Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

latimes.com

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#261
post #158

I admittedly skimmed the opinion, but is this the first case that establishes a private entity like Harvard University is bound by the Equal Protections Clause? I thought existing law and precedent only had it applied to state/state actors (and a few cases where private businesses acted like governments, eg company towns).

The Equal Protection Clause operates on States. It does not purport to regulate the conduct of private parties. By contrast, Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds—covering not just many state actors, but many private actors too. In this way, Title VI reaches entities and organizations that the Equal Protection Clause does not.

p 129 of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#262

The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…

> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too? This is what I will never understand, why don't we focus on just helping the poor instead of based on race. If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race. However in…

> But seriously why can't we just focus our help and aid around people who are poor and needs based rather than all this faffing about with race? (snip) If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race.

Because that assumes "poor people" get "help" in a uniformly fair and anti-racist way, and that's never really true in the US today.

If you help "all people" with "no regard" to race, you have just participated in favoring white folks over all others, even though you likely don't realize it. The systems by which you choose to "help" all have various types of racism built-in, and you will have racist results as output, even if you yourself never directly try to commit such an act. (This is what systemic racism is, sometimes called 'institutionalized racism' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism )

Affirmative Action, while not perfect, is one of the few things ever tried that actually accounts for this. It's saying, "you can't be more racist than X" where X is some kind of objective metric (say, "percent of enrollment by race"), and it does not care which of the thousands of people or systems involved are causing the issue, it attempts to force-corrects for it.

It is an emergency stop-gap, until such a future as that result is already happening naturally, making it redundant. The fact that we still depend on it ~60+ yrs later, is sort of living proof that we haven't really dealt with systemic racism yet. (As if all the other evidence, between housing, employment, police brutality and murders, etc, wasn't already enough)

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#263
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr. Martin Luther King said he dreams that one day his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here we are 60 years later still focused on the color of people’s skin.

Do you think that Dr. King would argue that, aside from affirmative action, we live in such a world today?

Yeah, arguing with my dad some time back he says, "Minorities have unfair rights over whites: affirmative action."

"Name another," was my response.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too? This is what I will never understand, why don't we focus on just helping the poor instead of based on race. If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race. However in…

Dr. Martin Luther King said he dreams that one day his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here we are 60 years later still focused on the color of people’s skin.

William J. Bennett’s Aug. 12 commentary is the latest example of a recent trend in conservative public relations--opponents of affirmative action claiming to be the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. They invoke the sentence from King’s 1963 speech looking forward to the day his children would be judged by “the content of their character,” not the “color of their skin.”

Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”

You are incorrect about MLKs assessment. From the LA Times.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#265

The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…

> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too? This is what I will never understand, why don't we focus on just helping the poor instead of based on race. If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race. However in…

Let's imagine a hypothetical America, where we remove the economic aspect. Let's imagine that every household in america pulls in $250k/year and prices are uniform for every household across the nation. No one is poor. Everyone goes to the same excellent free schools where the teachers also make $250k/year. We've removed economics as a variable. Everyone is equally educated and equally rich.

But let's leave one variable in: America is exactly as racist as America is currently. Ethnic backgrounds and cultures still exist, and there are enough white assholes in "gatekeeping" roles to affect the distribution of people who pass their gates. This is a fact that is a true thing that already exists in America; we're not ADDING it to the model, we've just left it in as the only thing we want to measure.

Structurally, as a society, you want the distribution of people who pass through higher education into roles like "Doctors" and "Lawyers" and eventually "Politicians" to broadly match the distribution of cultures that comprise the society as a whole. Otherwise you create an apartheid state, and an angry under-class that threatens the stability of the system. This is an axiom so simple that even Lyndon Johnson understood it.

So in our Model America, you need to have a law that says "yeah we know that everyone is the same, but because a degree from [Prestigious University] has a ripple effect that affects society as a whole, we want to make sure that graduating classes have at least the CHANCE of reflecting the cultural diversity of the nation as a whole, so we need to have a law that prevents Bad Actors in Admissions from just saying 'Oh, we already let in all the white people in line, wink wink wink, sorry, maybe next year'"

That's the reason you might still want quotas. And given the distribution of test scores because everyone ISN'T identical frictionless spheres, you might want to add a weight to minority test scores to float them overall, so they get in.

And yeah, that might not seem fair if you're in the majority; or if you're in the minority whose test scores are highest, but there's a clear and self-evident purpose to those kinds of weightings. Life's not fair, but it should be equitable, overall.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#266
post #158

I admittedly skimmed the opinion, but is this the first case that establishes a private entity like Harvard University is bound by the Equal Protections Clause? I thought existing law and precedent only had it applied to state/state actors (and a few cases where private businesses acted like governments, eg company towns).

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#267
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using parental income as well as parental education level in admissions would have helped GP's father just fine without any need for race-based affirmative action.

> parental income as well as parental education level in admissions But that leads to the same fundamental problem - somebody who was "unfortunate" enough to be born into decent circumstances but _who was actually more qualified_ than the diversity admit gets rejected.

That's where things fall down, though. I've done some admissions work (I am not professionally in admissions or HR or anything, I was just an academic mathematician). A lot of "qualifications" are experiences you can buy. You can buy volunteer experiences here or there, whether as literally as flying your child to Africa to volunteer or as simply as not asking your kid to contribute to paying the rent and letting them tutor for no cash. You can buy your kid test prep classes -- yes, the poor kid can get an SAT prep book from the library but the rich kid can have a tutor take their child by the hand and cajole/harass/massage the kid through test prep. You must pay pay pay to have your kid participate in traveling soccer league, dance team, lacrosse, etc. Remember travel soccer and similar activities are a way of divesting from the public schools, ensuring that this money and coaching benefits kids whose parents can pay (the right kinds of kids, the kids you want your kid to marry). What else? The music lessons, the robotics contests, the school district that has a full suite of AP or IB classes rather than just a couple, but in which houses start at $425k...

I sure as shit am buying qualifications for my kid, fully recognizing my role in participating in this flawed system. Kid's in robotics, language classes, gets to travel. We switched the kid's school to go to a school with higher standards. We teach the kid both reading (100 Easy Lessons...) and writing (workbooks from the non-US country with better public education) -- small expenses in $ but nevertheless expenses. I'm sure someone will happily tell me that the last part is just good morals on my part, or something, but you can't tell me that $100/day for a robotics summer camp is just good morals. I am buying that kid qualifications.

And then someone will tell me that's not race-based, but look at the perpetuation of wealth disparity thru US history, from chattel slavery on through the robbery from the Freedmen's Bank to the riot that burned down Black Wall Street to the fact that Black servicemen couldn't get mortgage assistance or GI Bill college assistance after WW2. Follow the money.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court tends to rule narrowly. If no one takes the case to the Supreme Court then they won’t decide on it. I’m curious how this case would play out if some males applying to CalTech did this against female applicants. That said I’m not sure how much gender based affirmitive action there is in science/engineering today.

> That said I’m not sure how much gender based affirmitive action there is in science/engineering today. Potentially quite a bit. Here's some recent data about admissions into the highly-competitive Illinois CS program: https://www.reddit.com/r/UIUC/comments/12kwc4a/uiuc_cs_admis... Note that admissions rates for female applicants are higher across all categories—international, out-of-state, and in-state. Obviously y…

I do know that 25 years ago or so there considerable weight given to gender in sciences and engineering. I do feel like all talk of it has disappeared, and wasn't sure if it was because it was no longer a factor or because race became the dominant talking point.

From the data you present I suspect that there is weight still given to gender. I wonder how much energy there would be to investigating this? I wonder how many guys who get rejected from MIT CS will now do Tik Toks about how a girl took his spot, since he can no longer say it was a black kid?

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#269

The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…

To preface: I don’t really have an opinion on affirmative action per se:

That said, the elephant in the room is that institutions like Harvard and UNC aren’t really about education. They’re “ivy leagues” for preserving class inequality having been marketed as schools.

To the extent that race is a distraction from class, the fact that counteracting racial bias in admissions has failed to uplift the poor just puts too fine a point on this arrangement.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#270

Worth noting that while affirmative action has been banned, we still have proxies for race (aka legacy admissions) which overwhelmingly favor rich and white students. And given the historical discrimination of elite universities, this ban on affirmative action without addressing legacy admissions or historical harm will only increase the number of white students at universities. We can't pretend that eliminating race…

From your source

> In addition, 70 percent of Harvard’s legacy applicants are white.

From US Census:

> Race and Hispanic Origin

> White alone, percent

> 75.5%

Post reply on HN