR. WAXMAN: There -- JUSTICE ALITO: There was not the disparity in what was done by -- what was said by the (alumni) interviewers. MR. WAXMAN: The -- with respect to the alumni interviewers -- JUSTICE ALITO: The alumni interviewers. MR. WAXMAN: -- based on -- based on the subset that was included here, that their subset, by the way, excluded all ALDC applicants, that is, even though they acknowledged that there was not only no evidence of discrimination against Asian American ALDCs, but they did better, they eliminated from their -- their model applicants that represent on average 30 percent of the admitted class -- JUSTICE ALITO: I -- I -- I still -- putting aside the teacher recommendations or guidance counselor recommendations, which I''''ll come to, I still haven''''t heard any explanation for the disparity between the personal scores that are given to Asians. They rank below whites. They rank way below Hispanics and really way below African Americans. What -- and you''''re talking about hundreds and hundreds of applicants, maybe thousands. What is the explanation for that? MR. WAXMAN: So the explanation that was -- I can''''t do better than the findings of fact in the trial court as affirmed. And I -- and I -- but I want to make two points very clear with respect to your question. We -- all of this evidence was -- all of this was on display and in front of the trial court for, this Asian American part of it, for well more than a week, maybe two weeks. The district court found, considering all of the evidence, that there is "no credible evidence that corroborates the improper discrimination suggested by SFFA''''s interpretation of the personal rating," JUSTICE ALITO: Well, all right. I''''ll try one more time. The district court found "a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers." MR. WAXMAN: That''''s correct. And what she said is the record will not allow a full explanation of that because, if the -- the -- this -- this -- there is -- there was no evidence with respect to what teachers said, what guidance counselors said, what these students wrote -- wrote about. But what we can say with respect to the allegation of discrimination in this case, which was the -- the -- the definition of discrimination that was at issue in Bakke and Grutter and Fisher and which their expert, which their lawyer got up at opening statement and said: When we talk about discrimination in this case, we''''re talking about discrimination in admissions outcomes. And here again, the district court found and the court of appeals also concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination in admissions outcomes against Asian Americans -- JUSTICE ALITO: If you -- if you -- MR. WAXMAN: -- whatever you think about the personal rating, which is, after all, simply a number that -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice -- Justice Alito would like to ask a question. MR. WAXMAN: I''''m sorry. JUSTICE ALITO: Go ahead. MR. WAXMAN: I''''m not trying to filibuster you. JUSTICE ALITO: Finish your -- finish your sentence. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. JUSTICE ALITO: Then I will ask one more question on this. MR. WAXMAN: I just -- I -- I want to make one other thing clear to the extent that it''''s not clear from the record. The personal rating, like the academic rating and the extracurricular rating and the athletic rating, is a number that is put down by a "first reader." That is, the file comes in, it''''s not usually complete, and just as a matter of triage, one of the 40 admissions officers goes through and gives these numerical numbers. It is -- the testimony was it is not considered in any way once the subcommittees and committees meet. It "fades into the background." It is not the basis of admissions decisions. And so not only did the court find as fact that those -- that that slight disparity was not evidence of discrimination even in the personal rating, it had no effect with respect to outcomes. JUSTICE ALITO: It makes no difference whatsoever? MR. WAXMAN: It''''s -- JUSTICE ALITO: It doesn''''t affect -- MR. WAXMAN: -- it''''s not that it makes no difference whatsoever. Look at what the expert testimony was, and I realize we''''re -- JUSTICE ALITO: Does it make a difference or doesn''''t it make a difference? MR. WAXMAN: It doesn''''t make a statistical difference in admissions outcomes -- JUSTICE ALITO: Then why do you do it? MR. WAXMAN: -- as both courts found. JUSTICE ALITO: Then why do you do it? MR. WAXMAN: We said -- I mean, as -- JUSTICE ALITO: If it doesn''''t matter, why do you do it? MR. WAXMAN: We do it as a matter of triage. Right now, Harvard is getting -- last year got 61,000 applications for 1600 slots. And it is an entirely rational way of figuring out where -- how you''''re going to allocate your attention to ask an admissions officer, as the file is being developed, just go through in a very rough way and rate a particular application based on what you can see on these four metrics. The fact that Asian Americans got a marginally, on average, a marginally lower personal rating score is no more evidence of discrimination against them than the fact that they got a marginally higher rating than any data can show on academics and extracurriculars. It doesn''''t mean that they''''re either smarter or people think they''''re smarter. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
Asians. They rank below whites. They rank way below Hispanics and really way below African Americans 然后你发帖《亚裔和白人哈佛admission》？ 不识字是吧 might 发表于 2022-11-02 16:22
JUSTICE ALITO: -- Mr. Waxman, let me stop you there because you referred to the personal score, and that''''s a score that Harvard gives based on character traits such as integrity, courage, kindness, and empathy, but the record shows that Asian student applicants get the lowest personal scores of any other group. What accounts for that? Is it -- it has to be one of two things. It has to be that they really do lack integrity, courage, kindness, and empathy to the same degree as students of other races, or there has to be something wrong with this personal score. MR. WAXMAN: That''''s -- that is -- I mean, I want to get to what the evidence was there, but that -- that syllogism, with all due respect, is wrong. There was, for example, a study that was done in 1983 that looked at why it was that female applicants to graduate school at the University of -- JUSTICE ALITO: No, just address this. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. Here''''s -- JUSTICE ALITO: The personal score that''''s given to Asian applicants to Harvard, why do they -- why are they given a lower score than any other group? MR. WAXMAN: Okay. So the answer to why they -- as a group, why there is a slight numerical disparity with respect to the personal rating of Asian Americans, but -- and also a slight numerical disparity to the advantage of Asian Americans with respect to the extracurricular rating and the academic rating was the answer that their expert gave with respect to the latter two, which is that the only way that you can -- the only model that can be created to figure out what was going into the personal rating couldn''''t look at almost anything that admissions officers look at in those ratings. It can''''t -- there''''s no way that it could model what the guidance counselor letters said, what the teacher letters said, what the essays said, what the interviewers'''' letters said. In other words, what they -- JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I thought the interviewers did not rate the applicants lower than other -- than other applicants based on race. MR. WAXMAN: There -- JUSTICE ALITO: There was not the disparity in what was done by -- what was said by the (alumni) interviewers. MR. WAXMAN: The -- with respect to the alumni interviewers -- JUSTICE ALITO: The alumni interviewers. MR. WAXMAN: -- based on -- based on the subset that was included here, that their subset, by the way, excluded all ALDC applicants, that is, even though they acknowledged that there was not only no evidence of discrimination against Asian American ALDCs, but they did better, they eliminated from their -- their model applicants that represent on average 30 percent of the admitted class -- JUSTICE ALITO: I -- I -- I still -- putting aside the teacher recommendations or guidance counselor recommendations, which I''''ll come to, I still haven''''t heard any explanation for the disparity between the personal scores that are given to Asians. They rank below whites. They rank way below Hispanics and really way below African Americans. What -- and you''''re talking about hundreds and hundreds of applicants, maybe thousands. What is the explanation for that? MR. WAXMAN: So the explanation that was -- I can''''t do better than the findings of fact in the trial court as affirmed. And I -- and I -- but I want to make two points very clear with respect to your question. We -- all of this evidence was -- all of this was on display and in front of the trial court for, this Asian American part of it, for well more than a week, maybe two weeks. The district court found, considering all of the evidence, that there is "no credible evidence that corroborates the improper discrimination suggested by SFFA''''s interpretation of the personal rating," JUSTICE ALITO: Well, all right. I''''ll try one more time. The district court found "a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers." MR. WAXMAN: That''''s correct. And what she said is the record will not allow a full explanation of that because, if the -- the -- this -- this -- there is -- there was no evidence with respect to what teachers said, what guidance counselors said, what these students wrote -- wrote about. But what we can say with respect to the allegation of discrimination in this case, which was the -- the -- the definition of discrimination that was at issue in Bakke and Grutter and Fisher and which their expert, which their lawyer got up at opening statement and said: When we talk about discrimination in this case, we''''re talking about discrimination in admissions outcomes. And here again, the district court found and the court of appeals also concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination in admissions outcomes against Asian Americans -- JUSTICE ALITO: If you -- if you -- MR. WAXMAN: -- whatever you think about the personal rating, which is, after all, simply a number that -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice -- Justice Alito would like to ask a question. MR. WAXMAN: I''''m sorry. JUSTICE ALITO: Go ahead. MR. WAXMAN: I''''m not trying to filibuster you. JUSTICE ALITO: Finish your -- finish your sentence. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. JUSTICE ALITO: Then I will ask one more question on this. MR. WAXMAN: I just -- I -- I want to make one other thing clear to the extent that it''''s not clear from the record. The personal rating, like the academic rating and the extracurricular rating and the athletic rating, is a number that is put down by a "first reader." That is, the file comes in, it''''s not usually complete, and just as a matter of triage, one of the 40 admissions officers goes through and gives these numerical numbers. It is -- the testimony was it is not considered in any way once the subcommittees and committees meet. It "fades into the background." It is not the basis of admissions decisions. And so not only did the court find as fact that those -- that that slight disparity was not evidence of discrimination even in the personal rating, it had no effect with respect to outcomes. JUSTICE ALITO: It makes no difference whatsoever? MR. WAXMAN: It''''s -- JUSTICE ALITO: It doesn''''t affect -- MR. WAXMAN: -- it''''s not that it makes no difference whatsoever. Look at what the expert testimony was, and I realize we''''re -- JUSTICE ALITO: Does it make a difference or doesn''''t it make a difference? MR. WAXMAN: It doesn''''t make a statistical difference in admissions outcomes -- JUSTICE ALITO: Then why do you do it? MR. WAXMAN: -- as both courts found. JUSTICE ALITO: Then why do you do it? MR. WAXMAN: We said -- I mean, as -- JUSTICE ALITO: If it doesn''''t matter, why do you do it? MR. WAXMAN: We do it as a matter of triage. Right now, Harvard is getting -- last year got 61,000 applications for 1600 slots. And it is an entirely rational way of figuring out where -- how you''''re going to allocate your attention to ask an admissions officer, as the file is being developed, just go through in a very rough way and rate a particular application based on what you can see on these four metrics. The fact that Asian Americans got a marginally, on average, a marginally lower personal rating score is no more evidence of discrimination against them than the fact that they got a marginally higher rating than any data can show on academics and extracurriculars. It doesn''''t mean that they''''re either smarter or people think they''''re smarter. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
I totally don't understand Harvard lawyer's answer to Justice Alito's question
然后你发帖《亚裔和白人哈佛admission》？
不识字是吧
I admire their busshit ability, they can keep bullshit nonsense things even when they have nothing to say
就是亚裔最被歧视，白人也被歧视。
那也是 黄白 对比 黑墨，为什么满版的《亚裔和白人对比》，不做点小动作不舒服？