6 ms·

Lots of soapboxing in the comments here. The Justice Dept made the exact same allegations against Harvard, and last year a Federal Judge found that Harvard was

Lots of soapboxing in the comments here. The Justice Dept made the exact same allegations against Harvard, and last year a Federal Judge found that Harvard was constitutionally in the clear. SCOTUS has said that race can be narrowly used in admissions to promote diversity, which Yale says they are doing. The fact that the Justice Department wants Yale to cease all uses of race in admissions (despite this interpretation) is suspect.

bllguo 6y ago
unfortunately i find it hard to take the justice dept. seriously these days. it's become a political tool. i say this as someone who would have been directly affected if this claim were true
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  When wasn't it, at just at the high-profile margins? Its daily work currently consists of fighting sex-trafficking and other inarguably good pursuits... The claim that the DOJ is any more political today than a decade or three ago doesn't seem borne out by the facts, IMO.
  - bllguo 6y ago
    well I am not nearly expert enough to debate your points about the DOJ's history. What I _can_ say with confidence is that from my POV that this is a hot button issue for my parents, many in their circles, and I imagine asian families nationwide. Given the other actions of this administration I can't shake the feeling that a strong motive for this is to curry favor with that demographic. It strikes me as an awfully convenient time to start making noise here.
    - three_seagrass 6y ago
      Considering that the Justic Dept has dropped cases against friends of the president (one of whom confessed to the crime of lying to the FBI to cover up for the president) and given that we're a couple months from an election where race is an issue, I also share your doubt about the Justice Dept being agnostic here.
      - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
        Highly political cases are few and far between. There's also a perfectly reasonable argument on the facts to drop the case against Flynn - not least of all what appears to be motivated entrapment and no appropriate cause to investigate in the first place - but this becomes a politically charged argument and I feel it's inappropriate on HN.
      - blisseyGo 6y ago
        You are making things up. Flynn was setup, his 302s were altered, FBI didn’t believe he lied, Brady evidence was not provided to his counsel (and still hasn’t been), he was bankrupted with over 6 million in legal fees, he had to sell both his houses, his old lawyers had severe conflict of interest which were not disclosed and he was threatened that they would go after his son if he didn’t plead guilty to something he never said. He was the incoming national security advisor - media makes it seem like the national security advisor talking to foreign countries after election is somehow an illegal thing? Now his judge has gone on a full circus. Please research from non biased non spin news and look at actual documents unsealed.
    - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
      Fair. There's probably some edgy contrarian aspect going on, but do note that this was spurred by a lawsuit brought in 2014 by those alleging that they were discriminated against. The DOJ took it up, but at one level it would be obscene if they didn't - imagine the inverse (some evidence of anti-black admissions procedures is found), and the DOJ - who is tasked with prosecuting hate crimes and other civil rights-style issues - did not take it up. In this case I almost feel like the Republican DOJ is being looked at sideways because one of the alleged victim parties is white... Had it been blacks and Asians, I doubt anyone would've cast aspersions on the Obama DOJ for taking up the charge. TL;dr this sort of topic is the DOJ's bread and butter, and since it began via lawsuits from the affected parties I don't think there's much cynical "discretion" going on in this particular case.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > The DOJ took it up, but at one level it would be obscene if they didn't - imagine the inverse (some evidence of anti-black admissions procedures is found), and the DOJ - who is tasked with prosecuting hate crimes and other civil rights-style issues - did not take it up. You mean like publicly abandoning ongoing investigations of systematic racial discrimination by local police departments while dismissing the entire idea of conducting such investigations when there was evidence in hand as an intrusion on law enforcement? The DOJ did that almost immediately when the current Administration took over. > this sort of topic is the DOJ's bread and butter, and since it began via lawsuits from the affected parties I don't think there's much cynical "discretion" going on in this particular case. The DOJ doesn't join or follow every, or even most, discrimination cases filed by private parties which are minimally viable and state claims which would also provide a public cause of action, so I have no idea on what basis you jump from “started by a private lawsuit” to “therefore doesn’t have much cynical discretion involved”.
    - blisseyGo 6y ago
      That’s some wild accusation without any proof what so ever. This case has been going on forever and had been obvious from the very beginning.
wow_no 6y ago
Why is that suspect? Isn’t racism judging people by the color of their skin instead of skill? Isn’t this undoing racism?
psyfactcheck 6y ago
Here is a previous decision on race from SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford Maybe they get it wrong sometimes?
jcampbell1 6y ago
The rules around AA and the courts has been in a constant state of change since 1964. AA was justified as a temporary solution, thus there is no stare decisis which people can agree. I think it is unpredictable what the courts will do. The issue is setup to be never settled.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Indeed, one of the major precedents in favor of affirmative action (Grutter v. Bollinger) anticipated that it would no longer be needed after 2028.
jdkee 6y ago
1. The Harvard case is being appealed. It could certainly work it’s way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. 2. The facts are not entirely clear how Yale is using race but a “disparate impact” analysis may yield some insight.
wbl 6y ago
No, the judge found that despite Harvard having introduced the current system to discriminate, and the current system discriminating, the plaintiffs hadn't shown Harvard maintained the system to discriminate against them.

bllguo 6y ago

unfortunately i find it hard to take the justice dept. seriously these days. it's become a political tool. i say this as someone who would have been directly affected if this claim were true

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
When wasn't it, at just at the high-profile margins? Its daily work currently consists of fighting sex-trafficking and other inarguably good pursuits... The claim that the DOJ is any more political today than a decade or three ago doesn't seem borne out by the facts, IMO.
- bllguo 6y ago
  well I am not nearly expert enough to debate your points about the DOJ's history. What I _can_ say with confidence is that from my POV that this is a hot button issue for my parents, many in their circles, and I imagine asian families nationwide. Given the other actions of this administration I can't shake the feeling that a strong motive for this is to curry favor with that demographic. It strikes me as an awfully convenient time to start making noise here.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    Considering that the Justic Dept has dropped cases against friends of the president (one of whom confessed to the crime of lying to the FBI to cover up for the president) and given that we're a couple months from an election where race is an issue, I also share your doubt about the Justice Dept being agnostic here.
    - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
      Highly political cases are few and far between. There's also a perfectly reasonable argument on the facts to drop the case against Flynn - not least of all what appears to be motivated entrapment and no appropriate cause to investigate in the first place - but this becomes a politically charged argument and I feel it's inappropriate on HN.
    - blisseyGo 6y ago
      You are making things up. Flynn was setup, his 302s were altered, FBI didn’t believe he lied, Brady evidence was not provided to his counsel (and still hasn’t been), he was bankrupted with over 6 million in legal fees, he had to sell both his houses, his old lawyers had severe conflict of interest which were not disclosed and he was threatened that they would go after his son if he didn’t plead guilty to something he never said. He was the incoming national security advisor - media makes it seem like the national security advisor talking to foreign countries after election is somehow an illegal thing? Now his judge has gone on a full circus. Please research from non biased non spin news and look at actual documents unsealed.
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Fair. There's probably some edgy contrarian aspect going on, but do note that this was spurred by a lawsuit brought in 2014 by those alleging that they were discriminated against. The DOJ took it up, but at one level it would be obscene if they didn't - imagine the inverse (some evidence of anti-black admissions procedures is found), and the DOJ - who is tasked with prosecuting hate crimes and other civil rights-style issues - did not take it up. In this case I almost feel like the Republican DOJ is being looked at sideways because one of the alleged victim parties is white... Had it been blacks and Asians, I doubt anyone would've cast aspersions on the Obama DOJ for taking up the charge. TL;dr this sort of topic is the DOJ's bread and butter, and since it began via lawsuits from the affected parties I don't think there's much cynical "discretion" going on in this particular case.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The DOJ took it up, but at one level it would be obscene if they didn't - imagine the inverse (some evidence of anti-black admissions procedures is found), and the DOJ - who is tasked with prosecuting hate crimes and other civil rights-style issues - did not take it up. You mean like publicly abandoning ongoing investigations of systematic racial discrimination by local police departments while dismissing the entire idea of conducting such investigations when there was evidence in hand as an intrusion on law enforcement? The DOJ did that almost immediately when the current Administration took over. > this sort of topic is the DOJ's bread and butter, and since it began via lawsuits from the affected parties I don't think there's much cynical "discretion" going on in this particular case. The DOJ doesn't join or follow every, or even most, discrimination cases filed by private parties which are minimally viable and state claims which would also provide a public cause of action, so I have no idea on what basis you jump from “started by a private lawsuit” to “therefore doesn’t have much cynical discretion involved”.
  - blisseyGo 6y ago
    That’s some wild accusation without any proof what so ever. This case has been going on forever and had been obvious from the very beginning.

wow_no 6y ago

Why is that suspect? Isn’t racism judging people by the color of their skin instead of skill? Isn’t this undoing racism?

psyfactcheck 6y ago

Here is a previous decision on race from SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford Maybe they get it wrong sometimes?

jcampbell1 6y ago

The rules around AA and the courts has been in a constant state of change since 1964. AA was justified as a temporary solution, thus there is no stare decisis which people can agree. I think it is unpredictable what the courts will do. The issue is setup to be never settled.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Indeed, one of the major precedents in favor of affirmative action (Grutter v. Bollinger) anticipated that it would no longer be needed after 2028.

jdkee 6y ago

1. The Harvard case is being appealed. It could certainly work it’s way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. 2. The facts are not entirely clear how Yale is using race but a “disparate impact” analysis may yield some insight.

wbl 6y ago

No, the judge found that despite Harvard having introduced the current system to discriminate, and the current system discriminating, the plaintiffs hadn't shown Harvard maintained the system to discriminate against them.