8 ms·

Whatever your views on affirmative action, this logic is hard to follow: Harvard's legal team denied any discrimination in its opening statement at Boston's fe

Whatever your views on affirmative action, this logic is hard to follow: Harvard's legal team denied any discrimination in its opening statement at Boston's federal courthouse, saying race is just one factor that's considered and can only help a student's chances of getting admitted. For institutions that have a limited number of slots available, it's impossible to say race can only help an applicant. I'm not making a value judgement here, just balancing a math equation. If we determine as a society that taking action to correct our structural biases is warranted, then own it. Not just the plus, but also the minus.

acchow 8y ago
Unless the external system already has a negative bias against a race and you're correcting for that bias inside your own system by adding race into the equation.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  I can see an argument that correcting for bias isn't "hurting" someone that comes with a preexisting positive bias. But if that's the argument, then you're not "helping" anyone either. You can look at it either as removing bias so nobody is helped or hurt, or you can view it in comparison to a 'race-blind' process where it helps some and hurts others. You can't cherry-pick half of each.
- function_seven 8y ago
  I assume both of those points to be true. That the external system is negatively biased toward certain groups, and that the point of affirmative action is to counteract that harmful bias. I'll even grant that affirmative action has been somewhat successful in achieving that aim. It's still disingenuous to argue that there is only benefit and no harm when re-balancing the scale here. Nothing irritates me more than intellectual dishonesty, and I perceive it here.
- rococode 8y ago
  I think the issue of affirmative action really comes down to whether people think this is OK or not. The real question is, "is it more right to give privileges to the underprivileged than it is wrong to take away privileges from the privileged?". It'd be nice to just have the former without the latter, but with a limited number of "privileges" available, there just hasn't been a good solution yet (and there may not be one).
  - sidr 8y ago
    > "is it more right to give privileges to the underprivileged, or take away privileges from the privileged?" In a world with finite resources (admission spots at Harvard) that are already utilized at their full capacity, it is not possible to have one without the other.
- randyrand 8y ago
  Harvard attracts people worldwide. Shouldn't it be a combination of race + country of origin? Hispanics are not discriminated against in mexico, for instance.
  - fipple 8y ago
    In Mexico the discrimination is based on skin color, and is far more extreme than in the US. At the end of the day the US is one of the least racist racially heterogeneous countries.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
hackinthebochs 8y ago
Discrimination in the pejorative sense generally includes an aspect of intent to act in a biased manner against a group. In this case the "discrimination" is incidental to the zero-sum nature of college admissions. So it's reasonable to say you're not discriminating against Asian students even though the outcome is the same.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I don't think this passes the smell test. For example, an employer would not be discriminating if he had a policy of hiring only whites, so long as he says he only wants to help whites and harm to other races is incidental?
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    Your example scenario wouldn't pass the smell test because there's no non-racist reason why someone would only want to hire whites, so it's obviously a smokescreen for racist intent. In the case of college admissions, there are plausible reasons for wanting to increase the diversity of their student body.
    - brighton36 8y ago
      Why should diversity of race matter? And if it does matter, shouldnt we be sending talent scouts around the world and country to find representations of unexpressed races? (Eskimos, Sherpas, gypsies, etc) if there are superior races, then it's fairly unequivocally a bigoted process no?
      - hackinthebochs 8y ago
        It depends on whose perspective you're taking. For example, diversity matters because a college like Harvard is attempting to prepare its student body to be leaders of society. Being in a diverse environment that more closely mirrors society plausibly is more conducive to leadership growth than being in a homogeneous environment.
rayiner 8y ago
The argument must be considered within the legal context. In this lawsuit, Harvard is accused of directly discriminating against Asians, not just indirectly harming them by giving a boost to black or hispanic applicants. Under no interpretation of equal protection is that acceptable. The indirect effects of affirmative action that you point to are, by contrast, permissible under at least some formulations of equal protection. Harvard's strategy thus, and that's what's reflected in the argument you quote, must be to (1) defeat the allegation that it is affirmatively trying to keep Asians out; (2) explain that any knock-on effects to Asians from affirmative action benefiting other groups is within the bounds of what the Supreme Court has found acceptable in cases like Bakke and Grutter.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > In this lawsuit, Harvard is accused of directly discriminating against Asians, not just indirectly harming them by giving a boost to black or hispanic applicants. But that's the exact same thing. If you have a system where there are 1000 slots and the 1000 applicants with the highest scores get in, and you give Asian applicants +0, white applicants +5, Hispanic applicants +10 and black applicants +20, the outcome is entirely identical to giving Asian applicants -10, white applicants -5, Hispanic applicants +0 and black applicants +10. There is no meaningful difference, the people who consequently get in are exactly the same in both cases.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Assuming scores are randomly distributed, your hypothetical gives different results if you give asians -5 than if you give black and hispanic applicants +5. Harvard is accused of excluding more than half the asian applicants who otherwise would have made the cut. Harvard does not admit anywhere near enough disadvantaged minorities where giving those folks a boost would lead to that many asians not getting a spot.
    - fmajid 8y ago
      Harvard (and other Ivies) repurposed a mechanism originally introduced by Yale to keep Jews out in the 1930s. If those Asian candidates had not been excluded using the arbitrary and capricious "personal" rating, it's mostly Caucasians who would have been displaced, not African-Americans or Hispanics. The personal rating differs widely between the admissions committee and the the alumni volunteers (who give Asians roughly the same ratings as other groups). This happens for no other ethnic group. This is the smoking gun for racial discrimination.
btilly 8y ago
Your reasoning depends on false assumptions. For example you assume that we are currently at the maximum number of available slots. If we aren't, then it may well be true that adding more people is possible without disadvantaging existing people. For a concrete example, consider how Dartmouth College went about admitting women back in 1972. The campus was already full. Yet they committed to not reducing how many men were admitted, with no new construction, and without increasing class size. In short they said that the new women would come at no cost to men trying to apply, and little cost to the university itself (certainly less than the benefit of the tuition.) They succeeded. How? They moved from a semester to a quarter system. Then arranged to have required second year courses that were only available during the summer to get rid of any stigma about "summer school". These changes let them go from the usual part time academic calendar that most schools follow to operating at capacity year round. The result? They met their apparently impossible commitment. And the new slots opened for women indeed came at no cost to the existing population of men.
- sidr 8y ago
  I'm not sure how reducing the size of units of measurements changes the overall quantities. What matters is the total class time = number of classes per semester/quarter * avg hours met per class. If you double the amount of total class time (by doubling the student body), and hold class size constant, you'll have to end up offering twice as many classes. If you don't hold those total hours constant, then you're short-changing the students somehow...and definitely short-changing the faculty by reducing their time available for research.
  - btilly 8y ago
    In the previous semester system, the campus was mostly empty during the summer. The way that they did the quarter system reduced breaks and filled the campus year round. The result was an increased number of hours of classroom time. Yes, this was more work for the faculty. But faculty is cheaper than buildings, and the primary mission of the school is teaching. They did not double the hours. But in the early years, they also had a pretty lopsided male/female ratio. They kept their promise.
- 8y ago
jiveturkey 8y ago
> this logic is hard to follow: legal logic often is. your error is in reading it out of the tight legal context/boundaries it is part of.
Balgair 8y ago
The problem is that a lot of top-tier schools MUST maintain the veil of a deterministic selection process. If it becomes known that these schools are essentially picking names out of a hat, then they will be inundated with applications and the 'brand' will be devalued as they will be swamped with applications. Think of it as a lottery. If the selection was actually random, what would be the price of the lotto ticket? Based on last year's acceptance rate of ~3% and the expected lifetime earnings of ~$3,000,000, then the price you should pay for that lotto ticket should be $89,800. Now, compare that to the actual price of ~$75 for an application fee. Even a flimsy application to Harvard is totally worth the money. If Harvard were to drop the act and state that it was basically random chance to get in, then their entire school would become essentially a lotto. That would quickly devalue the enterprise, not just monetarily but also in a holistic and educational way. Essentially, they have to at least try to CYA and make some real effort at determinism in applications or the whole thing falls apart. Unfortunately, they pissed off some pretty smart people and this legal battle threatens to lift that veil, hence the fight.
- throwaway080383 8y ago
  Nit: you need to calculate the Net Present Value of that $3,000,000, as well as subtracting the cost of tuition.
  - Balgair 8y ago
    True! That number is, at best, a lower bound. Interest rates will likely make it MUCH larger, even with an inflation factored in. However, I've no way to calculate that as I don't have a crystal ball. Good catch on the tuition! I did subtract it but did not mention it as I thought it would not read as well. In the end, the price of the lotto ticket should be MUCH higher when compound interest is factored in. How much is anyone's guess.
- keypusher 8y ago
  There is an element of chance in getting into any top school, but only among the applicants who meet all the other qualifications. That is, between two students with 4.0 GPA, great SAT scores, and a wide selection of extracurricular activities and community service, it's a toss up. But a student with poor grades has no chance. It doesn't matter how many times the student with bad grades sends his application, he isn't getting in just by random chance. When it comes to Harvard, I would guess that 80-90% of applicants can be dropped immediately due to grades, SAT scores or lack of activities. Out of the remaining pool, for those without extenuating circumstances such as athleticism or family connections, is where such as race and "personality" might become a factor, and who ends up getting picked has an element of randomness.
jsoc815 8y ago
> I'm... just balancing a math equation. Fine, but are you sure that you are working on the proper one? Having followed a number of these threads, I think people understand the admissions process as some simple equation where "high academic achievements" + extracurriculars entitle them to a golden ticket @ Willy Wonka U. That's just not how this game works! I have no affiliation w/the school, but have been through the game elsewhere and done a bit of research on their (and similar institutions') process. Their addy process is complicated, but not exactly inscrutable. As has always been the case, the school has an agenda and admits the people it thinks most likely to further it. (A number of books do a pretty good job of spelling this all out. I've mentioned at least one of them in previous posts on this topic and the search engine of one's choosing or a librarian can help the interested find the others.) The practice(s) in question aren't even specific to "elite" schools." A few months ago I attended an event where a State U president explained why they'd ratcheted down the admits for qualified "Asian" students (who actually would pay full freight to attend). Nothing to do w/ making room for "black" or "hispanic" students. But I guarantee you that his school's rationale is the same as Harvard's, Yale's, etc... I've pondered posting the recording of the event, but honestly, I never sense that the information would change the conversation(s) here. A lot of the comments here smack of attempts to scapegoat others and assuage bruised egos. Facts: "Asians" get gamed. "Blacks" get gamed. "Hispanics" get gamed. Btw: people should spend a little asking themselves 'WTF do those quoted terms even mean?' Chances are that your defs aren't the same as those of the addy staff, but I digress. Respectfully, be smart, folks. This is not an issue to be taken at face value.
- function_seven 8y ago
  So, I was just looking at available slots and how that interacts with the statement, "Being X helps you, but not being X doesn't hurt you". That just can't be. If having a certain quality increases your chances of admission by any amount, then it's the case that lacking that quality will hurt your chances by some amount. The only way around this is if the size of the incoming class is elastic. I don't think the admissions process is a simple equation. My "balancing" statement was referring to the size and composition of the admitted class. Also, I need to stress that I'm not anti affirmative action. My feelings on the subject are complicated. I assure you I don't take any of this as face value, and I see legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate.

acchow 8y ago

Unless the external system already has a negative bias against a race and you're correcting for that bias inside your own system by adding race into the equation.

Dylan16807 8y ago
I can see an argument that correcting for bias isn't "hurting" someone that comes with a preexisting positive bias. But if that's the argument, then you're not "helping" anyone either. You can look at it either as removing bias so nobody is helped or hurt, or you can view it in comparison to a 'race-blind' process where it helps some and hurts others. You can't cherry-pick half of each.
function_seven 8y ago
I assume both of those points to be true. That the external system is negatively biased toward certain groups, and that the point of affirmative action is to counteract that harmful bias. I'll even grant that affirmative action has been somewhat successful in achieving that aim. It's still disingenuous to argue that there is only benefit and no harm when re-balancing the scale here. Nothing irritates me more than intellectual dishonesty, and I perceive it here.
rococode 8y ago
I think the issue of affirmative action really comes down to whether people think this is OK or not. The real question is, "is it more right to give privileges to the underprivileged than it is wrong to take away privileges from the privileged?". It'd be nice to just have the former without the latter, but with a limited number of "privileges" available, there just hasn't been a good solution yet (and there may not be one).
- sidr 8y ago
  > "is it more right to give privileges to the underprivileged, or take away privileges from the privileged?" In a world with finite resources (admission spots at Harvard) that are already utilized at their full capacity, it is not possible to have one without the other.
randyrand 8y ago
Harvard attracts people worldwide. Shouldn't it be a combination of race + country of origin? Hispanics are not discriminated against in mexico, for instance.
- fipple 8y ago
  In Mexico the discrimination is based on skin color, and is far more extreme than in the US. At the end of the day the US is one of the least racist racially heterogeneous countries.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

hackinthebochs 8y ago

Discrimination in the pejorative sense generally includes an aspect of intent to act in a biased manner against a group. In this case the "discrimination" is incidental to the zero-sum nature of college admissions. So it's reasonable to say you're not discriminating against Asian students even though the outcome is the same.

weberc2 8y ago
I don't think this passes the smell test. For example, an employer would not be discriminating if he had a policy of hiring only whites, so long as he says he only wants to help whites and harm to other races is incidental?
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  Your example scenario wouldn't pass the smell test because there's no non-racist reason why someone would only want to hire whites, so it's obviously a smokescreen for racist intent. In the case of college admissions, there are plausible reasons for wanting to increase the diversity of their student body.
  - brighton36 8y ago
    Why should diversity of race matter? And if it does matter, shouldnt we be sending talent scouts around the world and country to find representations of unexpressed races? (Eskimos, Sherpas, gypsies, etc) if there are superior races, then it's fairly unequivocally a bigoted process no?
    - hackinthebochs 8y ago
      It depends on whose perspective you're taking. For example, diversity matters because a college like Harvard is attempting to prepare its student body to be leaders of society. Being in a diverse environment that more closely mirrors society plausibly is more conducive to leadership growth than being in a homogeneous environment.

rayiner 8y ago

The argument must be considered within the legal context. In this lawsuit, Harvard is accused of directly discriminating against Asians, not just indirectly harming them by giving a boost to black or hispanic applicants. Under no interpretation of equal protection is that acceptable. The indirect effects of affirmative action that you point to are, by contrast, permissible under at least some formulations of equal protection. Harvard's strategy thus, and that's what's reflected in the argument you quote, must be to (1) defeat the allegation that it is affirmatively trying to keep Asians out; (2) explain that any knock-on effects to Asians from affirmative action benefiting other groups is within the bounds of what the Supreme Court has found acceptable in cases like Bakke and Grutter.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> In this lawsuit, Harvard is accused of directly discriminating against Asians, not just indirectly harming them by giving a boost to black or hispanic applicants. But that's the exact same thing. If you have a system where there are 1000 slots and the 1000 applicants with the highest scores get in, and you give Asian applicants +0, white applicants +5, Hispanic applicants +10 and black applicants +20, the outcome is entirely identical to giving Asian applicants -10, white applicants -5, Hispanic applicants +0 and black applicants +10. There is no meaningful difference, the people who consequently get in are exactly the same in both cases.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Assuming scores are randomly distributed, your hypothetical gives different results if you give asians -5 than if you give black and hispanic applicants +5. Harvard is accused of excluding more than half the asian applicants who otherwise would have made the cut. Harvard does not admit anywhere near enough disadvantaged minorities where giving those folks a boost would lead to that many asians not getting a spot.
  - fmajid 8y ago
    Harvard (and other Ivies) repurposed a mechanism originally introduced by Yale to keep Jews out in the 1930s. If those Asian candidates had not been excluded using the arbitrary and capricious "personal" rating, it's mostly Caucasians who would have been displaced, not African-Americans or Hispanics. The personal rating differs widely between the admissions committee and the the alumni volunteers (who give Asians roughly the same ratings as other groups). This happens for no other ethnic group. This is the smoking gun for racial discrimination.

btilly 8y ago

Your reasoning depends on false assumptions. For example you assume that we are currently at the maximum number of available slots. If we aren't, then it may well be true that adding more people is possible without disadvantaging existing people. For a concrete example, consider how Dartmouth College went about admitting women back in 1972. The campus was already full. Yet they committed to not reducing how many men were admitted, with no new construction, and without increasing class size. In short they said that the new women would come at no cost to men trying to apply, and little cost to the university itself (certainly less than the benefit of the tuition.) They succeeded. How? They moved from a semester to a quarter system. Then arranged to have required second year courses that were only available during the summer to get rid of any stigma about "summer school". These changes let them go from the usual part time academic calendar that most schools follow to operating at capacity year round. The result? They met their apparently impossible commitment. And the new slots opened for women indeed came at no cost to the existing population of men.

sidr 8y ago
I'm not sure how reducing the size of units of measurements changes the overall quantities. What matters is the total class time = number of classes per semester/quarter * avg hours met per class. If you double the amount of total class time (by doubling the student body), and hold class size constant, you'll have to end up offering twice as many classes. If you don't hold those total hours constant, then you're short-changing the students somehow...and definitely short-changing the faculty by reducing their time available for research.
- btilly 8y ago
  In the previous semester system, the campus was mostly empty during the summer. The way that they did the quarter system reduced breaks and filled the campus year round. The result was an increased number of hours of classroom time. Yes, this was more work for the faculty. But faculty is cheaper than buildings, and the primary mission of the school is teaching. They did not double the hours. But in the early years, they also had a pretty lopsided male/female ratio. They kept their promise.
8y ago

jiveturkey 8y ago

> this logic is hard to follow: legal logic often is. your error is in reading it out of the tight legal context/boundaries it is part of.

Balgair 8y ago

The problem is that a lot of top-tier schools MUST maintain the veil of a deterministic selection process. If it becomes known that these schools are essentially picking names out of a hat, then they will be inundated with applications and the 'brand' will be devalued as they will be swamped with applications. Think of it as a lottery. If the selection was actually random, what would be the price of the lotto ticket? Based on last year's acceptance rate of ~3% and the expected lifetime earnings of ~$3,000,000, then the price you should pay for that lotto ticket should be $89,800. Now, compare that to the actual price of ~$75 for an application fee. Even a flimsy application to Harvard is totally worth the money. If Harvard were to drop the act and state that it was basically random chance to get in, then their entire school would become essentially a lotto. That would quickly devalue the enterprise, not just monetarily but also in a holistic and educational way. Essentially, they have to at least try to CYA and make some real effort at determinism in applications or the whole thing falls apart. Unfortunately, they pissed off some pretty smart people and this legal battle threatens to lift that veil, hence the fight.

throwaway080383 8y ago
Nit: you need to calculate the Net Present Value of that $3,000,000, as well as subtracting the cost of tuition.
- Balgair 8y ago
  True! That number is, at best, a lower bound. Interest rates will likely make it MUCH larger, even with an inflation factored in. However, I've no way to calculate that as I don't have a crystal ball. Good catch on the tuition! I did subtract it but did not mention it as I thought it would not read as well. In the end, the price of the lotto ticket should be MUCH higher when compound interest is factored in. How much is anyone's guess.
keypusher 8y ago
There is an element of chance in getting into any top school, but only among the applicants who meet all the other qualifications. That is, between two students with 4.0 GPA, great SAT scores, and a wide selection of extracurricular activities and community service, it's a toss up. But a student with poor grades has no chance. It doesn't matter how many times the student with bad grades sends his application, he isn't getting in just by random chance. When it comes to Harvard, I would guess that 80-90% of applicants can be dropped immediately due to grades, SAT scores or lack of activities. Out of the remaining pool, for those without extenuating circumstances such as athleticism or family connections, is where such as race and "personality" might become a factor, and who ends up getting picked has an element of randomness.

jsoc815 8y ago

> I'm... just balancing a math equation. Fine, but are you sure that you are working on the proper one? Having followed a number of these threads, I think people understand the admissions process as some simple equation where "high academic achievements" + extracurriculars entitle them to a golden ticket @ Willy Wonka U. That's just not how this game works! I have no affiliation w/the school, but have been through the game elsewhere and done a bit of research on their (and similar institutions') process. Their addy process is complicated, but not exactly inscrutable. As has always been the case, the school has an agenda and admits the people it thinks most likely to further it. (A number of books do a pretty good job of spelling this all out. I've mentioned at least one of them in previous posts on this topic and the search engine of one's choosing or a librarian can help the interested find the others.) The practice(s) in question aren't even specific to "elite" schools." A few months ago I attended an event where a State U president explained why they'd ratcheted down the admits for qualified "Asian" students (who actually would pay full freight to attend). Nothing to do w/ making room for "black" or "hispanic" students. But I guarantee you that his school's rationale is the same as Harvard's, Yale's, etc... I've pondered posting the recording of the event, but honestly, I never sense that the information would change the conversation(s) here. A lot of the comments here smack of attempts to scapegoat others and assuage bruised egos. Facts: "Asians" get gamed. "Blacks" get gamed. "Hispanics" get gamed. Btw: people should spend a little asking themselves 'WTF do those quoted terms even mean?' Chances are that your defs aren't the same as those of the addy staff, but I digress. Respectfully, be smart, folks. This is not an issue to be taken at face value.

function_seven 8y ago
So, I was just looking at available slots and how that interacts with the statement, "Being X helps you, but not being X doesn't hurt you". That just can't be. If having a certain quality increases your chances of admission by any amount, then it's the case that lacking that quality will hurt your chances by some amount. The only way around this is if the size of the incoming class is elastic. I don't think the admissions process is a simple equation. My "balancing" statement was referring to the size and composition of the admitted class. Also, I need to stress that I'm not anti affirmative action. My feelings on the subject are complicated. I assure you I don't take any of this as face value, and I see legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate.