Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
[deleted]
In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
301–310 of 363 posts
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#302Earlier 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, if a racist's perception of their race has been the cause of centuries of disadvantage already.
I do not agree, although there is also the consideration if the centuries of disadvantage continues even today, or not. If it does continue today, then it should be worth to mitigate such disadvantages, in order that such a disadvantage should soon be stopped, but that is not necessarily meaning that you should need to gain more advantages too.
Even so there is different way to be grouping, by race, by what language(s) you can speak/write, etc. But, you are individual person too. Don't be forced or group into something if you did not do it just because someone else does (e.g. people who have the same name as you, or with similar skin colours than you, or religions than you, etc).
They should have diversity, but the method for doing so should not be to force it, or to require certain quotas, etc. But, they should let them in. After that is happening, then you can see what is the result, I suppose.
You should not judge something that you do not know, before it is done; otherwise the judgment cannot be possible. This is the case whether it is racist or not. Unfortunately they too often ignore you because it is something that is not as they say is "normal". Sometimes this is legitimate but not always and so you should not make the early judgment, instead the late judgment is going to be better.
They say that "diversity encourages students to question their own assumptions, to test received truths, and to appreciate the complexity of the modern world", and yes this is necessary too; you can question anything. It is true if you have diversity or not, but being diversity can be helpful. However, you will have diversity whether or not they are visibly difference by race, etc, although that is one thing being diversity too it is not the only thing.
But, if Yale wants to accept certain people, they can do so, as long as it is not a monopoly then they can be accepted into other universities hopefully. (Whether or not they should reject certain people is a different question, though, than if they can be allowed to do so.) If nobody will accept them, then it is a real problem. If course materials can be copied, then it is helpful then you should not need to be accepted everywhere if you can read them anyways; but, unfortunately there is too much copyright and other thing, which can also be a problem.
> Beginning to repair that inequity is not racist.
Yes I agree, it is not inherently racist. But, that does not necessarily mean that none of the methods for doing so might be 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.
Do you have the citation about it (as someone else asked, too)?
> More people, overall, get elevated to the highest levels of academia as a result of these programs.
OK, then that will be good, but does it result in any excluding people? It should not exclude someone for reasons that are no good, though.
You say "for the kids who get bumped out of Yale, many other doors remain open". If that work, if there are enough other university in that area, which are of a good quality (for the specific kind of courses they wish to take), then it is good, but as I mention above, such things as copyright can still be the problem too.
The statistics also must be considered properly. You must consider the correlations, including the variables you know and those that you do not know. The reason why they result certain things also should be considered, like any good scientific experiment ought to do.
Some people in other comment suggested other policies, e.g. dramatically reduce homework, it can help black people too. Well, if too many homework is not helpful (actually, from my experience in school, I agree that too many homework is not helpful) then I do think that it would be helpful to be reduced, whether it specifically helps black people or not; as long as it is not harming black people (or other people).
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#303Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#304Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's possible to have meaningful diversity of thought without diversity of background. That spans many attributes—race, economic status, where you grew up, etc. Race is obviously an important one, given how much it changes many people's experiences and perceptions. I think diverse racial representation is important, but is maybe better viewed as an indicator of success rather than a metric to optimize.…
If they are truly looking for diversity of background, they can do that without race. If Yale focused on admitting smart, low income students they would have a much better diversity of backgrounds. > The median family income of a student from Yale is $192,600, and 69% come from the top 20 percent.
I would be interested in seeing what the percent of students are from the bottom 20% of incomes
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#306Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#307Earlier 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…
Deeply rooted institutional and cultural discrimination can only exist if discriminating behavior is acceptable when it done against the right target. Changing which demographic is permitted to discriminate (and hate) against only changes the smallest amount of variable, which is the opposite strategy of going deeper in the effort to eliminate discrimination. It is very similar to violence. People abhor violence when…
To continue the steel manning, here's a thought experiment:
What if a large percentage of people decided to exclude you from everything for some arbitrary reason. Just you.
People know who you are and pass you up for jobs, promotions, home loans, value your contributions less, etc.
The reasons don't make sense. They're impervious to argument. In some cases people deny that they're doing it, or seem genuinely unaware, but they're doing it just the same.
To you. Only to you.
Nobody is initiating violence. Nobody is actively stealing from you or harming you. They're just boycotting you, excluding you, assuming the worst about you by default...
What would you do? How long would this have to go on for you to turn to violence if nothing else made any difference?
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
How did that happen if America is so systematically racist that races can't get ahead on their own without positive discrimination?
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#309Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#310How many Yale students are there because of donations or connections. Nepotism is often the source of preferential treatment.
If they ended the legacy system they could kiss all donations from millionaire and billionaire alumni goodbye. In the first place, this whole "racial diversity" thing is a diversion in order to maintain their legacy system. Can't accuse them of being elitist and exclusionary if they regularly admit a quota of non-legacy applicants deliberately selected for racial diversity.
Thus it's the downfall of their academic strength, weakening the collective intellect of their student body in two different ways (50% even?). Now, for new fields like Computer Science, 5 out of the 10 top US Comp-Sci universities are public and 8 out of 10 non-Ivy. It's even worse when you account for the fact that Ivy's like Columbia are egregious offenders of attempting to fraudulently boost their US News rankings and are soon going to be absent consequently.
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-sch...