Live data from Hacker News

In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

news.yale.edu

11–20 of 363 posts

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#11
post #4
post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

Racism is racism.

Which part of racism is bigotry, and which part is structural preference?

One difference is that structural preference can be baked into systems without any bone of bigotry in any of the system's participants.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#14
post #5
post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

Same reason we should have had a problem with it then. If racism is wrong, then it shouldn't matter which race.

Sure but this isn’t racism, it’s compensating for inequalities that are not fixable by “trying harder” or any individuals personal responsibility.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#15
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't give one racial group a disadvantage (Asians) to give another one an advantage. The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind.

>The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind. Asian immigrants are not struggling to escape the clutches of centuries old intergenerational poverty. It's not even remotely the same thing.

It depends on which groups you are looking at. For example, many Vietnam/Laos groups which immigrated during the war.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#16
post #2

I didn't realize college admissions' affirmative action had reached SCOTUS. I wonder what the outcome will be. Key summary: > "Today Yale joined peer institutions in stating emphatically that student diversity is essential to the missions of American universities and promotes educational excellence for all students,” President Peter Salovey said. “Our amicus curiae brief makes clear that the way we consider race and…

The Ivy leagues today are anything but diverse in thought, this should be obvious. What actually exists is a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated.

I ought to expand on this since this comment will surely be controversial. I make no comment on which view is right or wrong; but suppose the conservative view were favored, and any disagreement with the ideology got your fired from your job, publicly shamed, made a pariah, etc.? Would you feel comfortable sharing dissenting opinions? There is no open debate, no sense that truer speech will naturally win out over disfavored speech, no sense that people have the right to say and think unorthodox beliefs.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#17
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason we should have had a problem with it then. If racism is wrong, then it shouldn't matter which race.

Sure but this isn’t racism, it’s compensating for inequalities that are not fixable by “trying harder” or any individuals personal responsibility.

No post body was provided.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#19
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't give one racial group a disadvantage (Asians) to give another one an advantage. The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind.

>The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind. Asian immigrants are not struggling to escape the clutches of centuries old intergenerational poverty. It's not even remotely the same thing.

You are suffering from the same optimistic delusion that the Supreme Court suffered from in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003):

> In her majority opinion, O'Connor wrote that "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time," adding that the "Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

AA will not permit anyone to escape intergenerational poverty. By the numbers, it hasn't done anything to combat it.

Post reply on HN