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

What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

sorting-machine.pages.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#171

Post by rayiner »

freejazz wrote: post #163
rayiner wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hypothetical fundamentally misrepresents the economics of what happened: > share the proceeds with nu employees … nu employees descendants ,who continue to profit from the previous theft by an order of magnitude Slaveholders were feudal lords. They didn’t “share the proceeds” with the serfs. They “privatized the profits and socialized the losses,” as we would say today. The profits flowed to a handful of familie…

You're a troll

No, I'm trying to correct a poisonous misconception. Many people try to justify affirmative action based on the premise that "white people" continue to benefit from slavery economically, and that's just not true. The profits accrued to a small elite, and other white people were economically worse off than they would have been with an economy based on free labor.

The ChatGPT summary accurately captures the expert consensus on this: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a58046380288191b946198c5de72ce7 ("Most modern economic historians conclude that slavery enriched plantation owners but constrained the South's broader economic development. While non-slaveholding whites gained social status from the racial hierarchy, they likely had lower wages, fewer economic opportunities, less industrial development, and slower long-term income growth than they would have had in a Southern economy organized around free labor. In other words, economically they were probably worse off, while socially and politically they enjoyed privileges that would not have existed in a society without slavery.").

I’m citing ChatGPT here because I think it’s pretty good at summarizing the literature on this sort of factual question.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#172

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #170
selimthegrim wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a Dominion, but again who was denying your relatives the franchise?

My understanding is that Pakistan got what we would understand to be real elections in 1970: https://mygoldenbengal.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/pakistan-vot... . In 1950, the National Assembly was elected not by the people, but instead by provincial representatives elected during British rule.

Your link mentions provincial elections in 1954 (excluding the ones during the 60s dictatorship)

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#173

Post by webnrrd2k »

rayiner wrote: post #167
webnrrd2k wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your charaterization of the problem as exclusively a moral wrong... Was it only a moral wrong? Was the only effect a moral one? Or were there physical or tangible effects, too? For example, were there economic affects? I'm not claiming to know the solution to the problem of ~200 years or slavery and ~100 years of Jim Crow laws, lynching, and further discrimination. I am saying that doing nothing about…

> I am saying that claiming that it's immoral to do something about it I'm saying it's immoral to try to correct one injustice by doing a further injustice to an individual who had nothing to do with it. And it's not even me saying that, Plato said that 2,400 years ago. That doesn't mean you can't do anything. You can have race-neutral policies that directly target individuals who have economic need. Cory Booker's ba…

Plato said a lot of shit. To be honest, I don't really care. The Bible said a lot of shit, too. I don't need Plato to tell me that in America, black people, native Americans, and all sorts of other immigrants got well and truly fucked for a long, long time. I don't need Plato to tell me that I find this, and other forms of racism, personally offensive.

Also, it's seems suspicious to insist that all Affirmative Action be halted before these race-neutral policies are implemented. It's almost as if it's some sort of cheap justification for more shitty racism. How about we get rid of affirmative action after we get a this baby bonds proposal? And also a bunch of other stuff that creates a more equatable playing field? Again, minorities were fucked over for decades-to-centuries before Afirmative Action, why not just let it ride for a little while before knocking out the ladder from under them?

Again, I object to your characterization of Affirmative Action as wrong or immoral. It was designed to counter centuries of institutionalized racism. I'll grant that the implementation has been imperfect, but what in this world is perfect? It's just better than doing nothing, it's better than wasting further lives, it's better than creating a permanent underclass. Could it be improved? Yes. Should there be an open discussion about it's effects? Yes. But I think the results should be more like "tweaks to the system" rather than an outright ban, or crying and gnashing of teeth about how Affirmative Action immoral.

One other thing, you keep asserting that "correct one injustice by doing a further injustice to an individual who had nothing to do with it." A few comments ago I pointed out some obvious counter examples, which you neglected to address. The important point was that people who had nothing to do with all sorts of problems willing submit to unfair treatment because they believe that they,or people they care about, will be better of in the long run for having done the right thing, even if it's difficult and somewhat unfair. That doesn't make it immoral. It may be a difficult choice, but it's the kind of choice adults make all the time, and that's just part of living in a civilized society.

[EDIT: I made a mistake when I said "A few comments ago" - it was a separate thread in this discussion]

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#174

Post by ndriscoll »

blagie wrote: post #169
ndriscoll wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is that not meritocratic? The goal isn't to find the most Christlike figure born to the humblest beginnings and tempted thoughout his life by literally Satan to fall off the good path; it's to find the actually realized best qualified person. If you're the smartest, most knowledgeable, most conscientious, most humble person because you had a fantastic support system, well you're still genuinely a great pe…

40+% of the slots at Harvard are taken up by ALDCs. That's most of the white students slots. If you're like, say, our vice president, you have quite literally a snowball's chance in hell of making it in. I doubt people are incentivized the way you think they are. Smug attitude aside, everyone wants best for their kids. Many people don't know how. They don't know how because their parents, grandparents, and no one in…

This all has nothing to do with the fact that the comment I replied to is suggesting that somehow actually being better is not meritorious. If your parents, grandparents, and community did know how to raise you better, and you turn out better, you're still better.

The point is we should not point to that and say "you didn't really earn that;" we should point and say "here is the example for others to look to. Everyone be more like them."

Like I had a broken home growing up. The valedictorian had an intact family in a higher social class. I put in no effort, was rude to people for no reason, and was generally not a great person. He worked hard, was friendly to everyone, and was generally a better person along pretty much any metric.

The takeaway from that is not to think "wow that wasn't fair," but to think "how can I try to be more like his parents for my kids?"

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#175

Post by nec4b »

dahart wrote: post #161
nec4b wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about white kids on the other side of the town with drug addicted parents?

What about them? Being white doesn’t make people immune to drugs, nor guarantee anything, right? So what’s your point? Race advantage is something you can’t always see by looking at individuals, especially cherry picked examples. Bias is a statistical effect, so you may need to look at everyone in order to see it, unless we are talking about clear cases of oppression, inability to vote or slavery or violence or thing…

>but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educated parents, etc) I had it orders of magnitude easier than the kids who grew up on the other side of town (black, less educated parents, etc).

How do the white kids with unfortunate life circumstances have an advantage over similarly situated black kids?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#176

Post by dahart »

nec4b wrote: post #175
dahart wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about them? Being white doesn’t make people immune to drugs, nor guarantee anything, right? So what’s your point? Race advantage is something you can’t always see by looking at individuals, especially cherry picked examples. Bias is a statistical effect, so you may need to look at everyone in order to see it, unless we are talking about clear cases of oppression, inability to vote or slavery or violence or thing…

>but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educated parents, etc) I had it orders of magnitude easier than the kids who grew up on the other side of town (black, less educated parents, etc). How do the white kids with unfortunate life circumstances have an advantage over similarly situated black kids?

They don’t. You’re cherry picking a biased sample. Black kids have “unfortunate” circumstances statistically more often than white kids, and some of that disadvantage stems from when racism was legal and widely practiced. It can take generations to fix wealth disparity.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#177

Post by dahart »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #131
dahart wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S. We know for a fact that outcome discrepancies were caused by racism before 1965. The discrepancies have been on the decline since then. So, when exactly, did equal opportunity start? We didn’t have it in 1966 yet, despite the law. Did we have it in 1980? Outcomes…

> Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S. Slavery, racism, and sexism have happened in every single human society that has ever existed in some form or another, the US isn't special here. Discrepancies in average outcomes between different ethnic groups as measured by the statistical tools of industria…

> No, we don’t

You’re either trolling or completely ignorant of U.S. history.

Look up Jim Crow laws; it was the law to suppress blacks in the U.S. for the better part of a hundred years, ending around 1965. Yes we absolutely do know for a fact that racism was a major causal force of racial disparities in the U.S. before 1965. This isn’t even up for debate, and there are zero respectable sources that claim otherwise. Saying we don’t know doesn’t make it true, nor change any minds, it just reflects really poorly on you.

You might also want to google Suffrage, lynching, red-lining, and the U.S. history of racial disparities.

It’s funny that you have heard of slavery, but apparently don’t understand how it held black people back…?

Here’s just one place to start educating yourself, if you want:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2022/how-the-racial-w...

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#178

Post by dahart »

nsvd2 wrote: post #154
dahart wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, at least when used to promote some groups over others. (Though it didn’t start that way; it started as a call to be purely race-blind in hiring.) I wouldn’t call it racism though, because it’s not based on any belief that races have different capability, it is purely intended t…

How could race-determined discrimination be anything other than racism?

Easily. Racism is the belief that certain races are inherently inferior. Positive discrimination in affirmative action is based on the belief that all races are equally capable, and seeks to adjust outcomes temporarily in order to counter balance the effects of cultural bias.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#179

Post by nec4b »

dahart wrote: post #176
nec4b wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educated parents, etc) I had it orders of magnitude easier than the kids who grew up on the other side of town (black, less educated parents, etc). How do the white kids with unfortunate life circumstances have an advantage over similarly situated black kids?

They don’t. You’re cherry picking a biased sample. Black kids have “unfortunate” circumstances statistically more often than white kids, and some of that disadvantage stems from when racism was legal and widely practiced. It can take generations to fix wealth disparity.

Such a weird perspective on human life. Where do you put white Ukrainian orphans compared to black American kids, whose ancestors were slaves on your grievance scale? Btw. you are also cherry picking a biased sample. How do you know which black kid is a descended of slaves and rich Nigerian upper class?
Post reply on HN