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

291–300 of 363 posts

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

#291

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TameAntelope wrote: post #274
inkblotuniverse wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chanc…

> Going to Yale is not the focus here

You can’t say this after claiming someone “admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.” What evidence do we have that this is uniquely enabling for a person of one race and not another? Yes, it may be uniquely enabling for the affirmative action candidate. But that doesn’t rule out it being uniquely life changing for someone else.

> I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing

Shoddy form. (And self defeating.)

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

#293

Post by TameAntelope »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #291
TameAntelope wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chanc…

> Going to Yale is not the focus here You can’t say this after claiming someone “admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.” What evidence do we have that this is uniquely enabling for a person of one race and not another? Yes, it may be uniquely enabling for the affirmative action candidate. But that doesn’t rule out it being uniquely life changing for someone…

I can absolutely say that Yale being the only opportunity for some folks makes this bigger than “going to Yale”, in fact that’s exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time. For the affirmative action kids, Yale is a big deal, for the kids AA bumps out, Yale is not nearly as big of a deal.

And yes, we’re dealing in aggregate. Trying to cite specific counterexamples to the statistics is a waste of time because the whole point is that it’s, overall, better. Nobody is arguing that it’s strictly better 100% of the time… but you knew that, and made your argument anyway.

Fundamentally, do you care that certain minorities are massively underrepresented in many aspects of prosperity or not? There’s nothing self defeating about wondering if you’re one of the many people on the Internet who don’t care. You’re acting a lot like you don’t care, so the question is valid.

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

#294

Post by TameAntelope »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #285
TameAntelope wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Beginning to repair that inequity is not racist. What is racist is to think you're inherently better than them, which is what many people who want to end affirmative action believe. By all means: cite the data that shows this.

Cite data that the KKK wants to end affirmative action?

…uh, okay? [0]

[0] https://www.csmonitor.com/1991/0613/13072.html

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

#295

Post by stdsTho8 »

rac1smb4D wrote: post #250
stdsTho8 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why reading Anglo-gibberish is a standard? Does a bridges proper engineering rely on detailed emotional understanding of Shakespeare? Human language is only 5,000 years old they say. Leaving human intuition for quantity millions of years to fine tune itself; enough food, enough heat, to prevent biological death. Nothing about human biology is fueled or relies upon grammatically correct English and everything…

^ why reading Anglo-gibberish is a standard Because of the internet and the vast amount of knowledge accessible in English only. Even you, who is calling it "gibberish" is forced to use it to participate in these thread.

No post body was provided.

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

#296

Post by TameAntelope »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #287
TameAntelope wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> "Colorblind" is a racist policy that is promoted by folks who want to ignore the past and want to see minority racial groups languish and suffer. Again, feel free to cite the data. Or just continue to assign motive to people you disagree with, whichever you prefer. Edit: I should have looked before I leaped. Ascribing motive to people this account disagrees with seems to be their MO.

No post body was provided.

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

#298

Post by tomrod »

_-david-_ wrote: post #253
svnpenn wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe you may have missed the term "all else equal" (or ceterus paribus) somewhere along the way.

Your point is "well, duh" because your comparison is not valid. The way you are proposing, it compares apples and oranges.

To my understanding, the folks that study these kinds of things would split the situations you are describing into two groups, then compare group outcome statistics outcomes by race. Racism exists when the partial correlations are significant even when controlling for the other factors for a specific group.

So here, the poor person addicted to fentanyl has it worse when they are black. The wealthy person has worse outcomes when they are black. When that is consistent, then there is evidence of systemic racism.

There really is no value add comparing apples and oranges, which is what is happening when you make the comparison here. I recommend you reconsider your argument approach if you feel strongly that this comparison has merit as you've written it.

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

#299

Post by lp0_on_fire »

TameAntelope wrote: post #296
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Colorblind" is a racist policy that is promoted by folks who want to ignore the past and want to see minority racial groups languish and suffer. Again, feel free to cite the data. Or just continue to assign motive to people you disagree with, whichever you prefer. Edit: I should have looked before I leaped. Ascribing motive to people this account disagrees with seems to be their MO.

Quoted post unavailable.

A single tweet that links to an opinion article bashing a controversial nominee to the supreme court is hardly information, "my dude".

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

#300

Post by tomrod »

nxm wrote: post #63
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

How did I, as a white recent immigrant, physically abuse anyone? I had 0 advantages over others that were born here

Let's see if I understand the argument. Many people's ancestors didn't own slaves. But, because of social construct, they have a leg up (+advantage) in the present because of skin color in the present society of the US (not because their ancestors were abolitionists or slave owners). Which is why people argue against current racism, not solely historical racism.

So even if you didn't benefit from past injustices directly, the ongoing inertia in society results in your net benefit or detriment as an immigrant on average due to skin color.

(Note, I'm trying put the argument into perspective with a steelman, not dismiss your experience as you've described it.)

Post reply on HN