5 ms·

I don't think the goal is to have a campus that looks like a Benetton ad, is it? That seems somewhat disingenuous. Isn't it more like "have a student body that

I don't think the goal is to have a campus that looks like a Benetton ad, is it? That seems somewhat disingenuous. Isn't it more like "have a student body that is somewhat representative of the overall national demographic", on the basis that merit to attend elite institutions is evenly distributed?

Y_Y 4y ago
But what if your national (or local) demography isn't "diverse"? I mean that question in good faith. My understanding is that most diversity targets are not lined up with population as a whole, or even the applicant pool. That's just the default, and to do any worse I imagine could be seen as criminal negative discrimination.
kodyo 4y ago
How do you come to the conclusion that merit is evenly distributed?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Well, the alternative is that merit is distributed in a racially uneven way. Is that your thesis?
  - hw-guy 4y ago
    The disproportionate representation of Asians at highly selective colleges is indicative that merit (judged by demonstrated academic performance) is distributed in a racially uneven way, isn't it? Or do you think there is some kind of discrimination in favor of Asians (and against other groups) at work? In actual fact, discrimination appears to be AGAINST Asians; otherwise their numbers would be even greater. This is certainly not to imply that there is anything inherently superior about people of Asian descent; I mean that the culture tends to strongly support hard work, education, and personal responsibility, all traits that lead to academic success.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      >merit (judged by demonstrated academic performance) That isn't the definition of "merit" that these colleges are looking for. Demonstrated academic performance is a part of it, to be sure, but it's not the ballgame. e.g. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/what-we-look https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/what-we-look
      - hw-guy 4y ago
        Whatever definition of "merit" you use doesn't change my overall point.
  - kodyo 4y ago
    My argument is that it's unjust to systematically cripple individuals' participation in hierarchies where they excel. Statistically, advantages along some dimensions are distributed unevenly across racial groups. That would predict differences in performance outcomes for members of racial groups within hierarchies where those advantages are selected for. Personally, I don't think "ability to get into Harvard" is a particularly useful life skill, but I know opinions differ and I'm OK with that.
flappyeagle 4y ago
> have a student body that is somewhat representative of the overall national demographic This question was directly asked by a justice (I think Alito) in almost exactly those words. The answer he got from the UNC lawyer was "no", followed by a bunch of handwaving. The central argument from the schools seems to be that ethnic diversity is a priori good, and providing that environment benefits all students. The cost of decreased acceptance rate for Asians is the cost to achieve this good, and is a worthwhile tradeoff because it benefits the Asians who do get in. I don't find this argument totally specious. But I think it reduces to: "bigotry is acceptable if the benefits outweigh the costs". I don't think the Constitution finds this to be permissible.

Y_Y 4y ago

But what if your national (or local) demography isn't "diverse"? I mean that question in good faith. My understanding is that most diversity targets are not lined up with population as a whole, or even the applicant pool. That's just the default, and to do any worse I imagine could be seen as criminal negative discrimination.

kodyo 4y ago

How do you come to the conclusion that merit is evenly distributed?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Well, the alternative is that merit is distributed in a racially uneven way. Is that your thesis?
- hw-guy 4y ago
  The disproportionate representation of Asians at highly selective colleges is indicative that merit (judged by demonstrated academic performance) is distributed in a racially uneven way, isn't it? Or do you think there is some kind of discrimination in favor of Asians (and against other groups) at work? In actual fact, discrimination appears to be AGAINST Asians; otherwise their numbers would be even greater. This is certainly not to imply that there is anything inherently superior about people of Asian descent; I mean that the culture tends to strongly support hard work, education, and personal responsibility, all traits that lead to academic success.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    >merit (judged by demonstrated academic performance) That isn't the definition of "merit" that these colleges are looking for. Demonstrated academic performance is a part of it, to be sure, but it's not the ballgame. e.g. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/what-we-look https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/what-we-look
    - hw-guy 4y ago
      Whatever definition of "merit" you use doesn't change my overall point.
- kodyo 4y ago
  My argument is that it's unjust to systematically cripple individuals' participation in hierarchies where they excel. Statistically, advantages along some dimensions are distributed unevenly across racial groups. That would predict differences in performance outcomes for members of racial groups within hierarchies where those advantages are selected for. Personally, I don't think "ability to get into Harvard" is a particularly useful life skill, but I know opinions differ and I'm OK with that.

flappyeagle 4y ago

> have a student body that is somewhat representative of the overall national demographic This question was directly asked by a justice (I think Alito) in almost exactly those words. The answer he got from the UNC lawyer was "no", followed by a bunch of handwaving. The central argument from the schools seems to be that ethnic diversity is a priori good, and providing that environment benefits all students. The cost of decreased acceptance rate for Asians is the cost to achieve this good, and is a worthwhile tradeoff because it benefits the Asians who do get in. I don't find this argument totally specious. But I think it reduces to: "bigotry is acceptable if the benefits outweigh the costs". I don't think the Constitution finds this to be permissible.