Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process • Hacker News Board

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#331

Post by refurb » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

oarabbus_ wrote: post #149

whamlastxmas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's people saying there's too many whites and males in tech too.

Well, the difference being that white males hold institutional power in the United States, whereas that isn't true for Asian males (or females).

Well, not really.

The California legislature (for example) is less than half white.[1]

You could argue white males are overrepresented in some circumstances, but claiming white males hold institutional power exclusively (which is what you inferred) is just plain wrong.

[1]https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/CRB_2017-...

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#332

Post by akhilcacharya » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #259

akhilcacharya wrote: post #62

Nobody is entitled to go to Harvard and focusing on one institution does a disservice to folks (including Asian Americans like myself) who didn’t get into any elite institutions unlike many of the plaintiffs

We have the Civil Rights Act which is supposed to prevent this sort of discrimination. Walmart, for example, couldn't refuse to serve black customers and then claim, "nobody is entitled to shop here."

Walmart isn't Harvard.

If it was, it would again be incredibly disrespectful to compare it as someone that "couldn't go to Walmart". Unlike Harvard, Walmart isn't exclusive by definition.

Now, if a community college was accused of something like this (somehow), you have my rapt attention.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#333

Post by thereare5lights » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

akhilcacharya wrote: post #62

Nobody is entitled to go to Harvard and focusing on one institution does a disservice to folks (including Asian Americans like myself) who didn’t get into any elite institutions unlike many of the plaintiffs

This adds nothing to the conversation because no one is saying that.

People are saying that they're entitled to a fair opportunity to get in, not that they're entitled to get in period.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#334

Post by manfredo » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #273

rr-geil-j wrote: post #89

This feels reminiscent of 'diversity hires' where females and/or members of the LGBT+ community are preferred not because of competency/merit but to improve a company's diversity metrics. Disclaimer: I haven't experienced this myself. I only read/heard of these complaints from other people.

Who’s actually doing this? In a way that is actually documented? Most evidence I’ve seen of this happening has been hearsay. Note: Trying to make the applicant pool more diverse is not the same as hiring someone solely because of diversity.

Intel started to withhold a portion of bonuses unless engineering departments achieved percentages of diverse employees, and other companies have followed suit [1]. Microsoft gives hiring managers incentives to hire people of certain genders and ethnicities, which was brought into question recently [2].

I can personally confirm that this results in discriminatory behavior when my previous company instituted these policies. Diverse candidates that failed 2/3rd of our interviews usually got offers, whereas non-diverse candidates generally had to pass 2/3rds of the interviews or more. This year, the company introduced a policy of withholding 20 positions for diverse candidates. When people know their bonuses are going to be compromised unless they hit N% diversity, do you really expect them to treat diverse candidates and non-diverse candidates the same? The company institutes these policies and then it's speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil.

It might not be as egregious as "hiring someone solely because of diversity" but it's definitely discrimination.

1. https://www.payscale.com/compensation-today/2019/03/tie-bonu...

2. https://qz.com/1598345/microsoft-staff-are-openly-questionin...

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#335

Post by fortran77 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

xenihn wrote: post #208

slg wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the responses here are talking about ethnicity or Jewish identity, but I think when it comes down to it, Jews are considered white mainly when other white people want to consider them as such. I would bet that your average Ashkenazi Jew (it is worth noting there are multiple different Jewish ethnic groups) has more genetic commonality with an average person of Ukrainian descent than that Ukrainian person has…

Arabs, Armenians, North Africans, and Persians are all considered white in the US.

Not according to many people on the Left. Congresswoman Tlaib, for example, identifies herself as a "Woman of Color" (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429550-tlaib-people-hear-...).

My maternal grandparents were born in Gaza City, and Syria respectively. Grandmother was expelled Gaza in 1929, and the Syrian grandfather was expelled from Syria in 1927. Both families had been there for many generations, if not since Temple times.

When I'm in the United States, even though I am very dark, I am never considered a "Person of Color" solely because of my religion. Other people from the same places _are_ "Persons of Color" if their religion differs.

I'm darker than Ms. Tlaib if you want to get your colorimiters out.

It's 12:54 AM in Tel Aviv now, where I am. (I spend about half my time here and half in Silicon Valley).

However in the United States it's still Rosh Hashanah. I think it's a little unfair to have a discussion about Jews and affirmative action in the United States at a time when observant Jews will not be on-line.

Shanah Tovah.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#336

Post by akhilcacharya » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

thereare5lights wrote: post #333

akhilcacharya wrote: post #62

Nobody is entitled to go to Harvard and focusing on one institution does a disservice to folks (including Asian Americans like myself) who didn’t get into any elite institutions unlike many of the plaintiffs

This adds nothing to the conversation because no one is saying that. People are saying that they're entitled to a fair opportunity to get in, not that they're entitled to get in period.

They got a fair shot. A judge just determined it.

I got a fair shot. I didn't get in. Can the plaintiffs move on?

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#337

Post by growlist » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #273

rr-geil-j wrote: post #89

This feels reminiscent of 'diversity hires' where females and/or members of the LGBT+ community are preferred not because of competency/merit but to improve a company's diversity metrics. Disclaimer: I haven't experienced this myself. I only read/heard of these complaints from other people.

Who’s actually doing this? In a way that is actually documented? Most evidence I’ve seen of this happening has been hearsay. Note: Trying to make the applicant pool more diverse is not the same as hiring someone solely because of diversity.

>Who’s actually doing this? In a way that is actually documented?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also I think it stretches the bounds of credulity to assert that an industry that bangs on and on about wanting to increase diversity is somehow also a perfect, disinterested and impartial judge.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#338

Post by CompanionCuuube » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #159

muh_gradle wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all know that number should probably be higher if we're actually caring about academic performance. Affirmative action doesn't actually bother me as much as legacy based admissions. Just absolutely idiotic that it's accepted.

Indeed, Harvard's own internal study determined that if academics were all that mattered, 43% of admitted students would be Asian. The major factors pushing down that percentage are legacy admissions and the vague "personal rating," which seems to be the knob Harvard admissions turns to get the demographic ratios it desires. Asians are systematically given a far lower "personal rating" than other demographics. Source…

"Personal rating" is the new "cultural fit".

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#339

Post by zhugeIiang » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

We have to consider not about who gets into Harvard. What is more important is the incentive structure that our education system is creating. If our system rewards people who play "victimization" games, that would encourage the next generation to prioritize writing stories that complain about the barriers in their way. If we had a system that rewarded learning a skill like mathematics, reading, writing, and only focused on these, we would have the next generation devoting more time, money, and energy to obtaining mastery over these. You can look at China, where families and students spend thousands of dollars on tutors, and some tutors are millionaires. Encouraging investment and dedication to learning is a good thing. True, you might take it too far, but it is far better to have an educated population that can think for itself.

The SAT should transition to something like the National Exam in other countries. Offered only once a year, entirely free, very rigorous, and encompassing all subjects. This will provide both the carrot and the stick for the next generation to apply themselves to education. We need a culture that loves education and learning, not just sports and drama.

Re: Federal Judge Upholds Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Process

#340

Post by lordgrenville » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #321

lordgrenville wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For example, both the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa, two regimes obsessed with racial classification, never even considered that Jews might not be white. Not true about South Africa: "Shortly after the Union of South Africa received dominion status in 1910, the new Boer rulers proposed to re-classify the Jews as "coloured" because they originally came from the Middle East, and hence were not really European…

Do you have a citation for that other than Quora?

No. It's something I heard growing up in SA, and I thought there'd be lots of sources about it online, but that was all I could find. It's possible that it's a myth - happy to hear from someone who knows more.