Just so people are aware, this doesn't "set a bad precedent." It doesn't set any kind of precedent, because the precedent is extremely well established. This ruling is directly in line with numerous SCOTUS decisions: Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), Grutter v. Bollinger, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, etc... These cases are cited throughout the opinion. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled…
Affirming precedent is a part of setting and establishing precedent. It doesn't set a new precedent, but its absolutely a part of establishing precedent for the future.
> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the e…
Jews were also historically discriminated against, e.g. "Dean Milton Winternitz's instructions were remarkably precise: 'Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all.'" (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota#United_States ) Also related: California Alien Land Law of 1913 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1... ), targeting mostly Asian…
Why should historical discrimination matter to the policy? If at all, it should be about discrimination today.
For perspective, here are the Harvard vs US demographics, sorted by most to least represented [1,2,3,4]: Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x) Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x) Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x) Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x) African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x) Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x) non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x) [1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/adm…
Is "Jewish" a race? Or a religion? Or a culture?
And how does harvard assert the "race" of someone in the first place?
For perspective, here are the Harvard vs US demographics, sorted by most to least represented [1,2,3,4]: Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x) Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x) Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x) Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x) African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x) Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x) non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x) [1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/adm…
As a Jewish person I feel weird seeing "whites" being broken into Jewish and non-Jewish. What about other religions? Why include religion at all? In particular with respect to Harvard and Boston I'd think Catholicism might deserve a mention if we're going to bring religion into this. In the end I think religious diversity is important but it doesn't belong in the same conversation. You can choose your religion and al…
Its not about absolute numbers, it's about admitting people from historically underrepresented or oppressed groups. I think the name 'Race Conscious' is not a great description where it actually means race and oppression.
Everyone who's downvoting me. Please explain why simply stating this is so controversial? Hasan Minhaj did a pretty informative episode on the lawsuit against Harvard affirmative action -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm5QVcTI2I8
This ruling was expected. The judge had been stalling on making a ruling to make it take time to work its way through the appeals courts and get to the Supreme Court where the policy might actually get ruled unconstitutional.
It is absurd that a judge would knowingly make a judgement that a higher court will overturn. Apart from anything else a waste of taxpayer money.
> It is absurd that a judge would knowingly make a judgement that a higher court will overturn.
If the judge makes the ruling based on previous rulings made by the higher court, while knowing that the higher court is likely to now overturn those rulings, it is still absurd?
The way the US system works is that lower courts are generally bound by previous higher court decisions, assuming those decisions are germane to the case in question.
Oh come now. Judaism as an identity class has a lot more to it than mere religious affiliation. I have to suspect that if the representation were 0.5x, rather than 5x, then its consideration would strike you as more natural.
I mean grouping Jews together based on a religious affiliation is just weird -- Reform would look at you really funny if you start talking to them about how Hasids and Orthodox view the world. It is as if Christianity was compressed into Amish, Anabaptists and Catholics and someone said "they are the same people"
For perspective, here are the Harvard vs US demographics, sorted by most to least represented [1,2,3,4]: Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x) Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x) Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x) Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x) African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x) Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x) non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x) [1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/adm…
As a Jewish person I feel weird seeing "whites" being broken into Jewish and non-Jewish. What about other religions? Why include religion at all? In particular with respect to Harvard and Boston I'd think Catholicism might deserve a mention if we're going to bring religion into this. In the end I think religious diversity is important but it doesn't belong in the same conversation. You can choose your religion and al…
As others have said, it’s not about religion it’s about ethnicity. If you really wanted to skew things, look at Ashkenazi Jews versus everyone else. You’ll find the former group extremely over-represented among Nobel laureates, Fields medalists, Turing award winners, and world chess champions. In light of all these achievements, I think it makes sense to distinguish Jews from non-Jewish whites at Harvard, where the achievements are paralleled there as well.
This is somewhat useful, but it would be more useful to know what percent of the total college-going population these racial groups make up. And what percent of the 1600-SAT (for lack of a better proxy) population they make up.
I'd be curious to meet or read about those Harvard students with the lowest SAT scores of their cohort (assuming the minimum is not 1600), since they must be extraordinary in some other ways.
Based on the analysis done for the court case, they are their athletes.
Indeed, Harvard's own internal study determined that if academics were all that mattered, 43% of admitted students would be Asian. The major factors pushing down that percentage are legacy admissions and the vague "personal rating," which seems to be the knob Harvard admissions turns to get the demographic ratios it desires. Asians are systematically given a far lower "personal rating" than other demographics. Source…
"Well it's simple you see, Asians are simply less personable, as a group, than white folk. No no no, it's not blatant discrimination at all, I assure you! It's just science, I swear!" I really don't see how anyone justifies this kind of thing in 2019. This is like the barest possible fig leaf over obvious prejudice. They could rename it to "Cromulence Factor" and it'd make as much sense.