L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

Post by AussieWog93 » Sun, Apr 03, 2022, 12:47 AM UTC

car_analogy wrote: post #175

AussieWog93 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, it absolutely has. The people I knew growing up (regardless of race) whose parents encouraged educational excellence were far more likely to attain it. (Looking at your link, it's important to note that it doesn't separate Jewish and non-Jewish Whites.)

But it looks at all students (not only those that make it into the Ivies), so Jewish whites, that are only ~4% of all whites, have a minuscule effect on white SAT scores. Yet, for non-Jewish whites, comparatively higher SAT scores have not translated into higher Ivy enrollment.

Post by car_analogy » Sun, Apr 03, 2022, 1:17 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #181

car_analogy wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it looks at all students (not only those that make it into the Ivies), so Jewish whites, that are only ~4% of all whites, have a minuscule effect on white SAT scores. Yet, for non-Jewish whites, comparatively higher SAT scores have not translated into higher Ivy enrollment.

>Jewish whites, that are only ~4% of all whites, have a minuscule effect on white SAT scores On average, yes. At the Ivy League level, though, they account for a solid third of the white admissions. I'm sure you'd find a similar overrepresentation in the top few percentiles of the SAT.

Post by unmole » Sun, Apr 03, 2022, 1:40 AM UTC

tinalumfoil wrote: post #26

This is what the California constitutional says (excerpt), > A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. The is what the bill says (excerpt): > a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 1…

Post by rectang » Sun, Apr 03, 2022, 2:28 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #184

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty is that as a society we have already gone some way towards identifying protected group status, even though there is some disagreement near the edges. The definition does not cover the distinction between people of Scots-Irish descent living in Appalachia and those from Northern English Puritan descent with a history in New England. Perhaps it should, but it currently does not, and so until we shift the…

There’s no such thing as a “protected group” in the law. There are “suspect categories” such as race, religion, etc. But it’s not any more legal to discriminate against whites or men than to discriminate against Hispanics or women. Moreover, the California law improperly conflates discrimination with structural disadvantage. It’s definition of “underrepresented” reflects people who might face discrimination. But that…

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sun, Apr 03, 2022, 2:56 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #184

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty is that as a society we have already gone some way towards identifying protected group status, even though there is some disagreement near the edges. The definition does not cover the distinction between people of Scots-Irish descent living in Appalachia and those from Northern English Puritan descent with a history in New England. Perhaps it should, but it currently does not, and so until we shift the…

There’s no such thing as a “protected group” in the law. There are “suspect categories” such as race, religion, etc. But it’s not any more legal to discriminate against whites or men than to discriminate against Hispanics or women. Moreover, the California law improperly conflates discrimination with structural disadvantage. It’s definition of “underrepresented” reflects people who might face discrimination. But that…