4 ms·

Good. I am affirmative action-curious, in that I do not necessarily have the knee-jerk "this shouldn't have ever been allowed" reaction that many on HN do. I t

Good. I am affirmative action-curious, in that I do not necessarily have the knee-jerk "this shouldn't have ever been allowed" reaction that many on HN do. I think the case for affirmative action is stronger than many would allow. That said, I am willing to take the SCOTUS decision for what it is, because AA was an extremely unpopular policy with admittedly terrible echoes of past injustices built into it. Legacy admissions, on the other hand, are pure trash, and I think absolutely everyone except the beneficiaries of those policies ought to agree on that. I truly can't think of a good argument in favor of them other than "universities like money."

remarkEon 3y ago
What’s fascinating about how this all unfolded is that Yale made a different argument in court when their legacy admissions process was under scrutiny, where they defended the practice saying it was part of upholding “its educational goals through diversity, community, and tradition”. Testimony[1] is linked below from the NYT article[2] on the same topic. [1] https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/HEDdata/Tmy/2022HB-05034-R000217-Quinlan,%20Jeremiah,%20Dean%20of%20Admissions-Yale%20University-TMY.PDF https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/HEDdata/Tmy/2022HB-05034-R000217... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-alumni-children-affirmative-action.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-alumni-childre...
88913527 3y ago
I found the NYT article a bit persuasive in that, very few people end up going to elite institutions anyways. Regardless of race, it's a very small pool. You could allocate 100% of admission slots to one race (not a policy suggestion, but a mathematical exercise), and it wouldn't move the needle much because it's so few slots. We'd be better off trying to solve injustices in ways that broadly apply to everyone. Of course there are second-order effects of the top slots, so AA (or lack thereof) will have some impact. Like you, I think it's well-intentioned but practically there are better policy options for effectively addressing inequalities in a more direct, first-order way.
- massysett 3y ago
  But the schools have huge impact beyond what their numbers suggest: for instance, it seems a Harvard or Yale education is a current prerequisite to sit on the US Supreme Court.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    For reference below. Justice Thomas: Yale Law School (1971) Chief Justice John Roberts: Harvard Law School (1979) Justice Alito: Yale Law School (1975) Justice Sotomayor Yale Law School (1979) Justice Kegan: Harvard Law School (1986) Justice Gorsuch: Harvard Law School (1991) Justice Kavanaugh: Yale Law School (1990) Justice Barrett: Notre Dame Law School (1997) Justice Jackson: Harvard Law School (1996) So it's 7/9 at this point. Not a pure prerequisite, but quite close. I tend to not read too much into the whole Harvard/Yale thing though, because this is largely a function of networks and sorting mechanisms. It's not like a lawyer from Yale is THAT much better than a lawyer from the University of Michigan. Maybe that's your point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Suprem...
    - reaperman 3y ago
      8/9?
      - remarkEon 3y ago
        Typo (am on mobile)
rufus_foreman 3y ago
There's a law against universities discriminating on the basis of race, title VI, here's how it goes: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That's the law. Is it legal to discriminate on the grounds of race under programs that receive Federal financial assistance? I think it's pretty clear that it is not, not sure why the Supreme Court had to get involved in that. What's the law for legacy admissions? They're free to do that as far as I know, what's the law that says otherwise? There's a difference between those two things, you must agree.
- ivraatiems 3y ago
  A valid legal argument, maybe - I don't know enough to say. But not a moral one. Is it right to do it?
- raincom 3y ago
  The current SCOTUS says admissions is a zero-sum game. If legacy or ALDC 'quotas' somehow results in racial discrimination indirectly, yes, there is a case. We will know it through the discovery, as these schools don’t reveal these details unless courts force them to share.

remarkEon 3y ago

What’s fascinating about how this all unfolded is that Yale made a different argument in court when their legacy admissions process was under scrutiny, where they defended the practice saying it was part of upholding “its educational goals through diversity, community, and tradition”. Testimony[1] is linked below from the NYT article[2] on the same topic. [1] https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/HEDdata/Tmy/2022HB-05034-R000217-Quinlan,%20Jeremiah,%20Dean%20of%20Admissions-Yale%20University-TMY.PDF https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/HEDdata/Tmy/2022HB-05034-R000217... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-alumni-children-affirmative-action.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-alumni-childre...

88913527 3y ago

I found the NYT article a bit persuasive in that, very few people end up going to elite institutions anyways. Regardless of race, it's a very small pool. You could allocate 100% of admission slots to one race (not a policy suggestion, but a mathematical exercise), and it wouldn't move the needle much because it's so few slots. We'd be better off trying to solve injustices in ways that broadly apply to everyone. Of course there are second-order effects of the top slots, so AA (or lack thereof) will have some impact. Like you, I think it's well-intentioned but practically there are better policy options for effectively addressing inequalities in a more direct, first-order way.

massysett 3y ago
But the schools have huge impact beyond what their numbers suggest: for instance, it seems a Harvard or Yale education is a current prerequisite to sit on the US Supreme Court.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  For reference below. Justice Thomas: Yale Law School (1971) Chief Justice John Roberts: Harvard Law School (1979) Justice Alito: Yale Law School (1975) Justice Sotomayor Yale Law School (1979) Justice Kegan: Harvard Law School (1986) Justice Gorsuch: Harvard Law School (1991) Justice Kavanaugh: Yale Law School (1990) Justice Barrett: Notre Dame Law School (1997) Justice Jackson: Harvard Law School (1996) So it's 7/9 at this point. Not a pure prerequisite, but quite close. I tend to not read too much into the whole Harvard/Yale thing though, because this is largely a function of networks and sorting mechanisms. It's not like a lawyer from Yale is THAT much better than a lawyer from the University of Michigan. Maybe that's your point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Suprem...
  - reaperman 3y ago
    8/9?
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      Typo (am on mobile)

rufus_foreman 3y ago

There's a law against universities discriminating on the basis of race, title VI, here's how it goes: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That's the law. Is it legal to discriminate on the grounds of race under programs that receive Federal financial assistance? I think it's pretty clear that it is not, not sure why the Supreme Court had to get involved in that. What's the law for legacy admissions? They're free to do that as far as I know, what's the law that says otherwise? There's a difference between those two things, you must agree.

ivraatiems 3y ago
A valid legal argument, maybe - I don't know enough to say. But not a moral one. Is it right to do it?
raincom 3y ago
The current SCOTUS says admissions is a zero-sum game. If legacy or ALDC 'quotas' somehow results in racial discrimination indirectly, yes, there is a case. We will know it through the discovery, as these schools don’t reveal these details unless courts force them to share.