31–40 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't familiar with the term outcomes-driven: It is when "a court decides what the outcome of the case should be and then works backward to determine the reasoning that will reach the desired conclusion"
If you think conservatives have a monopoly on this, then take a look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases from FDR through the 1970s or so.
If they're ending race-based admissions, does that mean they're also ending athletics scholarships for runners? Sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened to it refers to a concept called the meritocracy trap.
Let's say you need open heart surgery. Doctor one has a 3.9 GPA from Harvard medical. Doctor two barely passed your state's medical school Which do you want doing your operation? The "meritocracy trap" often caves into "wealth and privilege" and this is not meritocracy.
I mean, this is all kind of window dressing for elite institutions to be elite, right? There are millions of people qualified to attend these university, Harvard gets to hand select from all of them who gets to join their walled garden based on whatever Harvard Admissions is into right now. Notice that they don't care about diversity of viewpoints or politics.
If these universities actually cared about minority enrollment, they could always expand the size of their enrollment. But none of them want to admit that the only real cache of their education is the exclusivity.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think it is ? As-in, is it the right (legal) decision in your view?
No. If I were on SCOTUS I would probably vote to uphold the existing precedent.
(And do you think it is relevant to mention the previous discrimination against Jews, decades ago?)
I so hope this is struck down. ""Americans have come to view diversity as integral to learning and to trust that the path to leadership is open to all," lawyers representing Harvard University wrote in a court filing." This is not true, and the Asians who were denied entry based on their race would agree. What ever happened to access based on merit?
I am not saying this out of some abstract concern about asian kids with perfect scores failing to get admitted to Harvard. While that's definitely a problem, imagine how much more difficult it is for asian kids from poor socio-economic backgrounds to get literally into any decent college. They dont have the socio-economic advantage of upper-middle class asian kids, but have all the disadvantages of coming from a poor family AND then get shafted by race-based affirmative action on top of that. This is just plain disgusting in my eyes.
I realize that this approach might fail to address everything perfectly, but it is better than race-based AA on literally every single measurable metric. So we might as well switch to that, while in search of a "perfect" solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't familiar with the term outcomes-driven: It is when "a court decides what the outcome of the case should be and then works backward to determine the reasoning that will reach the desired conclusion"
If you think conservatives have a monopoly on this, then take a look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases from FDR through the 1970s or so.
That said, with the notable exception of the Warren court, SCOTUS has been conservative for its whole history.
I so hope this is struck down. ""Americans have come to view diversity as integral to learning and to trust that the path to leadership is open to all," lawyers representing Harvard University wrote in a court filing." This is not true, and the Asians who were denied entry based on their race would agree. What ever happened to access based on merit?
I so hope this is struck down. ""Americans have come to view diversity as integral to learning and to trust that the path to leadership is open to all," lawyers representing Harvard University wrote in a court filing." This is not true, and the Asians who were denied entry based on their race would agree. What ever happened to access based on merit?
I view this as misguided because while people who wish to discriminate often have good intentions(theoretically discrimination simply means "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another" after all) it's emblematic of the difficulties of discrimination that the most prevalent description of discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
I would say merit is a goal - it's never achieved as an end state and requires constant vigilance to stop entrenched powers from corrupting it.