5 ms·

I’m glad affirmative action was shot down. I hope legacy goes away too. While legacy admissions might not be a judicial issue, what about legislation that says

I’m glad affirmative action was shot down. I hope legacy goes away too. While legacy admissions might not be a judicial issue, what about legislation that says no federal funding will be provided to institutions who use special standards for legacy applicants? If you are a private institution and want these programs, that is your legal right (since it likely does not cross legal lines around protected classes), but the taxpayer shouldn’t subsidize it.

bradleyjg 3y ago
Congress is completely dysfunctional and can no longer pass transformative laws of any kind.
- crhulls 3y ago
  Agreed, but we still need to envision what good legislation would look like and it does occasionally happen.
  - Uehreka 3y ago
    This kind of idealism is nice, but the truth is that the American government isn’t a computer we can program with just and elegant code. It’s a vending machine we have to pound on and shake until it dispenses not the just outcome we asked for, but whatever imperfect scraps it will give us. Affirmative action may not have been an elegant way to counterbalance legacy admissions or compensate people who had been wronged, but it was the only thing that came out when we shook the vending machine, and now people have thrown it in the trash and are acting like something better is going to happen.
    - metabagel 3y ago
      Unelected and unaccountable people who were appointed for the express purpose of entrenching established wealth and power threw it in the trash.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    I think the last pieces of major legislation—laws that involved a regulatory effort* and not just shoveling money around—were in 2010. Dodd-Frank and the ACA. That’s six Congresses ago. * or deregulatory, I’m not trying to make a partisan point
anamexis 3y ago
Harvard has a $53 billion endowment, I doubt they care about federal funding.
- jgalt212 3y ago
  Yes, they care more about legacy admits than federal funding. And probably only legacy admits for the whales. How many "rich" people brag about giving $1MM to their college, but for the elite colleges even such a big number is an immeasurably small amount.
- blindriver 3y ago
  The richer you are, the more you demand the government's largesse. The idea they would need to drawdown on their own wealth would probably infuriate Harvard's administrators.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I believe the accounting algorithm is something to the effect of "if my_money < all_the_money then take_more_money".
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  They very very much care about federal funding. At a perpetual safe withdrawal rate of 2% $53 billion generates $1 billion a year to spend. Federal research grants alone total more than $500M, and federal funding includes much more than just research grants. A dozen or so years back there was an effort by many universities, including Harvard, to keep military recruiters off campus. When the courts ruled that this would endanger federal funding Harvard, like all the others, folded like a cheap suit.
  - gumby 3y ago
    > A dozen or so years back there was an effort by many universities, including Harvard, to keep military recruiters off campus. I’m surprised to hear that. I know objection to it went back to the Vietnam war, but didn’t realize there might have been a recent episode. Walt Rostow notoriously set troop levels from his office at MIT when he was “on leave” to work in the White House. That ended up causing the complete banishment of military research from MIT. Absolutely no exceptions, I mean, except that overtly military work can be done by MITRE and Lincoln labs (cough completely owned by MIT), ICBM navigation at Draper, the AI Lab and LCS sharing a building with the CIA for a long time, DARPA funding all over the place, whole departments essentially entirely funded by the Navy and the Air Force, and a continual revolving door between the pentagon and some departments. Harvard still has ROTC students…but they have to get up even earlier and drag themselves over to MIT for early morning drills. I didn’t feel sorry for them; Harvard students don’t have to pull all nighters every week.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
honkycat 3y ago
Because many of our laws don't make sense when you view them from the lens of "for the good of everyone." Why would legislatures pass a law that has the potential to be both unpopular AND bite the hand that feeds them? Who wants that? Normal people? Whose paycheck do they sign again?
- blululu 3y ago
  It might bite some influential people, but this is a generally popular move. I have never met anyone defend this use of my tax dollars. Would you care to be the first to explain why I am paying for the children of well connected parents to get a leg up in university admission?
- crhulls 3y ago
  From what quarters would this be unpopular? Obviously beneficiaries of this wouldn’t like it, but I bet it would be something with bipartisan middle class support.
Zetice 3y ago
You may cheer for affirmative action's demise, but it will result in less opportunity for minorities, and less diversity in post-secondary institutions (which means less diversity in fields requiring advanced degrees) so consider that before you dance.
- drumhead 3y ago
  Why would that affect us? Why would less diversity mean anything? You can say this but would it actually affect anything?
  - Herring 3y ago
    On the off chance that this is a genuine question, try asking GPT4.
    - drumhead 3y ago
      Why don't you tell us, because it just seems like hand waving at the moment.
      - Herring 3y ago
        I just asked it right now. It wrote me a 500-word essay with multiple important bullet points, each of which is probably a 300-500 word essay on its own. This is simply not a twitter-length topic. If you're really interested go educate yourself. If you're not, quit wasting both our time.
        drumhead 3y ago
        Thats ok, I know why you're defelecting.
  - boucher 3y ago
    Define "us" in this question.
  - 3y ago
metabagel 3y ago
It might help if you thought of affirmative action as not only righting a wrong, but also partial compensation for stealing the lives and labor of enslaved people for profit. That theft has never been repaid. Furthermore, Jim Crow, segregation, and myriad other racist policies and practices prevented black Americans from being able to meaningfully advance, while white America thrived on the wealth created by stolen labor. Republicans like to think that affirmative action is about collective guilt. It’s not. As a white person, I don’t feel guilty about slavery. But, I do recognize a monumental theft which the victims were never compensated for, and which continues to shape our society. Edit: changed “in contrast” to “furthermore”
OxAA55 3y ago
Legislative actions cannot be effective in this way. Any metric the government specifies can be worked around. Harvard can say outwardly they don't prefer legacy students but they can just pad any of the subjective measurements they use like "likability" or "personality" in their favor. As long as it's not something they blatant write to each other in subpoena-able communications it would be very difficult to notice and prove they are purposely favoring whatever trait they want in students.

bradleyjg 3y ago

Congress is completely dysfunctional and can no longer pass transformative laws of any kind.

crhulls 3y ago
Agreed, but we still need to envision what good legislation would look like and it does occasionally happen.
- Uehreka 3y ago
  This kind of idealism is nice, but the truth is that the American government isn’t a computer we can program with just and elegant code. It’s a vending machine we have to pound on and shake until it dispenses not the just outcome we asked for, but whatever imperfect scraps it will give us. Affirmative action may not have been an elegant way to counterbalance legacy admissions or compensate people who had been wronged, but it was the only thing that came out when we shook the vending machine, and now people have thrown it in the trash and are acting like something better is going to happen.
  - metabagel 3y ago
    Unelected and unaccountable people who were appointed for the express purpose of entrenching established wealth and power threw it in the trash.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  I think the last pieces of major legislation—laws that involved a regulatory effort* and not just shoveling money around—were in 2010. Dodd-Frank and the ACA. That’s six Congresses ago. * or deregulatory, I’m not trying to make a partisan point

anamexis 3y ago

Harvard has a $53 billion endowment, I doubt they care about federal funding.

jgalt212 3y ago
Yes, they care more about legacy admits than federal funding. And probably only legacy admits for the whales. How many "rich" people brag about giving $1MM to their college, but for the elite colleges even such a big number is an immeasurably small amount.
blindriver 3y ago
The richer you are, the more you demand the government's largesse. The idea they would need to drawdown on their own wealth would probably infuriate Harvard's administrators.
hotpotamus 3y ago
I believe the accounting algorithm is something to the effect of "if my_money < all_the_money then take_more_money".
bradleyjg 3y ago
They very very much care about federal funding. At a perpetual safe withdrawal rate of 2% $53 billion generates $1 billion a year to spend. Federal research grants alone total more than $500M, and federal funding includes much more than just research grants. A dozen or so years back there was an effort by many universities, including Harvard, to keep military recruiters off campus. When the courts ruled that this would endanger federal funding Harvard, like all the others, folded like a cheap suit.
- gumby 3y ago
  > A dozen or so years back there was an effort by many universities, including Harvard, to keep military recruiters off campus. I’m surprised to hear that. I know objection to it went back to the Vietnam war, but didn’t realize there might have been a recent episode. Walt Rostow notoriously set troop levels from his office at MIT when he was “on leave” to work in the White House. That ended up causing the complete banishment of military research from MIT. Absolutely no exceptions, I mean, except that overtly military work can be done by MITRE and Lincoln labs (cough completely owned by MIT), ICBM navigation at Draper, the AI Lab and LCS sharing a building with the CIA for a long time, DARPA funding all over the place, whole departments essentially entirely funded by the Navy and the Air Force, and a continual revolving door between the pentagon and some departments. Harvard still has ROTC students…but they have to get up even earlier and drag themselves over to MIT for early morning drills. I didn’t feel sorry for them; Harvard students don’t have to pull all nighters every week.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

honkycat 3y ago

Because many of our laws don't make sense when you view them from the lens of "for the good of everyone." Why would legislatures pass a law that has the potential to be both unpopular AND bite the hand that feeds them? Who wants that? Normal people? Whose paycheck do they sign again?

blululu 3y ago
It might bite some influential people, but this is a generally popular move. I have never met anyone defend this use of my tax dollars. Would you care to be the first to explain why I am paying for the children of well connected parents to get a leg up in university admission?
crhulls 3y ago
From what quarters would this be unpopular? Obviously beneficiaries of this wouldn’t like it, but I bet it would be something with bipartisan middle class support.

Zetice 3y ago

You may cheer for affirmative action's demise, but it will result in less opportunity for minorities, and less diversity in post-secondary institutions (which means less diversity in fields requiring advanced degrees) so consider that before you dance.

drumhead 3y ago
Why would that affect us? Why would less diversity mean anything? You can say this but would it actually affect anything?
- Herring 3y ago
  On the off chance that this is a genuine question, try asking GPT4.
  - drumhead 3y ago
    Why don't you tell us, because it just seems like hand waving at the moment.
    - Herring 3y ago
      I just asked it right now. It wrote me a 500-word essay with multiple important bullet points, each of which is probably a 300-500 word essay on its own. This is simply not a twitter-length topic. If you're really interested go educate yourself. If you're not, quit wasting both our time.
      - drumhead 3y ago
        Thats ok, I know why you're defelecting.
- boucher 3y ago
  Define "us" in this question.
- 3y ago

metabagel 3y ago

It might help if you thought of affirmative action as not only righting a wrong, but also partial compensation for stealing the lives and labor of enslaved people for profit. That theft has never been repaid. Furthermore, Jim Crow, segregation, and myriad other racist policies and practices prevented black Americans from being able to meaningfully advance, while white America thrived on the wealth created by stolen labor. Republicans like to think that affirmative action is about collective guilt. It’s not. As a white person, I don’t feel guilty about slavery. But, I do recognize a monumental theft which the victims were never compensated for, and which continues to shape our society. Edit: changed “in contrast” to “furthermore”

OxAA55 3y ago

Legislative actions cannot be effective in this way. Any metric the government specifies can be worked around. Harvard can say outwardly they don't prefer legacy students but they can just pad any of the subjective measurements they use like "likability" or "personality" in their favor. As long as it's not something they blatant write to each other in subpoena-able communications it would be very difficult to notice and prove they are purposely favoring whatever trait they want in students.