Harvard's policies do not discriminate against Asian Americans – Federal Judge

Thank you. And yes, look into European institutions!

Special shoutout to my alma mater ETH Zurich: It's essentially free to attend if you can get in and, more importantly, stay in. Classes are in English. And, very important for Asians ;), it's the highest-ranked university outside the Anglosphere (e.g. QS 2020 ranked it worldwide 6th, the WSJ/Times Higher Education even ranked it No 1 in CS in 2016, ahead of Caltech, MIT and other heavy-hitters (not sure how the ranking held up to today)). Bonus: Zurich has good jobs for technical people, with Google and Disney animation research labs here although only a mediocre startup ecosystem.

Yes, about time to break Anglosaxon dominance in elite education. Even more important if they are so warped and racist that they prefer to uphold their pseudo-"meritocracy" to the detriment of excellence.

Spoiler: the discrimination is not really for the benefit of African-American or Latin-American students; it's for European-American students of privilege (the latter qualification very important):

Each of the ALDC [athletes, legacies i.e. children of alumni/ae, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff] preferences primarily benefit white students. Over 43% of white admits are ALDC, compared to less than 16% of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups. Indeed, due in part to the nature of the sports that Harvard offers, recruited athletes alone make up over 16% of white admits. We show that removing legacy and athlete preferences results in shifts in admissions away from white applicants with each of the other groups either increasing or staying the same. At the same time, fewer high-income applicants would be admitted.

[1] P. Arcidiacono, J. Kinsler, and T. Ransom. Legacy and athlete preferences at harvard. Sep 2019.

It’s clear that you disagree with the judge’s decision here, but it’s not clear what specific ideology you think influenced the decision.

Judges rule on people's intent based on evidence. It is up to the lawyer presenting the statistics to interpret(with testimony from qualified professionals) these stats before the judge in a way that proves their argument. This applies to medicine,technology and many other fields as well. Judges don't need to know medicne to rule on a malpractice lawsuit either.

Judges are required to make decisions in many fields they have not been specifically trained in. If they were experts on every subject matter, there would be no need for lawyers, except maybe to present evidence.

Regardless, the ruling has nothing to do with “statistical fact”. It has to do with whether the policy was intentionally discriminatory.