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

271–280 of 363 posts

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

#271

Post by [deleted] »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #264
TameAntelope wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're both racist! What you're doing is breaking the leg of some other guy who looks like the original leg-breaker to "make everything even". There were two problems, originally: someone was going around breaking legs, and someone had a broken leg. Now you're cheering on the next leg-breaker, and there's more broken legs in the world. Your justification for being racist doesn't prevent your actions from being racis…

[deleted]

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

#272

Post by [deleted] »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #264
TameAntelope wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're both racist! What you're doing is breaking the leg of some other guy who looks like the original leg-breaker to "make everything even". There were two problems, originally: someone was going around breaking legs, and someone had a broken leg. Now you're cheering on the next leg-breaker, and there's more broken legs in the world. Your justification for being racist doesn't prevent your actions from being racis…

[deleted]

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

#273

Post by s1artibartfast »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #174
samatman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> a doctrine that discriminating against Whites is very good and correct, because they deserve it. This is an argument put forth in bad faith. The thought - agree or disagree - is white individuals in America have systemic advantages that persist due to historical social practices the manifest across many years of education and just existence in life in America. It's not about "deserving less" but about acknowledging…

How does acknowledgement of favor manifest if not by punitive discrimination? Is a simple admission of favor sufficient, or must corrective action be taken?

It seems that this is simply the argument for why the punitive belief is just.

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

#274

Post by TameAntelope »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #264
TameAntelope wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're both racist! What you're doing is breaking the leg of some other guy who looks like the original leg-breaker to "make everything even". There were two problems, originally: someone was going around breaking legs, and someone had a broken leg. Now you're cheering on the next leg-breaker, and there's more broken legs in the world. Your justification for being racist doesn't prevent your actions from being racis…

They're not both racist, and no; giving a qualified person a spot at a prestigious university is not "breaking the leg" of "some other guy", when that "other guy" has many, many other opportunities to excel in their life, whereas the qualified student being admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.

Going to Yale is not the focus here, it's "being granted chances to excel in life."

You continue to ignore the actual problem here (that minorities are disproportionately failing to excel academically and in society), and I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing...

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

#276

Post by s1artibartfast »

tomrod wrote: post #228
nailer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, race is very much tied to socioeconomic status and class. Great! So looking at socioeconomic status will also address socioeconomic status caused by racial discrimination. Glad you understand and agree with the parent.

How do you identify socioeconomic class? Tax returns? Paystubs? Accounting for wealth generally? Wealthy folks typically don't make a large wage, they receive a dividend on investments and large loans against collateral. Note that this is critical to consider if we are to discriminate based on socioeconomic class.

These are the same exact metrics used to demonstrate that blacks are disadvantaged.

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

#277

Post by yucky »

tomrod wrote: post #247
yucky wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's far easier to determine socioeconomics. After all, if you're going to favor a specific race, how do you prove their race? What percentage of their bloodlines needs to be from that race? We really start getting into yellow badge territory eventually, and at best all it does is create racial animosity and resentment, which we see now: https://news.gallup.com/poll/318851/perceptions-white-black-... Meanwhile, e…

> Meanwhile, everybody pays taxes so we have the data we need to not use racial discrimination. Actually, the very wealthy _don't_ pay a ton in taxes, depending on how their wealth is invested and distributed. What wealthy folks often do is to take lending against their assets, giving them liquidity. This is not taxable income.

No post body was provided.

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

#278

Post by belorn »

tomrod wrote: post #228
nailer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, race is very much tied to socioeconomic status and class. Great! So looking at socioeconomic status will also address socioeconomic status caused by racial discrimination. Glad you understand and agree with the parent.

How do you identify socioeconomic class? Tax returns? Paystubs? Accounting for wealth generally? Wealthy folks typically don't make a large wage, they receive a dividend on investments and large loans against collateral. Note that this is critical to consider if we are to discriminate based on socioeconomic class.

Every social research paper must more or less identify and classify socioeconomic status in order to do proper science. What ever social concept a researcher is studying, the first thing people will ask is: "did you account for socioeconomic status?"

This PDF looks like a good start if you want to see how it get measured during research: https://obssr.od.nih.gov/sites/obssr/files/Measuring-Socioec...

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

#279

Post by akomtu »

tomrod wrote: post #247
yucky wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's far easier to determine socioeconomics. After all, if you're going to favor a specific race, how do you prove their race? What percentage of their bloodlines needs to be from that race? We really start getting into yellow badge territory eventually, and at best all it does is create racial animosity and resentment, which we see now: https://news.gallup.com/poll/318851/perceptions-white-black-... Meanwhile, e…

> Meanwhile, everybody pays taxes so we have the data we need to not use racial discrimination. Actually, the very wealthy _don't_ pay a ton in taxes, depending on how their wealth is invested and distributed. What wealthy folks often do is to take lending against their assets, giving them liquidity. This is not taxable income.

This little argument is a great summary of what's going on in our society: the rich are shifting the public attention from their wealth to skin color of the poor. "Weath is hard to quantify and we should stop talking about it, while skin color is very apparent and the Social Justice Book we've given to you clearly states that skin color is more important than money."

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

#280

Post by [deleted] »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #268
quantumwannabe wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because schools withhold a large percentage of their spots for "legacy students", a White kid who isn't rich or well-connected is less likely to get into these elite schools than an Asian kid with the same grades. Half of the White students at Harvard are legacy students [1] and White students make up 44% of the Harvard student body. 50.9% of Gen Z is White [2], meaning that slightly less than 51% of the population i…

Of the 44% white students, about 20% are ethnically Jewish. [1] Jewish people make up about 2% of the population, leaving even fewer slots, if you take that view. However, nobody is entitled to a slot in a private university. Public schools should optimize for equality of opportunity, but private schools should be free to use other measures as long as they dont go against civil rights act. This includes maximizing pr…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN