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

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

news.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 363 posts

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

#101

Post by xiande04 »

btilly wrote: post #55
Invictus0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm reminded of https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526975113597489154 : Yale is the epicenter of the woke mind virus attempting to destroy civilization. Paul Graham's immediate chime of support shows it isn't just a piece of random silliness on Elon Musk's part. And other things I've seen (eg the harassment of Amy Chua) certainly fit. This amicus brief speaking up for racism and discrimination (as long as it is aga…

How exactly does Amicus entail racism and discrimination against Asians?

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

#102

Post by zmgsabst »

tomrod wrote: post #95
zmgsabst wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re not talking about “removing privilege”, ie, ending a racist program that favors Asians. We’re talking about discrimination against an 18 year old Asian kid who has done nothing on the basis of race.

Negative discrimination of one group results in privilege to another (or, by default, all others).

Yes — you’re discriminating against Asians by privileging blacks in selection.

That’s what makes this racism.

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

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TameAntelope wrote: post #90
zmgsabst wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Racism is the belief that one race is superior in some way or another

What's going on is discriminating and prejudicing on the basis of race.

We can call that racism or anti-racism or peanuts & bananas, it doesn't change what the thing is. A person being advantaged or disadvantaged, being treated differently, on the basis of the race, something they had no control over nor consent to.

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

#104

Post by tomrod »

mbg721 wrote: post #54
ceejayoz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With this court? I don't wonder.

If a conservative Supreme Court were really drunk with power, don't you think the Ivy League institutions would have changed more than this?

Without threadjacking: both things are true here, else RvW would not have been overturned as the accomplishment of an explicit political goal.

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

#105

Post by hackerlight »

colinmhayes wrote: post #23
vorpalhex wrote: post #6

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.

Why not? While Asian immigrants certainly face discrimination they have also certainly experienced much less than black Americans have over the last 300 years.

It's racist thinking to group people into a collective and think that each member of that collective is the same.

It's also a super American racial lens you've got. As if one hundred percent of Black Americans have a tougher family background than the descendants of Chinese coolies or Vietnamese war refugees. Come on, take off that collectivist worldview and view people as individuals. Collectivism is attractive because it simplifies people into one dimensional avatars, but it leads to wrongs such as the racism on display here.

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

#106

Post by rileymat2 »

eloff wrote: post #59
btilly wrote: post #33

To quote from the brief. Unlike applicants whose identities have been affected mainly by their socioeconomic or geographic circumstances, applicants whose formative experiences relate to race or ethnicity would be denied the opportunity to convey their full, authentic selves when competing for admission to selective schools like Amici. And so we guarantee that millions of Americans will have a formative experience th…

This is the danger of focusing on equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. In my opinion, the former is not possible anyway, it's not a good goal. People are different and they're going to have different outcomes, even if only considering chance. But they should have the same opportunities regardless of race, gender, etc. Making policy to address this is tackling the root of the problem instead of the…

To go with your analogy, when I am sick, I want both the root of the problem dealt with along with the symptoms. I don’t see why you would not attack things from both angles.

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

#107

Post by samatman »

colinmhayes wrote: post #23
vorpalhex wrote: post #6

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.

Why not? While Asian immigrants certainly face discrimination they have also certainly experienced much less than black Americans have over the last 300 years.

The problem is that it's inherently wrong, which I don't expect you to understand given your twisted moral compass.

Perhaps it would help you if you knew that ADOS are pretty upset that Yale keeps admitting the sons and daughters of wealthy African immigrants instead of them.

That doesn't make a difference to a morally upright person. But for a racist such as yourself, maybe know that the policy of racism you're advocating for doesn't even help the group you wish it did.

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

#108

Post by willcipriano »

longtimelistnr wrote: post #14
dbsights wrote: 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.

[flagged]

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

#109

Post by TameAntelope »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #62
TameAntelope wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not racism, as for it to be racist it would have to support the idea that people of one race are inherently superior in some form or another to another race. Adjusting representation is not making any claim whatsoever about ability around members of any race, it's attempting to adjust for those kinds of claims that have already (falsely) been made. Nobody who is implementing these policies in any of these Ivy L…

>as for it to be racist you would have to believe that people of a certain race are inherently superior in some form or another. I don't think that's the standard definition, I think treating people differently because of their race is usually considered racist, even if the discrimination is of the "separate but equal" variety. Especially if the difference in treatment is due to stereotypes and prejudices.

No post body was provided.

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

#110

Post by tomrod »

zmgsabst wrote: post #102
tomrod wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negative discrimination of one group results in privilege to another (or, by default, all others).

Yes — you’re discriminating against Asians by privileging blacks in selection. That’s what makes this racism.

Ah, you agree with me. Great. You're just missing that bigotry of an individual is not equivalent to a systemic policy.
Post reply on HN