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

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

#601

Post by habosa » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 11:30 AM UTC

habosa wrote: post #96

deogeo wrote: post #37

For perspective, here are the Harvard vs US demographics, sorted by most to least represented [1,2,3,4]: Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x) Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x) Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x) Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x) African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x) Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x) non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x) [1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/adm…

As a Jewish person I feel weird seeing "whites" being broken into Jewish and non-Jewish. What about other religions? Why include religion at all? In particular with respect to Harvard and Boston I'd think Catholicism might deserve a mention if we're going to bring religion into this. In the end I think religious diversity is important but it doesn't belong in the same conversation. You can choose your religion and al…

Well this is the most replies I have ever gotten on HN. I strongly regret discussion my feelings on my own religion on here.

If people don't think that breaking "whites" down into Jewish/Non-Jewish and nothing else is strange then I don't think we can discuss this topic rationally.

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

#602

Post by mlevental » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:08 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #547

filoleg wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, why not just lump most of it under "socioeconomic disadvantages" category (mostly based on the family's financial situation)? E.g., poor asian kids shouldn't be grouped with the less poor asian kids and shouldn't have been at a disadvantage compared to a rich african american kid for admission purposes. This proposed approach sounds so obvious, I feel like there has gotta be some caveat in it that I…

Yes it is gamed.. a lot of rich kids "emancipate" from their parents to qualify for financial aid for example and probably preferred admissions.

I love this thing that happens where someone jumps in to make an incisive point based on something they learned just recently and even on this same forum. the article about emancipation was posted here just like 2 weeks ago. so that's how certain you should be about that fact. and yet here you are proclaiming it as if you yourself have done the research and know exactly how prevalent emancipation is.

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

#603

Post by mlevental » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:12 PM UTC

webgoat wrote: post #584

widowlark wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the data still shows widespread economic disparity due to discrimination

The data also shows widespread economic disparity due to geography, yet Harvard doesn't give the poor kids an extra 200 points on their SAT. If Harvard actually cared about this issue they would create additional scholarship programs that review people on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket policy.

geography isn't a protected class. it's not a class at all. it's a set of circumstances. your skin color and the privileges or liabilities incurred are inescapable.

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

#604

Post by mlevental » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:18 PM UTC

packet881 wrote: post #490

bigendian1234 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I'm a white person who used to think of affirmative action as unfair discrimination. That was true until I spent time volunteering teaching technical skills to kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods. Now that I have had an up close experience with these communities, I'm here to tell you institutional racism is real and we're far from it making sense to end these programs. There simply is not a quick easy solution…

Feel free to make your voice heard by your vote and donate from your paycheck. This is a zero sum game and my ancestors were not oppressing either latinos or Africans. I'll make my voice heard by not voting for Democrats.

> my ancestors were not oppressing either latinos or Africans. I'll make my voice heard by not voting for Democrats.

so I guess you're making up for lost time? or setting the precedent for your own progeny? because I'm like 100% sure that during the era of slavery the same arguments were made by slavers - "my ancestors didn't participate in the crusades so I'm morally absolved..."

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

#605

Post by smashthepants » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:19 PM UTC

tomschlick wrote: post #471

smashthepants wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is defined - equality. If it mattered to you it wouldn't be a complicated concept to grasp. And just as I said in my previous comment, this is the exact sentiment that prevents the goal of equality from being reached. Just because something has never been done that doesn't mean that it can't be done. And if you and everyone who doesn't support such a policy are unwilling to participate, then you're right, it…

There will always be rich, there will always be poor. That's simple economics. There has not been a society in human history that hasn't had those. Pretending that you can magically wish that away is crazy. Our system is based on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If there are issues with the opportunity then we should work to fix those (like is already being done in inner cities cleaning up the drugs/…

The problems were created by giving preferential treatment based on race, but the solution is to ignore race?

No one is advocating wishing anything away. If you want to focus specifically on equality of opportunity you can't do so without recognizing that race directly affects which opportunities are available to whom. Any solution that ignores that is just more of the same. And doing more of the same only extends the timeline of "when" that the original comment took issue with.

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

#606

Post by mlevental » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:22 PM UTC

vageli wrote: post #443

balls187 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent. Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem. The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor."

> > You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent. > Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem. > The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor." Are new Roe v Wade like cases being…

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/fede...

I'm sure you're aware that like 10 other states have similar cases working their way through the court system

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

#607

Post by throwaway_law » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:33 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #504

bigendian1234 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I'm a white person who used to think of affirmative action as unfair discrimination. That was true until I spent time volunteering teaching technical skills to kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods. Now that I have had an up close experience with these communities, I'm here to tell you institutional racism is real and we're far from it making sense to end these programs. There simply is not a quick easy solution…

Do you think the kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods are in worse positions than poor kids in eastern Kentucky? Because the current policies treat white kids from trailer parks like white kids from fancy suburbs. And they treat FOB Asians like they are doctor's children. And black kids from fancy suburbs are treated as if they came from poor ghettos. The idea that "oppression" is limited to dimensions of race and ge…

>Do you think the kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods are in worse positions than poor kids in eastern Kentucky?

You have to distinguish affirmative action (in hiring/employment) and race based factors in college admissions.

Most colleges that use race/minority status as a factor in admissions also generally also use socioeconomic status as a factor. However, I am not familiar with any employment/hiring based affirmative action that looks at socioeconomic status.

Just as an example, I went to a top 50 (at the time) public high school in the country, the school is located in a large city (hint: where Jeff Bezos went). I had a 4.0 GPA and was the 50th percentile of the class, approximately #750 out of 1500 kids in my class. Colleges take that into account and I would never have made it to an ivy league (I did get 1 offer, but because I was an athlete and they wanted me to compete for them), but all things being equal if I came from that poor rural area you reference I would be looked at like a scholar, maybe even #1 in the graduating class vs #750, and I might have had multiple Ivy league admissions.

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

#608

Post by habnds » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:47 PM UTC

rohit2412 wrote: post #469

Anechoic wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would give affirmative action based on economic status, not race But race also matters in terms of starting position.

Yes, a lot in terms of cultural differences. So Asian-americans are being discriminated against because their parents make them study hard?

My parents were really supportive of me in school; someone whose parents weren't as supportive of them, who got the same grades as me is probably a better student and will be more sucessful with a given set of resources than I would since they overcame more adversity than I did.

It's a little crude to use race maybe, but it probably isn't a terrible approximation. What would be great is if people had to disclose any paid preparation for the SAT or the hours their parents spent with them growing up but that's probably a long way off.

Overall, this issue is framed to be as controversial as possible by political interests but it really isn't that big a deal.

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

#609

Post by big_chungus » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #532

JPKab wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are all of your coworkers equally productive? Neighbors? Relatives? The answer for all 3 for me personally is no. I have family members who make decisions based on different priorities which change their income. My coworkers differ radically in their abilities and work ethic. How can they have equal incomes in this scenario? There is a way to do this, and it hasn't worked any time it's been tried.

I mean, "universal basic income" would be a good start.

Adding one thousand to most statistical measures will either not change it or shift it by one thousand.

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

#610

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

paggle wrote: post #589

shadowgovt wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Harvard maintain that lauded reputation if it's known to admit a racial monoculture? Especially in, say, the technology fields, where we've seen the negative impact of such monoculture in the quality of software developed using machine learning algorithms?

All of the biggest software companies have almost no black engineers and relatively few female engineers. They still manage to make money hand over fist, looks like their software is good enough to do the job.

So you're satisfied with "makes money, but has known biases against people's inborn traits."

In general, we is a society (in America at least) have decided that's not good enough. It hasn't been good enough since the time there was one facility for the whites and one facility for the coloreds.