>>Anti-Asian discrimination is nothing new amongst the 1% - it's just another way to identify the non-chosen. FWIW, in the 1960s Clavell wrote of an Asian-American nuclear scientist wanting to buy a house commensurate with his station, but being refused by the seller on the grounds that it's a nice neighborhood and nobody wants the likes of him next door. The scientist "took a vacation" and reappeared in China leading one of their programs a few months later. Fictionalization of something that really happened. It's a hidden loss to society whenever self-appointed elites behave like a corporate to stifle others.
>
>I don't see the point of the article. One old anti-asian barrier is replaced with another anti-asian barrier. What's the point of comparing two identical things? Just say nothing has changed.

It's a bit more nuanced than that.
The author doesn't say it, but I read in another article that some of the people doing the selection are Jewish graduates of Harvard who benefited from a similar barrier being knocked down for them but are dragging their feet on this one.

>>Conservatives point to Harvard’s emphasis on enrolling African-Americans (currently 12 percent of freshmen) and Hispanics (13 percent) but overlook preferences for children of alumni (about 12 percent of students) and recruited athletes (around 13 percent

Also, I found the arithmetic interesting. Based on those numbers, half of those admitted have potentially benefited from some kind of preferential selection, so even before the anti-selection begins, Asians have had the pie sliced in half.