91–100 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. And as a person of color, I'll tell you that laws preventing discrimination offered me and my family zero protections (specifically with respect to restaurants) in the post CRA-III era.
Edit: misunderstood
Why should anyone care what Harvard does? Isn’t it a private university, and shouldn’t they be able to choose who they want? The whole thing strikes me as presumptuous and entitled.
Because employers love credentialism and can discriminate based on college. Your ability to break into the highest levels of many fields depends on that Harvard degree vs a public or 2nd tier private school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CRA-III?
I would assume that is Title III of the Civil Rights Act which covers the obligation of the Attorney General to instigate civil suites to enforce the CRA on behalf of complainants who do not have the means to pursue a civil suite on their own.
> Harvard has testified that race, when considered in admissions, can only help, not hurt, a student’s chances of getting in. So if your race matches their preference they improve your odds of admittance. Since the number of admissions is fixed this reduces the odds of those who have a race that doesn’t match their preference. IANAL but it sounds like Harvard just admitted that they were guilty.
> IANAL but it sounds like Harvard just admitted that they were guilty. I don't like what they seem to be doing, but Harvard is a private university - they should be able to recruit who they want to based on their own criteria. Of course, it's not a binary thing: universities in the US receive lots of subsidies from local states, so there is a certain expectation of fairness. Maybe the right thing to do would be to c…
1. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/1/22/federal-funding...
Why should anyone care what Harvard does? Isn’t it a private university, and shouldn’t they be able to choose who they want? The whole thing strikes me as presumptuous and entitled.
so what signal could possibly be getting sent if we already know the game is unfair/phony/rigged?
Why should anyone care what Harvard does? Isn’t it a private university, and shouldn’t they be able to choose who they want? The whole thing strikes me as presumptuous and entitled.
A private university that receives $600 million a year in federal funds.
> Harvard has testified that race, when considered in admissions, can only help, not hurt, a student’s chances of getting in. So if your race matches their preference they improve your odds of admittance. Since the number of admissions is fixed this reduces the odds of those who have a race that doesn’t match their preference. IANAL but it sounds like Harvard just admitted that they were guilty.
Sounds like a classic example of double effect[1] to me: Harvard intends a good end (alleviating historical injustices), applies a means that is not in-itself objectionable (AA), and does not intend the bad end (that some otherwise-qualified students have a reduced chance of getting in).
That's a moral argument and not a legal one, but my intuition is that the intent of their admissions program and its necessary connection to the means (AA) will play a central role in their defense. Fisher II v. UT[2] was decided on similar grounds.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goodhart's Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” SATs will quickly become one of the poorest indicators for success.
Except that SATs measure something real (intelligence), so unless outright cheating and bribery are taking place, it will continue to be a good measure.
EDIT: and to make it worse the college board charges exorbitant prices for everything involved in the process - it’s ridiculous