In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by tomrod » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

buscoquadnary wrote: post #135

light_hue_1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Really, are you also more likely to be athiest as well? Because I mean Donald Knuth is pretty darn bright and a devout Lutheran. And when we say evidence and science are we talking about the evidence and science that guided our pandemic response? If reality has such a hard left bent to it why do so many communist nations end up massacring their people through famine when trying to implement their ideal utopian leftis…

> Really, are you also more likely to be athiest as well?

Surprisingly, this has been studied -- here a broad introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#S...

> why do so many communist nations end up massacring their people

I always assumed it was because Communism/Leninism/Maoism countries as implemented were authoritarian rather than democratic and encouraged "Animal Farm" type power distributions. Adoption of communism probably doesn't make people smarter, causally. But rejection of evidence-based worldviews can certainly have consequential results for individuals and communities.

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

#202

Post by svnpenn » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #85

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…

Which is more diverse: 1. Admiting a black boy who is living with both parents and who have a net worth of over $100 million 2. Admitting a white boy who grew up in poverty in Appalachia and lived in a single parent household

False choice. The article is about racial diversity, as is my comment.

Economic diversity is important as well. You don't have to have one or the other, you can have both. Unless the school is only admitting one person per year, as in your scenario. Please don't try to distort the issue.

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

#203

Post by mbg721 » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #146

mbg721 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he has privilege, and she doesn't.

Yeah, but why are Chinese considered privileged now, when before they were not?

Because when they were mostly poor railroad workers, they were easily manipulated, and now that they're middle-class professionals, they aren't?

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

#204

Post by tomrod » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #199

btilly wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not at all removed from my direct experience. (And I am, in fact, an Ivy League alumnus.) See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.ht... for the shocking level of acceptance of Marxist ideas in the social sciences, despite a lack of anything resembling evidence for it. And a tremendous amount of evidence that attempts at implementing Marxism have done insane amounts of damage to the world.

How is 18% Marxists in the social sciences evidence for "a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated"?

Personal experience can be source of bias in evaluation, News @ 10! /s :)

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

#205

Post by ffggvv » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #200

api wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with this argument is it assumes the differences are due to discrimination, but when we try to measure that we almost can't detect the effect of discrimination because it's so small. The differences are not skin deep like that, but usually have deeper roots. To be clear I'm not saying there are no biases like racism, but that it doesn't seem to be the dominant factor causing differences in outcome. Often…

it's turtles all the way down. people will simply say the roots of the other problems that cause disparities are discrimination. And if you try to disprove that.. you see where this is going.

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

#206

Post by Ancapistani » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

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.

> A person should be advantaged on the basis of their race

I read your entire comment, and understand that it contains more nuance than the first statement - but that does not diminish the fact that this position is explicitly racist.

You can either want people to be treated without regard for their race, or you can try to use racist policies to "push the needle the other direction". They are mutually exclusive perspectives.

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

#207

Post by btilly » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #199

btilly wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not at all removed from my direct experience. (And I am, in fact, an Ivy League alumnus.) See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.ht... for the shocking level of acceptance of Marxist ideas in the social sciences, despite a lack of anything resembling evidence for it. And a tremendous amount of evidence that attempts at implementing Marxism have done insane amounts of damage to the world.

How is 18% Marxists in the social sciences evidence for "a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated"?

It is evidence that academia doesn't require evidence for left-wing claims. So to the extent that they do that, insisting on evidence from conservatives is discrimination. (I'd prefer that everyone's claims require evidence.)

But https://www.johnlocke.org/academics-support-discrimination-a... speaks more directly to your question. Conservatives are discriminated against in academia for being conservative.

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

#208

Post by d_tr » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #155

macspoofing wrote: post #82

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. 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.

What about empowering all kids that for any reason subconsciously believe they aren’t capable of achieving their full potential instead of focusing on race?

As an added bonus, the black kid will then not feel like it needs some kind of special care as opposed to its white mates, because it won't be reminded all the time that it needs special care just because it's a black kid.

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

#209

Post by tomrod » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #158

light_hue_1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> The highest IQ people tend to be libertarian.

Libertarian, the conservative ideology, or classical liberal, the much more diverse group of folks?

Both are funded by Kochs and others at the end of the day, but having attended meetings by both groups my experience has been that classical liberals are very intellectually honest (and absolutely the smartest folks I've met) even when we agree to disagree. Libertarians, by contrast, usually are just incorrigible and recalcitrant.

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

#210

Post by eloff » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

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.

To understand that, you really have to go beyond the analogy. I think trying to address differences in outcome by discrimination is morally dubious and potentially could backfire and make things worse.