4 ms·

I would say you are arguing against quite a contrived point. The article speaks about the methodologies for holding fair lotteries in the context of doing this

• bonesss 9y ago
  > You are technically correct that allowing trading once wouldn't harm other students, but that is quite beside the point. The judge made this decision primarily on the basis that subsequent lotteries have to be held. I gotta disagree: Harm in this case is not the distinct action of losing a spot in school. Harm, as ruled by a judge in accordance with their legal system, is the unequal handling and unequal distribution of opportunity to a legally mandated, tax-funded, government service. The judge ruled the swapping unfair as it is _discriminatory_. The ESL author used a (highly appropriate!), term that's being parsed to death here based on a north american civil perspective. Had we seen this ruling in the states we would say the swapping was "unconstitutional under the equal protections clause". Because making some people more equal some of the time makes the rest of us less equal all of the time. The winners are enhanced at our collective expense.