3 ms·

So I guess non-legacy white applicants were at an even greater disadvantage for their skin color then we might have assumed. Want to git rid of legacy preferen

So I guess non-legacy white applicants were at an even greater disadvantage for their skin color then we might have assumed. Want to git rid of legacy preference? Great. Let’s be honest, though — this is just whataboutism.

rileymat2 3y ago
I don't think the intent is "whataboutism" it is about outlining the structural inequality in the system that affirmative action and race based systems are supposed to attempt to mitigate. We can argue about discriminatory criteria on effectiveness, fairness or legality, but it certainly is an important date point in that discussion.
- catiopatio 3y ago
  The only reason it’s being brought up now is the Supreme Court ruling, and it demonstrates the opposite of what people seem to think it does. Non-legacy applicants were extremely disadvantaged if they were white.
losteric 3y ago
> Let’s be honest, though — this is just whataboutism. This is classism. Shockingly, institutions can have both classist and racist discrimination - let's be honest, they're both bad and need to go.
- catiopatio 3y ago
  If that’s your take, great. I agree. I don’t believe that’s why legacy admissions are being brought up now, though. I think people are trying to make the case that legacy admissions are another form of affirmative action that largely benefits white americans. They’d be wrong, of course. Legacy admissions are classist, not racist. Being white inferred no advantage under their legacy admissions policy — in fact, the opposite, because combined with race-based affirmative action, it left even fewer slots available for non-legacy white applicants.
  - ashwagary 3y ago
    Screaming meritocracy until the finger is pointed at my particular group. No way to justify legacy admissions which are racist at their core (blame the historically racist US population) with a thick coating of 'classism' used as cover.

rileymat2 3y ago

I don't think the intent is "whataboutism" it is about outlining the structural inequality in the system that affirmative action and race based systems are supposed to attempt to mitigate. We can argue about discriminatory criteria on effectiveness, fairness or legality, but it certainly is an important date point in that discussion.

catiopatio 3y ago
The only reason it’s being brought up now is the Supreme Court ruling, and it demonstrates the opposite of what people seem to think it does. Non-legacy applicants were extremely disadvantaged if they were white.

losteric 3y ago

> Let’s be honest, though — this is just whataboutism. This is classism. Shockingly, institutions can have both classist and racist discrimination - let's be honest, they're both bad and need to go.

catiopatio 3y ago
If that’s your take, great. I agree. I don’t believe that’s why legacy admissions are being brought up now, though. I think people are trying to make the case that legacy admissions are another form of affirmative action that largely benefits white americans. They’d be wrong, of course. Legacy admissions are classist, not racist. Being white inferred no advantage under their legacy admissions policy — in fact, the opposite, because combined with race-based affirmative action, it left even fewer slots available for non-legacy white applicants.
- ashwagary 3y ago
  Screaming meritocracy until the finger is pointed at my particular group. No way to justify legacy admissions which are racist at their core (blame the historically racist US population) with a thick coating of 'classism' used as cover.