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

151–160 of 363 posts

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

#151

Post by golemotron »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #127
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.

In the US, race is very much tied to socioeconomic status and class. It's not a 100% indicator, but its essentially what the quoteunquote CRT in schools was meant to show. Many black communities are not poor simply because they're poor, but of on-the-books policies of redlining, discrimination, and overpolicing that enabled a wealth gap to form in the post-war period. Many white families were able to buy houses, buil…

> In the US, race is very much tied to socioeconomic status and class.

In much of the world, really. The US isn't particularly bad compared to most countries that way.

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

#152

Post by btilly »

samatman wrote: post #86
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…

It's not Asians primarily. They are discriminated against more stiffly, but are far outnumbered in the US by Whites, who also get the thumb placed on the wrong pan of the scale. The focus on Asians is because of a doctrine that discriminating against Whites is very good and correct, because they deserve it.

The focus on Asians is because the group that brought this group is mostly Asian-American. And that is true because, as you admit, Asians are being discriminated against more stiffly.

Now it is necessarily true that if we try to discriminate in favor of some group (eg blacks), we must necessarily give them an advantage over another group (eg whites). But the motivation there is arguably to help the historically disadvantaged, and not specifically to hurt whites.

But there is NO argument for doing what these universities are doing. To identify racial groups that they want to discriminate against because they are too good. I see no difference between policies to discriminate against Asians today and historical policies to put quotas on how many Jews got accepted. And I doubt that there is much coincidence about which universities engaged in both policies.

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

#153

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TameAntelope wrote: post #125
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Everyone is better off if we live in a society where you can do well and be rewarded for it, which is what affirmative action supports

Affirmative action is sins of they father by another name. It's judging people, and sending the message that it is okay--even righteous--to judge people not on who they are, but on from whom they are born.

It also creates justified racial animus between ethnic groups anew, and does so in a motivating way: by harming, or even just creating the perception of harming, their children.

> Why would you want to make education more elite?

Because we're defining an elite based on a mangled construction, where the kids of an Angolan dictator are given precedence over those of a refugee in the name of fairness. That's the construct of race. Meanwhile, the descendants of the slave owners get admitted on legacy.

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

#154

Post by Aunche »

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.

The problem is that the wealthy and powerful can fake socioeconomic class. In fact, they already do for financial aid. I recall two of my classmates got accepted by Harvard. One was the son of a doctor, and the other was the daughter of a lawyer. The doctor's son said that he was turning down Harvard because they didn't give any financial aid. Meanwhile, the lawyer's daughter said she actually got a lot of financial aid from Harvard even though her family was much richer.

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

#155

Post by colinmhayes »

macspoofing wrote: post #82
colinmhayes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Why not? While Asian immigrants certainly face discrimination they have also certainly experienced much less than black Americans have over the last 300 years. Well .. you have to be careful when talking about groups, because at the individual level it's not clear that this is true. In fact, it isn't true. For example, Ilhan Omar, a Congresswoman from Minnesota, is a black American. Her ancestors didn't suffer Ameri…

I think this is a reasonable argument, but I also see the other side. Having a racial underclass is bad for society. It leads to children of the race subconsciously believing they aren’t capable of achieving their full potential. Empowering black people is a worthy goal in my opinion, even if they’re rich, because the optics can make a big difference in the lives of children who know believe in themself.

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

#156

Post by zmgsabst »

api wrote: post #118
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…

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 address…

But what’s missing from your steelman is why returning to racial discrimination will solve the problems of past racial discrimination — rather than making them worse, by teaching a whole new generation to be racists.

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

#157

Post by jl6 »

How does this kind of race-based admission actually work in practice when it comes to “mixed race” individuals? (Scare quotes because I’m not even sure mixed race is a coherent concept). How far back in time can you go in search of an advantageous ancestry? This whole area seems rife with absurdities.

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

#158

Post by lliamander »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #91
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…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#159

Post by kgwxd »

MrZander wrote: post #26
ramesh31 wrote: post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

Because our society has also agreed that using race as the sole reason to determine an outcome is a bad idea. Hence, the civil rights act which "makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race". Why should we now fly in the face of that in order to advance one race at the expense of others?

> Because our society has also agreed that using race as the sole reason to determine an outcome is a bad idea.

Except it didn't actually, as demonstrated, not by words, but by drastically disproportionate representation in every single major institution in the country. This is all an attempt to combat that fact. If that fact ever changes, then this stuff can all go away. Until then, the incorrect argument you (and most of HN it appears) have given is just holding back attempts at progress.

There might be good arguments for why affirmative action is a bad approach but this argument isn't one of them.

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

#160

Post by Lendal »

tomrod wrote: post #52
svnpenn wrote: post #30

I think considering race is fine, depending on how you use that information. If you use it to make the group less diverse, that is bad. If you use it to make the group more diverse, that is good. Does that mean that some students with higher grades/income/whatever get excluded? Yes. However grades shouldn't be the only factor in this decision. It seems that the schools are taking a holistic approach to admittance, an…

I have a few other comments in this thread on this. Can you define what you mean by diversity (background or thought or something else)? Also, how do you measure its improvement? My speculation is that, because these are hard terms to nail down but easy to say, this becomes a perennial topic.

I would define diversity as a representative sample of the population and time in which the organization is situated. In this case, the US 2020 census. If it's good enough for the US Constitution and for Congressional representation, it's good enough for Yale. Maybe this was difficult to nail down in 1791 but not so much today. It doesn't have to be perennial. Once every 10 years is sufficient.
Post reply on HN