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

41–50 of 363 posts

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

#41

Post by bmj »

ramesh31 wrote: post #8
vorpalhex wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't give one racial group a disadvantage (Asians) to give another one an advantage. The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind.

>The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind. Asian immigrants are not struggling to escape the clutches of centuries old intergenerational poverty. It's not even remotely the same thing.

But I believe plenty of Asians feel the pain of racism, right? And let's not forget about interring Japanese-Americans during World War II. Sure, the Japanese experience in the United States didn't begin with slavery, but let's not assume they do not suffer the effects of racism.

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

#42

Post by ser13 »

tomrod wrote: post #2

I didn't realize college admissions' affirmative action had reached SCOTUS. I wonder what the outcome will be. Key summary: > "Today Yale joined peer institutions in stating emphatically that student diversity is essential to the missions of American universities and promotes educational excellence for all students,” President Peter Salovey said. “Our amicus curiae brief makes clear that the way we consider race and…

I recently listened to the 5-4 podcast episode "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1" that covered the 2007 US Supreme Court decision. It discusses using race in public school choice and discusses two different interpretations of the 14th amendment. "If you take 14th Amendment, or have any sort of class that talks about desegregation in public schools, there are two different ways of thinking about the holding in Brown versus Board of Education. One is that Brown versus Board of Education is an anti-classification case, and the other is that it's an anti-subordination case." [1] As a member of the public with no background in law, I suspect that this distinction may be what SCOTUS will rule on in these upcoming cases. If you're interested in the topic and enjoy podcasts, I highly recommend this episode.

[1] https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/parents-involved-in-com...

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

#44

Post by tomrod »

Invictus0 wrote: post #16
tomrod wrote: post #2

I didn't realize college admissions' affirmative action had reached SCOTUS. I wonder what the outcome will be. Key summary: > "Today Yale joined peer institutions in stating emphatically that student diversity is essential to the missions of American universities and promotes educational excellence for all students,” President Peter Salovey said. “Our amicus curiae brief makes clear that the way we consider race and…

The Ivy leagues today are anything but diverse in thought, this should be obvious. What actually exists is a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated. I ought to expand on this since this comment will surely be controversial. I make no comment on which view is right or wrong; but suppose the conservative view were favored, and any disagreement with the ideology got your fired from your job, publicly…

This is pretty far removed from my direct experience with Ivy League alumni and professors (coauthors, colleagues, coworkers). It is a common refrain though. Elements of conservatism are sometimes viewed as being eschewed when they are ideologically based and the evidence doesn't support claims. But this is true generally and a consequence of the academic incentive structure where there are never enough resources to fund.

On the other hand, academic malfeasance does occur (e.g. Alzheimers research in recent decades), so the system is far from perfect, but the risky/rewarding incentive is to absolutely decry the current state as being completely wrong. Consider Nassim Taleb's popularization after the Great Recession as a great example, or earlier Paul Krugman's transaction cost theories.

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

#45

Post by georgestephanis »

Invictus0 wrote: post #16
tomrod wrote: post #2

I didn't realize college admissions' affirmative action had reached SCOTUS. I wonder what the outcome will be. Key summary: > "Today Yale joined peer institutions in stating emphatically that student diversity is essential to the missions of American universities and promotes educational excellence for all students,” President Peter Salovey said. “Our amicus curiae brief makes clear that the way we consider race and…

The Ivy leagues today are anything but diverse in thought, this should be obvious. What actually exists is a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated. I ought to expand on this since this comment will surely be controversial. I make no comment on which view is right or wrong; but suppose the conservative view were favored, and any disagreement with the ideology got your fired from your job, publicly…

No post body was provided.

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

#46

Post by xanaxagoras »

dilap wrote: post #9
ramesh31 wrote: post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

We discriminated against blacks in the past, so whites and asians deserve to be discriminated against in the present. Is this your position?

That is literally the slogan of one of the saints of their ridiculous new religion, Ibram Kendi:

"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

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

#47

Post by akomtu »

longtimelistnr wrote: post #14
dbsights wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason we should have had a problem with it then. If racism is wrong, then it shouldn't matter which race.

Sure but this isn’t racism, it’s compensating for inequalities that are not fixable by “trying harder” or any individuals personal responsibility.

That's vendetta of mafia clans: "You don't know me and I don't know you, but your grandpa offended my grandpa a century ago, so today I'm going to offend you."

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

#50

Post by TameAntelope »

zmgsabst wrote: post #17
longtimelistnr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but this isn’t racism, it’s compensating for inequalities that are not fixable by “trying harder” or any individuals personal responsibility.

Quoted post unavailable.

It is not racism, as for it to be racist it would have to support the idea that people of one race are inherently superior in some form or another to another race.

Adjusting representation is not making any claim whatsoever about ability around members of any race, it's attempting to adjust for those kinds of claims that have already (falsely) been made.

Nobody who is implementing these policies in any of these Ivy League schools thinks Asian students are smarter or that non-Asian students are dumber.

Post reply on HN