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

111–120 of 363 posts

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

#111

Post by shkkmo »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #79
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…

I really don't understand current progressive ideology. Apart from discrimination against Asians, there is also the whole "Hijab empowers women" nonsense. I come from a part of the world where women have to fight for the right to take off hijab. They are shunned socially for doing so. In worse places, they can be jailed or beaten. Imagine coming from such a place to America, and seeing here women are wearing that sym…

> Its analogous to if you were an American slave in 1800s, got your freedom and sailed to the UK. And on landing saw blacks in the UK wearing chains as a fashion accessory. It seems so disrespectful towards your struggle.

I would point out that chains are indeed a popular fashion accessory.

I think that telling people what to wear removes power from them. It isn't contradictory to believe that telling people that they must wear something and telling people that they must not wear that thing can BOTH be dis-empowering.

So while I think you should absolutely share your experiences and the feelings you get when you see others wearing a hijab, I absolutely do not think you should push for laws that make it illegal to wear one.

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

#112

Post by zmgsabst »

TameAntelope wrote: post #93
zmgsabst wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treating someone differently on the basis of race is illegal under civil rights laws. Because it’s the racism we were trying to end, during the civil rights era. I understand many modern racists try to change the meaning of “racism” to except their repugnant behavior.

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes — and the context of this conversation is discrimination in college applications, against Asians.

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

#113

Post by light_hue_1 »

dilap wrote: post #9
ramesh31 wrote: post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

We discriminated against blacks in the past, so whites and asians deserve to be discriminated against in the present. Is this your position?

> We discriminated against blacks in the past, so whites and asians deserve to be discriminated against in the present. Is this your position?

White people took everything for hundreds of years. Then, they turned around and said "Oh look, we own everything but let's just forget about skin color now".

Discrimination resulted in massive inequality. The median net worth of a white family is $200k. The median net worth of a black family is around $0. (goes up to $20k if you count recent immigrants, it's $8 if you only count people who were shipped here as slaves).

My position is that, white people took it all. Now they need to share. It's not discrimination to say that you need to undo stealing for hundreds of years and start on a level playing field, before you forget about skin color.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

news_to_me wrote: post #80
tomrod wrote: 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…

I don't think it's possible to have meaningful diversity of thought without diversity of background. That spans many attributes—race, economic status, where you grew up, etc. Race is obviously an important one, given how much it changes many people's experiences and perceptions. I think diverse racial representation is important, but is maybe better viewed as an indicator of success rather than a metric to optimize.…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by SllX »

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.

Here’s a good reason: people don’t deserve to be discriminated against on the basis of their race.

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

#116

Post by UncleMeat »

aceHN wrote: post #48

If your goal is equal opportunity you can look at socioeconomic class without considering race. Fundamentally the idea that race must be considered to achieve diversity is an inherently racist idea - you don't believe some races will get in without help.

Yet when people look at precisely this (class rather than race) they are still called "enemies of excellence" and racist against asian people and sued to high heaven (see the ongoing challenges for the TJHSST admissions changes).

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

#117

Post by notch656a »

nxm wrote: post #63
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

How did I, as a white recent immigrant, physically abuse anyone? I had 0 advantages over others that were born here

Or worse yet you came from someplace like South Africa, where you were abused for racial reasons and then after coming to the US you get blamed for historical action of some plantation owner physically abusing others. Double points if you're Palestinian or something and barely made it here with the skin on your back.

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

#118

Post by api »

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…

I largely agree, but here's an attempt at a "steel man" of the opposing point of view:

Unjust discrimination is complex, often subconscious, and deeply rooted in institutional structures and culture. It's too complex and elusive to address directly beyond the obvious removal of explicit regulations (desegregation) and finger wagging. Those things have already been done and yet extreme inequalities persist, so addressing outcome is the only way people can think of to go any deeper.

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

#120

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rileymat2 wrote: post #106
eloff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> when I am sick, I want both the root of the problem dealt with along with the symptoms

Society isn't conscious and people aren't microbes. The analogy of a cytokine storm taking out healthy cells to drive off infection becomes grim when the "healthy cells" are people.

Post reply on HN