3 ms·

Of all the people whose received preferential treatment for college admissions due to family connections, why do you think anyone is singling out the former pre

Of all the people whose received preferential treatment for college admissions due to family connections, why do you think anyone is singling out the former president? Yale cannot do "basically whatever they want". For example, they accept students who receive federal financial assistance so must follow Title IX requirements. The government could use the same power of the purse to reduce legacy admissions. Since you mentioned Bush and Yale. He graduated in 1968. Yale didn't accept women until 1969. Title IX was enacted in 1972. In 1980, Alexander v. Yale was the first use of Title IX in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution, and established that sexual harassment of a student could be considered illegal sex discrimination. In any case, some public schools use legacy admissions - it's not a private-college-only thing.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Because it is the most notorious case? I don't think anyone who has listened to George W talk could make the argument "Yeah, this guy is an shining example of Yale!" You misinterpret my statement "whatever they want" as some sort of collegiate equivalent of a "license to kill". Presently, Yale chooses to engage with federal funding in a variety of ways. They can stop doing that if they want to, thus dropping their obligations. But furthermore, realize that a student would need to prove that legacy admissions somehow violates Title IX if they wanted to end the process. The members of the various courts that would ultimately decide that case are the same families that benefit from legacy admissions. Also it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale. If you actually read into the decision most of the plaintiffs allegations were simply dismissed.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I had no idea it was a notorious case. If I did, after 13 years that memory has faded. Do a search for "legacy admissions", like https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions and see how rarely people mention Bush. I've heard much more about minorities at prestigious colleges are viewed as being there as the result of affirmative action, while legacy students ... aren't. Or how those schools offer scholarships for athletes in water polo, tennis, sailing, rowing, and other sports which more accessible to affluent white kids. Hence the question "How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?" > thus dropping their obligations Except the question was, why isn't that practice illegal? Responding with something like "because it's legal" isn't that insightful. > somehow violates Title IX I wasn't making that argument. If it were that easy, it would be done long ago. I was pointing out that the fed can also use the power of the purse to change things, even if the courts say separation of powers prevents a direct law. > it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale What benefited Bush more, legacy admission or rampant sexism that prevented half the population from being able to apply? In any case, "Although the women did not win their case, they achieved their objectives: Yale instituted a grievance procedure and a court held that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination. ... As a result of Alexander v. Yale most U.S. universities instituted grievance procedures for sexual harassment." Lost the battle and won the war.

sidewndr46 4y ago

Because it is the most notorious case? I don't think anyone who has listened to George W talk could make the argument "Yeah, this guy is an shining example of Yale!" You misinterpret my statement "whatever they want" as some sort of collegiate equivalent of a "license to kill". Presently, Yale chooses to engage with federal funding in a variety of ways. They can stop doing that if they want to, thus dropping their obligations. But furthermore, realize that a student would need to prove that legacy admissions somehow violates Title IX if they wanted to end the process. The members of the various courts that would ultimately decide that case are the same families that benefit from legacy admissions. Also it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale. If you actually read into the decision most of the plaintiffs allegations were simply dismissed.

eesmith 4y ago
I had no idea it was a notorious case. If I did, after 13 years that memory has faded. Do a search for "legacy admissions", like https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions and see how rarely people mention Bush. I've heard much more about minorities at prestigious colleges are viewed as being there as the result of affirmative action, while legacy students ... aren't. Or how those schools offer scholarships for athletes in water polo, tennis, sailing, rowing, and other sports which more accessible to affluent white kids. Hence the question "How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?" > thus dropping their obligations Except the question was, why isn't that practice illegal? Responding with something like "because it's legal" isn't that insightful. > somehow violates Title IX I wasn't making that argument. If it were that easy, it would be done long ago. I was pointing out that the fed can also use the power of the purse to change things, even if the courts say separation of powers prevents a direct law. > it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale What benefited Bush more, legacy admission or rampant sexism that prevented half the population from being able to apply? In any case, "Although the women did not win their case, they achieved their objectives: Yale instituted a grievance procedure and a court held that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination. ... As a result of Alexander v. Yale most U.S. universities instituted grievance procedures for sexual harassment." Lost the battle and won the war.