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

#251

Post by tomrod » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 6:48 PM UTC

sanity31415 wrote: post #77

xiande04 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the goal of using race in admissions is more about giving disadvantaged people an advantage rather than increasing "diversity of thought".

Assuming people are "disadvantaged" simply because of the color of their skin is a textbook example of "the soft bigotry of low expectations".

As well as "redlining existed in the lifetimes of the student's parent's generation, limiting intergenerational wealth and transfer to a degree that, all else equal, limited the opportunities for that group in many more ways that other groups did not experience."

Be sure to include the outcomes of racially motivated structural policies into your assessment and you will shortly recognize "the soft bigotry of low expectations" is a different metric altogether (one that PG has spoken on, where the average performance in-group is much higher than overall average, indicating you only hire cream of the crop from that group).

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

#252

Post by tomrod » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:03 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #242

tomrod wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classical liberalism overlaps in politics with some of the Libertarian party. The little (l) libertarians in the US are, recently in the age of Trumpism, conservatives embarrassed with the GOP as a conservative party and their support for authoritarianism/traditionalism. They adopt big (L) name, but typically aren't informed on a lot of classical liberalism thought and history. Classical liberalism is a large umbrell…

Ok, I think I follow. If I might rephrase, you are talking about the difference between philosophical libertarians vs. reflexive "don't tread on me" libertarians, correct? > The little (l) libertarians in the US are, recently in the age of Trumpism, conservatives embarrassed with the GOP as a conservative party and their support for authoritarianism/traditionalism. I find it interesting when people associate Trumpism…

Trumpism is a symptom of the underlying authoritarianism present since the Southern Strategy. I think we agree more than we disagree there.

Otherwise, yep.

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

#253

Post by _-david-_ » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

svnpenn wrote: post #229

_-david-_ wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, schools have a limited number of admissions so they may very well have to choose in a situation like this. This is not strictly about racial diversity. The article also mentions ethnic diversity so it is clearly more than just race. They explicitly mentioned socioeconomic situations as well. > In their amicus brief, Yale and the other schools said that during their admissions processes, they obtain and review…

so what is your argument? or do you even have one? The schools seem to want to be able to use race, IN ADDITION to other factors. What is the problem?

My argument is if you want to help disadvantaged people you can't look at race. The race of a person does not determine how good their life is and doesn't tell you anything about their privilege.

A black person with a large amount of wealth is almost certainly in a more privileged situation than a poor white who is addicted to fentanyl. Why should the white person be put at a partial disadvantage because of his skin color? Looking at his skin color will do nothing to tell you about their situation.

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

#254

Post by inkblotuniverse » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:05 PM UTC

alsaaro wrote: post #245

btilly wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lawsuit that they are filing an Amicus in was brought by an Asian-American organization for the purpose of getting Harvard to stop specifically discriminating against Asian-Americans. Therefore the brief is arguing for racism and discrimination against Asians. What is particularly galling is that the argument in the brief is defending the university's ability to pick students who have been affected by their race.…

The purpose of affirmative action policies is to help under-represented groups. Asians aren't under-represented at Yale, they are 19 percent of the student population, while only 6 percent of the American population.

So asian students are being punished because other asian students did too well? Back in the early-to-mid 20th century, universities had limits to how many jewish students could join each year, with the argument that if they didn't, jews would make up the entire university population. Are you in favor of bringing back that policy, as well?

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

#255

Post by _-david-_ » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

rac1smb4D wrote: post #248

_-david-_ wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind explaining why the black boy is more diverse? Is race the only thing that makes somebody diverse?

> Mind explaining why the black boy is more diverse? Because of the US History of subjugation of African Americans that includes the horrors of slavery. > Is race the only thing that makes somebody diverse? Nope, but is this context of elite US university, race is the only factor for diversity to undo past crimes on black people and their exclusion form only only these elite universities but all universities.

It seems to me that a rich black person is less diverse. They grew up in a good area, had two parents and are wealthy. Isn't that a huge chunk of the existing Yale demographic? The only difference is race.

In 100 years after more and more whites and Asians are denied positions they rightfully earned, should we reverse the races that get rejected due to their race? Blacks can then be rejected or do blacks get preferential treatment forever?

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

#256

Post by hintymad » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

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…

> This is the danger of focusing on equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. In my opinion, the former is not possible anyway,

For this statement alone the left can label you as far right. In the past 10 years or so, I repeatedly hear a consistent message: we fight for equal outcome. And of course, identity is a critical factor, if not the only factor, in this fight. I'm actually very curious how the American elites reach this conclusion, and how they reconcile the bloody history of people pursuing equal outcome (or in the name of it).

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

#257

Post by inkblotuniverse » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #217

Ancapistani wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 persp…

It's not racist as it does not support the idea that one race is superior or inferior to another. A "racist" idea would be that one race deserves more than another because of some inherent flaw or virtue. The idea of affirmative action is the objective fact that racist policies have already been created, and to decide to "go colorblind" would be de facto support for those racist policies that are already in place. Th…

The word 'racist' is overloaded and refers to multiple different things. 'One race is superior to another' is a racist belief. Discriminating based on race is a racist action.

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

#258

Post by shkkmo » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #221

tomrod wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this just mean that conservatives believe Marxism is an unacceptable worldview, since it exists? Why would we police evidence-based thought in academia?

If the thought in academia which leads to Marxism was actually evidence-based, then it should be easy to cite evidence for Marxism. You'd just have to read what they say and quote their arguments. But it is not. Evidence for Marxism that I've seen boils down to rhetoric. Evidence against Marxism involves mass famines, low economic productivity, failed predictions, and so on. Therefore a significant fraction of Marxis…

"Marxism" is a tricky term to use in an discussion because it means such different things to different people. The commonly understood meaning of "Marxism" differs significantly from the socioeconomic theories and models that Marx wrote about.

Even among academics, there are many different schools of Marxist thought.

The evidence against Marx's theories isn't "mass famines, low economic productivity" but his failed predictions of worldwide revolutions.

This may not be fair, but I am going to hazard a guess that you haven't read much of Marx's work and are instead operating off a pop cultural background understanding. That's not a bad thing, that's true of most people. One possible reason for the prevalence of "Marxism" in the social sciences is that I would suspect that they are more likely to have read his work and are probably self identifying as "Marxist" under a pretty different definition of the term than the one used in pop culture.

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

#259

Post by TameAntelope » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #257

TameAntelope wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not racist as it does not support the idea that one race is superior or inferior to another. A "racist" idea would be that one race deserves more than another because of some inherent flaw or virtue. The idea of affirmative action is the objective fact that racist policies have already been created, and to decide to "go colorblind" would be de facto support for those racist policies that are already in place. Th…

The word 'racist' is overloaded and refers to multiple different things. 'One race is superior to another' is a racist belief. Discriminating based on race is a racist action.

Fixing an inequity is not racist, the racism is the creation of the inequity.

This is like saying it's unfair to help someone with a broken leg because it takes time away from people with other injuries. The problem is that someone broke the person's leg, not that their leg needs attention from a doctor.

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

#260

Post by inkblotuniverse » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 7:21 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #168

akomtu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is called the crab mentality: "My family struggled so much in my childhood, so I want you to struggle as much. I'm miserable and you too should live in misery." People with this mentality really want some company, but this is turned into the crab mentality by their sick minds.

I think you’ve got a lot of soul searching to do if you legitimately believe affirmative action proponents support it in order to punish people.

No post body was provided.