No, it’s not suspicious. And for the second time, the reason is because it’s NOT statistically significant. I don’t care whether it was the first year, a singular data point is not proof of anything suspicious, especially when it fits within typical statistical data. Please, for the love of God, take a stats class before trying to read a graph and draw conclusions. Your supposed gotcha is “hmmm isnt is suspicious if X is less than I think it should be?” When X is altered by so many variables that it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to draw your conclusions from it.
Maybe less asians applied? Maybe less asians qualified? Maybe more asians bowed out than normal and runnerups took their slots, maybe, due to negative publicity, the asians went to different colleges? That seems far more likely than your conspiracy theory.
The fact that Asian enrollment is about the same as it was during the years that racial discrimination was legal is exactly why it's suspected that Yale is still engaging in discrimination. I'm seriously confused as to why you think you're helping your argument by pointing out how similar Yale's enrollment is post-AA ban as it was pre-AA ban.
Imagine University A stops discriminating against Asians and University B decides to continue affirmative action secretly. Which one would have admissions rates in line with years when affirmative action was legal? Which one would see a rise in Asian enrollment?
> Maybe less asians applied? Maybe less asians qualified?
Publishing the stats on how many Asians applied and the average SAT scores of Asian admits and diverse admits would shed light on this. Notable, Yale has not released this data.
Maybe less asians applied? Maybe less asians qualified? Maybe more asians bowed out than normal and runnerups took their slots, maybe, due to negative publicity, the asians went to different colleges? That seems far more likely than your conspiracy theory.