20 ms·

This ruling is a travesty and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it when this is appealed. It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically ra

This ruling is a travesty and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it when this is appealed. It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Take a look at the distribution of students by race in the University of California system, where they're not permitted to discriminate in this manner, thanks to Prop 209 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_209 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_20...) - it is very different (more Asians) compared to private schools like Harvard.

crazypyro 7y ago
Harvard has a 25%+ Asian American undergrad class, (edit)~~2.5x (Harvard's is ~60% of UC's) more than the latest number listed on that wiki page, so your final statement is factually incorrect`~. I quoted wrong number. It's 25% vs 40%. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  The wiki says the UC system has about 40% Asian American students. This suggests race conscious admissions do indeed (as the name suggests) discriminate based on race, at institutions like Harvard.
  - crazypyro 7y ago
    I quoted wrong number. Sorry.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Nitpick: Comparing UC to Harvard isn't that straightforward. The UC system is California's, it disproportionately takes people from California, and California does have more Asians than the country as a whole, as well as more than the Northeast region in which Harvard is based.
- muh_gradle 7y ago
  We all know that number should probably be higher if we're actually caring about academic performance. Affirmative action doesn't actually bother me as much as legacy based admissions. Just absolutely idiotic that it's accepted.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Indeed, Harvard's own internal study determined that if academics were all that mattered, 43% of admitted students would be Asian. The major factors pushing down that percentage are legacy admissions and the vague "personal rating," which seems to be the knob Harvard admissions turns to get the demographic ratios it desires. Asians are systematically given a far lower "personal rating" than other demographics. Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/harvard-admissions-lawsuit-trial-asian-american-discrimination-reports.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/harvard-admissio...
    - TulliusCicero 7y ago
      "Well it's simple you see, Asians are simply less personable, as a group, than white folk. No no no, it's not blatant discrimination at all, I assure you! It's just science, I swear!" I really don't see how anyone justifies this kind of thing in 2019. This is like the barest possible fig leaf over obvious prejudice. They could rename it to "Cromulence Factor" and it'd make as much sense.
      - dmix 7y ago
        It's a personal rating not a personable rating.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
        The smoking gun is that Asians were doing just fine on personal ratings given by Harvard alumni, but were doing poorly specifically on the personal ratings given by Harvard admissions officers.
- turtlecloud 7y ago
  If Harvard did not race balance then every year the race % would be different - there should be enough of all races to pick a class of competent people. Why is it that 1 year a class can’t be primarily black or Asian? Before the lawsuit EVERY year the race ratio was almost exactly the same. Secondly, why doesn’t Harvard just admit Asian Americans that score poorly to bring the Average down and chalk it up to amazing character?
kkggyftfxdfg 7y ago
Shut the fuck up you stupid bitch.
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account. Posting like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
blisterpeanuts 7y ago
It will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, in appellate court if not the SCOTUS.
dwoozle 7y ago
Harvard and UC are trying to do different things. Harvard is trying to admit the future leaders of the world, so it can point to them and say “They are Harvard men.” UC is trying to give an academically rigorous education to the most academically qualified students.
- kart23 7y ago
  Honestly not sure why this is being downvoted. UC and Harvard are practically opposites in terms of the character they are looking for. One has alumni interviews for every serious applicant, the other has a gpa cutoff to filter out most students and then still just goes off numbers. Replace the words 'college' with 'job', and this whole thing looks silly.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > Replace the words 'college' with 'job', and this whole thing looks silly. I don't know about silly, it certainly looks unlawful to me.
- rohit2412 7y ago
  So, asians are less likely to be leaders because of their race? African-Americans are more likely to be leaders because of their race?
  - hos234 7y ago
    Asia hasn't produced a Kanye yet. They got work to do.
    - krapp 7y ago
      G-Dragon, maybe?
  - dwoozle 7y ago
    A grades and SAT admission model creates a class that is ~70% Asian. America’s future leadership class is categorically not 70% Asian.
throwaway_law 7y ago
> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the end goal even according to SCOTUS is for these measures to eventually become unconstitutional.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  > but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    I suppose its not far from the SCOTUS 1st Amendment cases of porn/obscenity, they can't quite define it, but they'll know it when they see it. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/) >The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point "assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 510 >But such measures, the Convention instructs, "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." Ibid.; see also Art. 1(4) (similarly providing for temporally limited affirmative action); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Annex to G. A. Res. 34/180, 34 U. N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Res. Supp. (No. 46), p. 194, U. N. Doc. A/34/46, Art. 4(1) (1979) (authorizing "temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality" that "shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved").
wefjweokfjw 7y ago
Well, to be fair, the University of California accepts more international students than Harvard, which is generally going to inflate the percentage of Asian students. Not saying this ruling isn't a detriment to Asian applicants, but probably not by as large of an amount as it would seem at first.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  No, only small fraction of UC students are international, and they aren't responsible for UC system's high Asian representation.
- turtlecloud 7y ago
  The data set and lawsuit excludes international students. This is primarily for asian Americans.
ineedasername 7y ago
But Harvard is a private school, which I think makes a difference. I also don't know how you maintain a diverse student body with different cultural perspectives if you aren't in some way filtering on cultural background, of which race is a part. Honestly, I don't know. I don't think it's an easy question. However, I think there's a decent case that, if Harvard is making decisions like this, it's ability to receive funding under title IX is called into question. Not that it would really adversely impact them, but it's a valid complaint that they maybe shouldn't be eligible. However, again I don't know! I don't think these are black & white matters.
- yostrovs 7y ago
  Since Harvard receives federal funds, it has to play by the same anti discrimination rules as the Federal government.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Yes, that's why I point out that it's status under title IX should be in question, even if what it's doing is legal.
    - sjg007 7y ago
      I agree. Trump could order the Department of Education to basically defund Harvard.. He basically is on the plaintiff's side here from what I recall. Now that would be interesting!!!
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    Not to mention incredible tax treatment of their assets.
golemiprague 7y ago
What do you mean by "discriminatory"? Any criteria you might choose is discriminatory, we could check by IQ or by school marks or by emotional intelligence or by sums of money payed or by any other criteria, at the end someone will get in and someone else not. You assume that just some test criteria is the only criteria that matters but why? Who said that someone with the best marks in some specific test deserve a place more than someone with lower marks? It is an indicator for ability for sure but guess what, genetics is also a very good indicator and social standings of the family is also a very good indicators and there are many other factors or correlation we could use. There is no "fair", it is only criteria and schools should be able to choose whatever criteria they want, even if they choose to bring in the most stupidest student if they feel like it.
hourislate 7y ago
The real travesty after this is overturned is that that judge will still be sitting and practicing law. If a higher court overturns your decision, then there should be consequences.
- goodluckchuck 7y ago
  As an appellate lawyer, I can attest that this is a terrible idea. It is far easier to for a judge to avoid being overturned than it’s is to get the case right, and consequently a low reversal rate is a fairly strong indicator that the judge isn’t, well... I’ll hold my tongue. The more they try to get the law right, the more they risk being overturned. However, as long as there is a factual question, they can rule on those grounds and force it to a “competent evidence” review that is often impossible to overturn. One of the things I most respect is when a judge rules against me but has the integrity to write an orde that I can actually challenge on appeal. That - being willing to be overturned - is the best sign of a great judge.
sjg007 7y ago
If this is upheld by the Supreme Court then Prop 209 might fall.

crazypyro 7y ago

Harvard has a 25%+ Asian American undergrad class, (edit)~~2.5x (Harvard's is ~60% of UC's) more than the latest number listed on that wiki page, so your final statement is factually incorrect`~. I quoted wrong number. It's 25% vs 40%. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

throwawaysea 7y ago
The wiki says the UC system has about 40% Asian American students. This suggests race conscious admissions do indeed (as the name suggests) discriminate based on race, at institutions like Harvard.
- crazypyro 7y ago
  I quoted wrong number. Sorry.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Nitpick: Comparing UC to Harvard isn't that straightforward. The UC system is California's, it disproportionately takes people from California, and California does have more Asians than the country as a whole, as well as more than the Northeast region in which Harvard is based.
muh_gradle 7y ago
We all know that number should probably be higher if we're actually caring about academic performance. Affirmative action doesn't actually bother me as much as legacy based admissions. Just absolutely idiotic that it's accepted.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Indeed, Harvard's own internal study determined that if academics were all that mattered, 43% of admitted students would be Asian. The major factors pushing down that percentage are legacy admissions and the vague "personal rating," which seems to be the knob Harvard admissions turns to get the demographic ratios it desires. Asians are systematically given a far lower "personal rating" than other demographics. Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/harvard-admissions-lawsuit-trial-asian-american-discrimination-reports.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/harvard-admissio...
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    "Well it's simple you see, Asians are simply less personable, as a group, than white folk. No no no, it's not blatant discrimination at all, I assure you! It's just science, I swear!" I really don't see how anyone justifies this kind of thing in 2019. This is like the barest possible fig leaf over obvious prejudice. They could rename it to "Cromulence Factor" and it'd make as much sense.
    - dmix 7y ago
      It's a personal rating not a personable rating.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      The smoking gun is that Asians were doing just fine on personal ratings given by Harvard alumni, but were doing poorly specifically on the personal ratings given by Harvard admissions officers.
turtlecloud 7y ago
If Harvard did not race balance then every year the race % would be different - there should be enough of all races to pick a class of competent people. Why is it that 1 year a class can’t be primarily black or Asian? Before the lawsuit EVERY year the race ratio was almost exactly the same. Secondly, why doesn’t Harvard just admit Asian Americans that score poorly to bring the Average down and chalk it up to amazing character?

kkggyftfxdfg 7y ago

Shut the fuck up you stupid bitch.

dang 7y ago
We've banned this account. Posting like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

blisterpeanuts 7y ago

It will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, in appellate court if not the SCOTUS.

dwoozle 7y ago

Harvard and UC are trying to do different things. Harvard is trying to admit the future leaders of the world, so it can point to them and say “They are Harvard men.” UC is trying to give an academically rigorous education to the most academically qualified students.

kart23 7y ago
Honestly not sure why this is being downvoted. UC and Harvard are practically opposites in terms of the character they are looking for. One has alumni interviews for every serious applicant, the other has a gpa cutoff to filter out most students and then still just goes off numbers. Replace the words 'college' with 'job', and this whole thing looks silly.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > Replace the words 'college' with 'job', and this whole thing looks silly. I don't know about silly, it certainly looks unlawful to me.
rohit2412 7y ago
So, asians are less likely to be leaders because of their race? African-Americans are more likely to be leaders because of their race?
- hos234 7y ago
  Asia hasn't produced a Kanye yet. They got work to do.
  - krapp 7y ago
    G-Dragon, maybe?
- dwoozle 7y ago
  A grades and SAT admission model creates a class that is ~70% Asian. America’s future leadership class is categorically not 70% Asian.

throwaway_law 7y ago

> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the end goal even according to SCOTUS is for these measures to eventually become unconstitutional.

tomschlick 7y ago
> but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  I suppose its not far from the SCOTUS 1st Amendment cases of porn/obscenity, they can't quite define it, but they'll know it when they see it. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/) >The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point "assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 510 >But such measures, the Convention instructs, "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." Ibid.; see also Art. 1(4) (similarly providing for temporally limited affirmative action); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Annex to G. A. Res. 34/180, 34 U. N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Res. Supp. (No. 46), p. 194, U. N. Doc. A/34/46, Art. 4(1) (1979) (authorizing "temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality" that "shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved").

wefjweokfjw 7y ago

Well, to be fair, the University of California accepts more international students than Harvard, which is generally going to inflate the percentage of Asian students. Not saying this ruling isn't a detriment to Asian applicants, but probably not by as large of an amount as it would seem at first.

xyzzyz 7y ago
No, only small fraction of UC students are international, and they aren't responsible for UC system's high Asian representation.
turtlecloud 7y ago
The data set and lawsuit excludes international students. This is primarily for asian Americans.

ineedasername 7y ago

But Harvard is a private school, which I think makes a difference. I also don't know how you maintain a diverse student body with different cultural perspectives if you aren't in some way filtering on cultural background, of which race is a part. Honestly, I don't know. I don't think it's an easy question. However, I think there's a decent case that, if Harvard is making decisions like this, it's ability to receive funding under title IX is called into question. Not that it would really adversely impact them, but it's a valid complaint that they maybe shouldn't be eligible. However, again I don't know! I don't think these are black & white matters.

yostrovs 7y ago
Since Harvard receives federal funds, it has to play by the same anti discrimination rules as the Federal government.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Yes, that's why I point out that it's status under title IX should be in question, even if what it's doing is legal.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    I agree. Trump could order the Department of Education to basically defund Harvard.. He basically is on the plaintiff's side here from what I recall. Now that would be interesting!!!
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Not to mention incredible tax treatment of their assets.

golemiprague 7y ago

What do you mean by "discriminatory"? Any criteria you might choose is discriminatory, we could check by IQ or by school marks or by emotional intelligence or by sums of money payed or by any other criteria, at the end someone will get in and someone else not. You assume that just some test criteria is the only criteria that matters but why? Who said that someone with the best marks in some specific test deserve a place more than someone with lower marks? It is an indicator for ability for sure but guess what, genetics is also a very good indicator and social standings of the family is also a very good indicators and there are many other factors or correlation we could use. There is no "fair", it is only criteria and schools should be able to choose whatever criteria they want, even if they choose to bring in the most stupidest student if they feel like it.

hourislate 7y ago

The real travesty after this is overturned is that that judge will still be sitting and practicing law. If a higher court overturns your decision, then there should be consequences.

goodluckchuck 7y ago
As an appellate lawyer, I can attest that this is a terrible idea. It is far easier to for a judge to avoid being overturned than it’s is to get the case right, and consequently a low reversal rate is a fairly strong indicator that the judge isn’t, well... I’ll hold my tongue. The more they try to get the law right, the more they risk being overturned. However, as long as there is a factual question, they can rule on those grounds and force it to a “competent evidence” review that is often impossible to overturn. One of the things I most respect is when a judge rules against me but has the integrity to write an orde that I can actually challenge on appeal. That - being willing to be overturned - is the best sign of a great judge.

sjg007 7y ago

If this is upheld by the Supreme Court then Prop 209 might fall.