Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 660 posts

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#291

Post by [deleted] »

the_watcher wrote: post #281
ravitation wrote: post #95

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.

[deleted]

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#293

Post by thrill »

gnicholas wrote: post #202
thrill wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. A case brought against the University of Texas in 2016 ruled 4-3 basically the same way, with one justice recusing and another justice had died and not yet been replaced.

Really? Kennedy is gone and was replaced by Kavanaugh. Kennedy was in the majority (pro-AA) in the 2016 case, and I would venture to guess (based on nothing more than the discussions in the legal circles I'm in) that Kavanaugh would not be as friendly to affirmative action as Kennedy was. If I were a betting man, I'd put the odds north of 2:1 that this will be overturned if the current SCOTUS sees it.

Kagan, an Obama nominee, skipped the Texas case. I think it'd be ruled the same way this time.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#294

Post by bluecalm »

slg wrote: post #119
umvi wrote: post #19

It's like we have these two irreconcilable ideas: - Diversity is good - Discrimination is bad When 50% of the world's population is from China/India, how do you both promote diversity and not discriminate?

I think the debate from progressives is the definition of the term discriminate. We all agree choosing an unqualified person over a person who is qualified based on their race is discrimination. However is it discrimination to choose the diverse candidate when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? Because that is often the situation. There is no shortage of people who are qua…

Of course it's discrimination. Just look at the definition of the word. The only debate is if slight discrimination is acceptable if it achieves higher goals.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#295

Post by xhroot »

munchbunny wrote: post #137
ummonk wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t. Affirmative action programs in employment are legal.

No, they are not. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/ Diversity efforts sit in a gray area that is nowhere close to race quotas.

I-1000 is literally called "Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure"

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1000,_Affirmat...

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#296

Post by chelmzy »

aquadrop wrote: post #220
ridaj wrote: post #21

What I don't get is, what happens if you don't declare a race, or declare "Other", during admission? Why wouldn't Asian candidates do that?

I don't understand why do you even have to declare a race during admission? Does it happen in all US universities?

Yes. You have to claim your race when applying for just about anything now.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#297

Post by [deleted] »

slg wrote: post #119
umvi wrote: post #19

It's like we have these two irreconcilable ideas: - Diversity is good - Discrimination is bad When 50% of the world's population is from China/India, how do you both promote diversity and not discriminate?

I think the debate from progressives is the definition of the term discriminate. We all agree choosing an unqualified person over a person who is qualified based on their race is discrimination. However is it discrimination to choose the diverse candidate when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? Because that is often the situation. There is no shortage of people who are qua…

[deleted]

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#298

Post by rohit2412 »

dwoozle wrote: post #126
throwawaysea wrote: post #12

This ruling is a travesty and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it when this is appealed. It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Take a look at the distribution of students by race in the University of California system, where they're not permitted to discriminate in this manner, thanks to Prop 209 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_20..…

Harvard and UC are trying to do different things. Harvard is trying to admit the future leaders of the world, so it can point to them and say “They are Harvard men.” UC is trying to give an academically rigorous education to the most academically qualified students.

So, asians are less likely to be leaders because of their race? African-Americans are more likely to be leaders because of their race?

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#299

Post by ngngngng »

thowthisaway wrote: post #292

So we use tell the kids to study hard, get good grade and test well in the SAT/ACT. What exactly do we tell them now? How exactly do you tell a kid to be "awesome"?

My kid is mixed race so he can check whatever is fashionable at the time on his college applications.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#300

Post by smashthepants »

tomschlick wrote: post #201
throwaway_law wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".

Income inequality is only "unachievable" exactly because of thinking like this. If people were genuinely invested in equality they would be asking "what can i do to get us there faster?" instead of being defeatist and calling it unachievable because you didn't personally create the problem.
Post reply on HN