4 ms·

> "race is just one factor that's considered and can only help a student's chances of getting admitted." If this is their best argument, they'll fail miserably

> "race is just one factor that's considered and can only help a student's chances of getting admitted." If this is their best argument, they'll fail miserably. You're not considered in a vacuum. Your resume is considered relative to the others that have applied. If most other applicants receive +10 bonus points and you don't -- that hurts you. It's not rocket science. > Yet Mortara argued Monday the lawsuit is not a broader attack on affirmative action, saying Harvard has simply gone too far in its "zeal" to consider race. "Diversity and its benefits are not on trial here. I don't see how they can argue this with a straight face. It's all the same thing just called by different names.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
> I don't see how they can argue this with a straight face. It's all the same thing just called by different names. I think you can argue there is a difference between affirmative action (proactively seeking candidates for racial diversity) and penalizing based on race to keep the number of a particular race down.
- randyrand 8y ago
  > proactively seeking candidates for racial diversity What is the difference in practice? If we proactively filled all of Harvard with disadvantaged races and didn't accept any asians, would you still be saying the same thing? Proactively helping one race is the same as hurting others. Maybe there would be a difference if Harvard was helping disadvantaged races only at childrearing-time instead of at application-time (the definition of pro-active), but they're not.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  There are only so many slots. If you’re giving extra points to greens that’s equivalent to taking them from purples if there are a fixed number of places to compete for.
- fipple 8y ago
  But admissions to Harvard is a zero sum game. It’s not like they say before admissions starts “everyone with 210 points gets in” and then gives 80 points for SAT score, 80 points for GPA, and 25 points for race. It’s like an Olympic race where they let the Athlete from the host country start the race 10 seconds early. If the other athletes complained I don’t think “we’re not hurting you, we’re just helping them” would be very satisfying.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Say there are 100 people racing, and the top 25% get to advance to the next round. "We're hurting you" is that you have to start 10 seconds late. "We're helping them" is that a few people get to start 10 seconds early. Would you assert that the two scenarios are equivalent?
    - fipple 8y ago
      Yes, they’re entirely equivalent. I can win the race by 9 seconds and still lose.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        In this hypothetical, 25% of people advance. If you have to start 10 seconds late, you almost certainly finish outside the top 25% no matter where you were going to finish otherwise. But if a few people get to start 10 seconds early, you'll probably still finish in the top 25% unless you were going to be marginal to begin with.
        fipple 8y ago
        What does it matter how marginal I was? Either I earned it, or I didn’t. Does a team only get a Super Bowl parade if they win by 14 points?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

WillPostForFood 8y ago

> I don't see how they can argue this with a straight face. It's all the same thing just called by different names. I think you can argue there is a difference between affirmative action (proactively seeking candidates for racial diversity) and penalizing based on race to keep the number of a particular race down.

randyrand 8y ago
> proactively seeking candidates for racial diversity What is the difference in practice? If we proactively filled all of Harvard with disadvantaged races and didn't accept any asians, would you still be saying the same thing? Proactively helping one race is the same as hurting others. Maybe there would be a difference if Harvard was helping disadvantaged races only at childrearing-time instead of at application-time (the definition of pro-active), but they're not.
barry-cotter 8y ago
There are only so many slots. If you’re giving extra points to greens that’s equivalent to taking them from purples if there are a fixed number of places to compete for.
fipple 8y ago
But admissions to Harvard is a zero sum game. It’s not like they say before admissions starts “everyone with 210 points gets in” and then gives 80 points for SAT score, 80 points for GPA, and 25 points for race. It’s like an Olympic race where they let the Athlete from the host country start the race 10 seconds early. If the other athletes complained I don’t think “we’re not hurting you, we’re just helping them” would be very satisfying.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Say there are 100 people racing, and the top 25% get to advance to the next round. "We're hurting you" is that you have to start 10 seconds late. "We're helping them" is that a few people get to start 10 seconds early. Would you assert that the two scenarios are equivalent?
  - fipple 8y ago
    Yes, they’re entirely equivalent. I can win the race by 9 seconds and still lose.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      In this hypothetical, 25% of people advance. If you have to start 10 seconds late, you almost certainly finish outside the top 25% no matter where you were going to finish otherwise. But if a few people get to start 10 seconds early, you'll probably still finish in the top 25% unless you were going to be marginal to begin with.
      - fipple 8y ago
        What does it matter how marginal I was? Either I earned it, or I didn’t. Does a team only get a Super Bowl parade if they win by 14 points?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]