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

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

#621

Post by alfromspace » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #509

throwaway_law wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the e…

the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs No, that is not the justification being used. The argument used to justify this racism is that a rich education requires exposure to diverse people and ideas, and so the educational mission of the school requi…

The argument used to justify this racism is that a rich education requires exposure to diverse people and ideas, and so the educational mission of the school requires that they bring in sufficient numbers of otherwise-underrepresented racial groups. If they can't do this, they say, they won't be able to give their students a good education.

Do they present any evidence to support this claim? I'm only aware of studies like that of Robert Putnam showing that diversity is extremely detrimental to community engagement and cohesion, among many other things.

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

#622

Post by alfromspace » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:10 PM UTC

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…

non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x)

How strange - are these people allowed to benefit from affirmative action?

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

#623

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

throwaway_law wrote: post #170

throwawaysea wrote: post #12

This ruling is a travesty and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it when this is appealed. It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Take a look at the distribution of students by race in the University of California system, where they're not permitted to discriminate in this manner, thanks to Prop 209 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_20..…

> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the e…

> Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field.

Actually, SCOTUS specifically identified this motivation ("right these historical wrongs") as improper and affirmative action programs premised on it are illegal. That is why affirmative action programs instead talk about "diversity" -- SCOTUS blessed "diversity" as an exercise of judgment by the school that would allow otherwise impermissible race-based admission.

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

#624

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

throwaway_law wrote: post #607

JPKab wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 affirm…

> I would never have made it to an ivy league (I did get 1 offer

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

#625

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

mlevental wrote: post #603

webgoat wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> geography isn't a protected class

Frequently it is. Many laws specifically protect "national origin".

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

#626

Post by vageli » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

mlevental wrote: post #606

vageli wrote: post #443

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." 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

Ah, I was aware of a couple of suits in states. None yet heard by the Supreme Court, though (or slated for hearing). I wonder if the court would even hear arguments on what they consider to be settled case law.

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

#627

Post by throwaway_law » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #623

throwaway_law wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the e…

> Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. Actually, SCOTUS specifically identified this motivation ("right these historical wrongs") as improper…

No, that is wrong, the Justices are very clear about the historical context of these programs.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/)

>The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point "assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 510

If it were about diversity as you claim, rather than righting historical wrongs of inequality, there would be no concept of a termination point of these programs as diversity would be an ongoing concern ad infinitum.

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

#628

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #625

mlevental wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> geography isn't a protected class Frequently it is. Many laws specifically protect "national origin".

Kentucky isn't a "national origin."

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

#629

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

tomschlick wrote: post #616

shadowgovt wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Until everyone's cost of living goes up because they have an extra $1k/mo and landlords / retailers know it. The same thing happened with guaranteed student loans. When people have money to burn the market will react by increasing prices.

It might, but it turns out macroeconomics isn't that simple.

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

#630

Post by defen » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

dwoozle wrote: post #595

defen wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of…

> I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?

No concrete evidence, just my opinion based on personal experience. I attended Princeton as a lower middle class white, non-athlete, non-legacy admit. Most of the undergrads aren't particularly intellectually impressive - you'll find way smarter and more intellectually curious people in Silicon Valley. The Ivies have a baseline level of intelligence you need to hit, which isn't extraordinarily high, but after that they're selecting based on conscientiousness, willingness to work hard, athletic ability, parental resources, and luck. See https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-org...