12 ms·

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 fr

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?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > if a privately owned bar refused to allow (...) based on their appearance You've described how bars operate on a regular basis. Some establishments even employ staff dedicated to control who gets in based on their appearance.

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?

geezerjay 8y ago
> if a privately owned bar refused to allow (...) based on their appearance You've described how bars operate on a regular basis. Some establishments even employ staff dedicated to control who gets in based on their appearance.