6 ms·

Preference for children of donors and legacies are such blatantly racist admission policies, it's shocking that they're even legal. The fact that this lawsuit i

Preference for children of donors and legacies are such blatantly racist admission policies, it's shocking that they're even legal. The fact that this lawsuit is targeting affirmative action rather than those policies is incredibly telling.

lalos 8y ago
I don't think income is a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely. Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist.
- khrbrt 8y ago
  Were you born yesterday?
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't post like this to HN. The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist. Wealth and race are highly correlated. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial-wealth-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rampant-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial... > A new study by Prosperity Now and the Institute for Policy Studies has found that white households in the middle-income quintile own nearly eight times as much wealth as middle-income black earners and ten times as much as middle-income latino earners.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Does that make every consumer product vendor in existence racially discriminatory? You have to draw the line somewhere.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      I believe jakelazaroff was objecting to lalos' description that "income [isn't] a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely." Anti-discrimination laws don't depend only on explicit selection of a primary characteristic, but also disallow discrimination based on secondary characteristics which are correlated with the primary ones. For example, can a company have an anti-beard policy for its employees? The answer is "it depends". There may be legitimate work-related reasons, in which case the company may do so, even if, for example, there is a religious objection from an observant Sikh who lets his hair grow naturally as one of the symbols to profess his faith. On the other hand, if there isn't a legitimate work-related reason then it might be found discriminatory against race. Quoting the example from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm : > An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. For example, a "no-beard" employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men (who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps). jakelazaroff's observation isn't simply that wealth is correlated with race and therefore any selection which depends on wealth must necessarily be discrimination based on race. Rather, it is an objection to lalos's incorrect characterization of how US civil rights law works. If someone were to make argument that wealth is correlated with race, and therefore expensive goods are discriminatory, then that may have some merit. However, it does not have legal merit. Companies are allowed to select what goods to offer and the pricing. A store can decide to only offer goods which are primarily used by men, or primarily used by members of a specific religion. Similarly, the law doesn't prevent a store from discrimination based on poverty. Also, this Harvard case isn't related to consumer products, and different sets of laws apply to student admissions, to employees, and to consumers, so your objection doesn't seem that relevant to this topic.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Wealth and race are highly correlated. Certainly you understand that correlation does not imply a cause, and it makes absolutely no sense to make racist accusations just because some people are able to buy their way into being admitted to a school. This line of argument, based on shoe-horning baseless accusations of racism with no substance whatsoever, onlu contributes to not take race-based accusations seriously, and that's a major problem because there are clear race-based problems in the US.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      Whether it's correlation or causation doesn't matter: that question can be rephrased as "is there a difference between de facto and de jure discrimination?" and the answer is no. "Accusations of racism" slightly mischaracterizes my argument. I'm not accusing any individual of racism, I'm saying that the college admissions system in many ways privileges white applicants.
thosakwe 8y ago
Affirmative action is often the scapegoat - legacies and donors are often entirely absent in conversations about it. Which honestly doesn't make much sense.
- philwelch 8y ago
  It's likely the combination of the two. If you have an x% quota for URMs, and you have another y% effectively earmarked for legacies, that sets an implicit (100-x-y)% cap for Asian-Americans and low-SES whites. Also, you have to factor in that legacy admissions are part of the benefit conferred by Harvard and other elite institutions. It transforms Harvard admission from a one-time personal benefit to a durable and heritable asset that can be passed down from generation to generation.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    It's a blatantly racist benefit, though. Princeton, for example, accepted its first black students in 1947 [1]; there are likely even students today whose legacy status is a result of their still-living grandparent or great-grandparent taking advantage of this. [1] https://www.jbhe.com/chronology/ https://www.jbhe.com/chronology/
_hardwaregeek 8y ago
The lawsuit is technically not about affirmative action. The part of the suit that involved affirmative action was dismissed. Right now what's only being determined is whether Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in particular. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/anti-asian-bias-not-affirmative-action-is-on-trial-in-the-harvard-case https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/anti-asian-bia...
- nameisu 8y ago
  no shit it does and every other college. why require higher scores for them
gwright 8y ago
It is a private organization. Feel free to argue that the policy is flawed or that the government shouldn't route tax dollars to Harvard or discourage people from affiliating themselves with Harvard, but legal constraints on admission would be an overreach that run into 1st Amendment constraints on freedom of association.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Discrimination against protected classes is still prohibited in private organizations. Even if that weren't the case, though, we should still oppose this lawsuit, which is quite literally an attempt to put legal constraints on admission to Harvard.
  - gwright 8y ago
    Anti-discrimination laws regarding protected classes aren't applicable in general to private organizations. I believe that they generally are related to employment and public accommodations and to educational institutions that receive public funds. There are probably some other situations also. So Harvard Book Store can't discriminate based on protected classes (public accommodation) and Harvard can't discriminate when hiring staff (employer) and can't discriminate if they receive public funds. If Harvard refused public funds then they could set their own standards. This is why I suggested that it would make sense to remove federal funding. For example, here are some schools who have refused federal dollars: https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-federal-money/ https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-fed...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- apapli 8y ago
  I’m pretty sure if a privately owned bar refused to allow Asian-Americans or any other person based on their appearance in the public would rightly have an issue. Why should Harvard, or any other organisation play by different rules?
nraynaud 8y ago
I my wife liked my joke that you can't say that they are crushing the minorities and complain that they are boosting the 1%.

lalos 8y ago

I don't think income is a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely. Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist.

khrbrt 8y ago
Were you born yesterday?
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't post like this to HN. The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jakelazaroff 8y ago
> Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist. Wealth and race are highly correlated. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial-wealth-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rampant-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial... > A new study by Prosperity Now and the Institute for Policy Studies has found that white households in the middle-income quintile own nearly eight times as much wealth as middle-income black earners and ten times as much as middle-income latino earners.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Does that make every consumer product vendor in existence racially discriminatory? You have to draw the line somewhere.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    I believe jakelazaroff was objecting to lalos' description that "income [isn't] a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely." Anti-discrimination laws don't depend only on explicit selection of a primary characteristic, but also disallow discrimination based on secondary characteristics which are correlated with the primary ones. For example, can a company have an anti-beard policy for its employees? The answer is "it depends". There may be legitimate work-related reasons, in which case the company may do so, even if, for example, there is a religious objection from an observant Sikh who lets his hair grow naturally as one of the symbols to profess his faith. On the other hand, if there isn't a legitimate work-related reason then it might be found discriminatory against race. Quoting the example from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm : > An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. For example, a "no-beard" employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men (who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps). jakelazaroff's observation isn't simply that wealth is correlated with race and therefore any selection which depends on wealth must necessarily be discrimination based on race. Rather, it is an objection to lalos's incorrect characterization of how US civil rights law works. If someone were to make argument that wealth is correlated with race, and therefore expensive goods are discriminatory, then that may have some merit. However, it does not have legal merit. Companies are allowed to select what goods to offer and the pricing. A store can decide to only offer goods which are primarily used by men, or primarily used by members of a specific religion. Similarly, the law doesn't prevent a store from discrimination based on poverty. Also, this Harvard case isn't related to consumer products, and different sets of laws apply to student admissions, to employees, and to consumers, so your objection doesn't seem that relevant to this topic.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Wealth and race are highly correlated. Certainly you understand that correlation does not imply a cause, and it makes absolutely no sense to make racist accusations just because some people are able to buy their way into being admitted to a school. This line of argument, based on shoe-horning baseless accusations of racism with no substance whatsoever, onlu contributes to not take race-based accusations seriously, and that's a major problem because there are clear race-based problems in the US.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Whether it's correlation or causation doesn't matter: that question can be rephrased as "is there a difference between de facto and de jure discrimination?" and the answer is no. "Accusations of racism" slightly mischaracterizes my argument. I'm not accusing any individual of racism, I'm saying that the college admissions system in many ways privileges white applicants.

thosakwe 8y ago

Affirmative action is often the scapegoat - legacies and donors are often entirely absent in conversations about it. Which honestly doesn't make much sense.

philwelch 8y ago
It's likely the combination of the two. If you have an x% quota for URMs, and you have another y% effectively earmarked for legacies, that sets an implicit (100-x-y)% cap for Asian-Americans and low-SES whites. Also, you have to factor in that legacy admissions are part of the benefit conferred by Harvard and other elite institutions. It transforms Harvard admission from a one-time personal benefit to a durable and heritable asset that can be passed down from generation to generation.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  It's a blatantly racist benefit, though. Princeton, for example, accepted its first black students in 1947 [1]; there are likely even students today whose legacy status is a result of their still-living grandparent or great-grandparent taking advantage of this. [1] https://www.jbhe.com/chronology/ https://www.jbhe.com/chronology/

_hardwaregeek 8y ago

The lawsuit is technically not about affirmative action. The part of the suit that involved affirmative action was dismissed. Right now what's only being determined is whether Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in particular. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/anti-asian-bias-not-affirmative-action-is-on-trial-in-the-harvard-case https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/anti-asian-bia...

nameisu 8y ago
no shit it does and every other college. why require higher scores for them

gwright 8y ago

It is a private organization. Feel free to argue that the policy is flawed or that the government shouldn't route tax dollars to Harvard or discourage people from affiliating themselves with Harvard, but legal constraints on admission would be an overreach that run into 1st Amendment constraints on freedom of association.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
Discrimination against protected classes is still prohibited in private organizations. Even if that weren't the case, though, we should still oppose this lawsuit, which is quite literally an attempt to put legal constraints on admission to Harvard.
- gwright 8y ago
  Anti-discrimination laws regarding protected classes aren't applicable in general to private organizations. I believe that they generally are related to employment and public accommodations and to educational institutions that receive public funds. There are probably some other situations also. So Harvard Book Store can't discriminate based on protected classes (public accommodation) and Harvard can't discriminate when hiring staff (employer) and can't discriminate if they receive public funds. If Harvard refused public funds then they could set their own standards. This is why I suggested that it would make sense to remove federal funding. For example, here are some schools who have refused federal dollars: https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-federal-money/ https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-fed...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
apapli 8y ago
I’m pretty sure if a privately owned bar refused to allow Asian-Americans or any other person based on their appearance in the public would rightly have an issue. Why should Harvard, or any other organisation play by different rules?

nraynaud 8y ago

I my wife liked my joke that you can't say that they are crushing the minorities and complain that they are boosting the 1%.