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

Excluding people from everything in modern society causes harm. Starvation, exposure to the environment, psychological harm, atrophy of muscle and body. Excluding people from health care lead to further harm and eventually death. Taken to the extreme and we got murder.

If a majority of people voted to allow murder and violence then the most likely outcome is a civil war, but if in this thought experiment we are talking about only allowing murder and violence towards a single person, the best strategy would be to flee and seek asylum.

If we however limit this thought experiment to an degree which isn't murder and violence, and within the already set limits that government laws has specified (such as the European law of human rights), then if a large percentage of people decided to exclude me from a limited number of things, the best approach would be to political active to make the law even better while at the same time personally avoiding those people. No violence required. Mahatma Gandhi and nonviolent resistance is a good model when laws are unjust and need changing.

Although this is what they claim, it's hard to believe sometimes. Look at the meltdown that accompanied some smart alecs putting up posters that said nothing beyond "It's OK to be white". Wokesters went mad and started tearing them down anywhere the posters were found, implying that in their mind it is actually very much not OK to be white.

Of course, the problem here is that the woke aren't actually using race words to mean the actual skin color. It's all coded speech to hide the true target of their hatred - anyone who isn't as far left as they are. That's why they go nuts when they encounter black conservatives, or why you see white people are perfectly OK criticizing things like "whiteness". They aren't engaging in self criticism there, they've just established a convention amongst their community that "white" is coded speech for conservatives.

Scott Alexander has a great essay that examines this in depth:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

So whatever the policy does, the outcome is actually heavily weighted in favor of Asians vs. the share of the general population. Now, why is that? I would suspect a large share of second-generation immigrants in the pool (many immigrants I know push their kids much harder than average at academics), but I don't really know. Both "white" and "black" are underrepresented at Yale, but it looks like that is largely because of the non-resident students (who probably pay full tuition, helping to subsidize everyone else, if it's like the state school I attended).

I find it odd all the accounts suddenly interested in the outcomes for minority share races, but only for ones that are actually over represented (and therefore more likely to get into Yale than average, by the numbers).

This is BS relativism and you seem to be attempting to dismiss any culpability for cultures that impose unfair dress codes that primarily impact those who aren't making the dress codes and are less power or out groups.

> Nudists are generally only permitted in very narrow defined and small nudist zones, like say a specific beach behind a hill and behind a forest on the outskirts of a city. If the same would be applied to Hijab so that it would only be allowed in small and special Hijab zones located out of sight of everyone in the furthest located place, would it feel fair or unfair?

I think nudist are often treated unfairly, but there are different degrees to that unfairness in different areas. Other there are still default nudist spots in areas where nudism is legal since there are also community aspects.

I think allowing hijabs in some areas only or banning them in some areas only is less unfair than a blanket ban, but is still unfair unless there are legitimate safety concerns and the laws cover the entire class of headwear.

I would say that laws against nudism seem less targeted at a low power out group than laws against hijabs so seem like a greater abuse of power.

> We have situation like, should a male buss driver be allowed to wear shorts, or is it fair that the company dress code say that men should were suits and women skirts regardless of hot it is?

I think the company should be legally required to allow/offer uniforms that work in the environmental conditions their employees face. I don't think gender based clothing restrictions are ever fair.

> I know a person who had to quite his job because wearing socks hurt his feet so much and the dress code strictly required socks.

Unfair, unless there are safety concerns.

> Some people has been fired because they refused to remove jewelry where the dress code forbid it. Those jewelry was religious in nature and such the wearer felt they deserved an exception.

Unfair unless the rule was motivated by safety.

> Personally I think people should have the right to wear or not wear what ever they want as long it doesn't cause physical harm to an other person, but that is me.

I think there are other legitimate reasons to impose dress codes (safety, reputation, etc.) but what those codes are, how they are targeted and how they impact those effected all matter when it comes to justifying those codes.