5 ms·

> the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni. Im not sure this will ultimately be an

> the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni. Im not sure this will ultimately be an effective argument. You cant favor people for being a certain race. But you can favor people for other reasons, which may result in more people of a certain race. That doesnt violate the Civil Rights Act. You dont have to meet racial quotas and in fact trying to do so will likely put you on the wrong side of the law (see the recent affirmative action case). The argument seems to be that legacy admissions are wrong because they end up favoring white people which violates the Civil Rights Act. But it’s not actually discrimination by race. Any method of choosing will have imbalanced results, unless you do the one thing you CANT do and choose by race. The article doesnt make any claims that legacy admissions are in and of itself illegal. Im just not sure what law legacy admissions break. Also, a popular feeling that it’s unfair is irrelevant. Thats a job for congress.

dcdc123 3y ago
> Thats a job for congress. The Supreme Court doesn’t seem to think so.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  You’re referring to making gay marriage legal? In any case its the Supreme Court”s case to rule on what the law says. They cant just conclude legacy admissions are unlawful because they are bad. Congress can.
  - code_runner 3y ago
    The court ruled its unconstitutional to have a law forbidding gay marriage. They did not make a law.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      They can essentially strike down laws as unconstitutional. But that’s a legal basis - they cant just say they think its bad and strike it down. Edit: (no reply button below) please clarify what you don’t understand. I dont see any disagreement between us despite your oppositional stance and fear of bigotry.
      - code_runner 3y ago
        I’m not sure at all what you’re trying to say here but I hope it’s not bigoted.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    The court can rule that it is against existing laws and allow individuals to sue schools for damages.
tyingq 3y ago
The Civil rights act did put restrictions on literacy tests used as a form of indirect discrimination. So there's some language for things outside of direct discrimination.
- glimshe 3y ago
  I think that it would have to be demonstrated that the legacy admissions process is a proxy for racial discrimination, i.e., put it in place as a stealthy race-based criterion.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    I think you’re right. If they can prove that is the intent I think that would demonstrate that its illegal. But merely by effect, not buying it. Any way of choosing that is not by race, which is a legal requirement, can have very unequal outcomes. If its by effect then choosing by grades and test scores is illegal. I wonder what would cause a university to both pursue affirmative action to meet diversity quotas while also actively trying to discriminate against minorities via legacy admissions.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > The Civil rights act did put restrictions on literacy tests used as a form of indirect discrimination. As a prereq for voting. But getting accepted into a university isnt a right. And obviously universities discriminate against the illiterate.
  - tyingq 3y ago
    "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race...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 "Federal financial assistance" part puts it in scope. And "program or activity" specifically includes "(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution".
    - 3y ago
_8j50 3y ago
> But you can favor people for other reasons, which may result in more people of a certain race No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs entire purpose is to sue/prosecute orgs that discriminate without being direct about it. If you only interview white sounding names for example, there is no proof of direct discrimination or if a policy you have has the effect of excluding a protected class. The bar for proving malice, as with all things legal is if a "reasonable person" can recognize the indirect effect of those actions as harming protected people because then intent to discriminate can be proven.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs entire purpose is to sue/prosecute orgs that discriminate without being direct about it. Having unequal outcomes doesnt mean your are discriminating.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Yes but if it is a pattern anyone can recognize it is cause for investigation and if there were pattern breaking applicants then that is probably a suit. Of course, a court will decide case by case if what happened was actually discrimination. Even with all this, there is a crapton of actual discrimination just based on people's names. Another commentie on this post was mentioning how their employer was tossing out all indian sounding names, i have seen similar things as well. This is very common and the law allows lawsuits based on patterns of unequal outcomes and in civil cases, the defendant has to prove the accusation is false (opposite of innocent until proven guilty).
  - triceratops 3y ago
    Law isn't code. Believe it or not judges, and regular people, can suss out when someone is trying to be clever with their illegal discrimination. If admission to a college is based on a standardized test that is administered only on Sunday mornings, no one is going to buy that it is not designed to discriminate against devout Christians. It doesn't matter if the college swears up and down that that's the only day they have proctors or testing sites available. You don't have to say or even imply you're doing it for an illegal reason. Unless there's a legitimate reason for applying whatever criteria you choose to apply, you have to check whether they're a proxy for a protected class. This definitely applies to hiring. I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to college admissions. Does having a parent who studied at Harvard better qualify a student to study there?
lawtalkinghuman 3y ago
You can read the complaint here - http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/our-impact/education/federal-civil-rights-complaint-challenges-harvards-legacy-admissions/ http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/our-impact/education/federa... PDF - http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Federal-Civil-Rights-Complaint-Against-Harvard.pdf http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/... Their legal argument starts on p17 of the PDF and across pages 17 and 18 it cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and points to 34 CFR §100.3(b)(2) which states universities in receipt of federal student funds: > may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin [1] The general rule across most jursidictions is you can have a test for employment, admissions etc. that leads to a disparate impact - e.g. a tough physical fitness test that it is harder for women to pass than men - but if that can't be justified as relevant to the job or serving a valid role for the organisation, that's a problem. To use the fitness test example, it's highly likely that the Marines applying such a test to decide who gets to train for special forces could justify such a test, but rather less likely if you're a company deciding on who to hire to write software or adminster databases or whatever. The argument made in the complaint is that the justifications for legacy admissions policies don't work, and without a satisfactory justification, it's a breach of Title VI. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-100 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/p...
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  This is a great summary thank you for providing it. The clarification that requirements must fit the job or serve the organizational interests seems key. The latter sounds like it has more wiggle room for Harvard in terms of building and maintaining a strong donor base. But perhaps there are more guidelines on this requirement. I guess you might be able to argue legacy admissions might be more fit for the job (expectations, culture fit, etc) but that seems weaker and frankly not the real reason for Harvard admitting so many legacies.
triceratops 3y ago
> But you can favor people for other reasons, which may result in more people of a certain race. That doesnt violate the Civil Rights Act. I don't know where you got that idea from but it's not true. There's plenty of precedent that using a proxy for a protected class to discriminate violates the CRA. If elite institutions have favored people based on a protected class in the past, then preferring their children is likely to perpetuate that same discrimination in many cases (religion, race, ethnicity) that are inherited or inculcated. Obviously not for others (gender, sexual orientation, veteran status) that aren't inherited. I saw that you were supportive of ending affirmative action. This is basically the same thing.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > I don't know where you got that idea from but it's not true. There's plenty of precedent that using a proxy for a protected class to discriminate violates the CRA. You’re assuming unequal outcomes means there is something being used as a proxy for race. In a merit based system you would take the best students and judge by grades and test scores. This would have unequal outcomes.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    You don't have to measure outcomes at all. Harvard has had discriminatory admissions criteria in the past. Many axes of discrimination are inherited. Ergo preferring children of Harvard alumni causes that same discrimination, but with a new name ("legacy admission").
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      > You don't have to measure outcomes at all. I think I compete agree with this. > Harvard has had discriminatory admissions criteria in the past. Many axes of discrimination are inherited. Ergo preferring children of Harvard alumni causes that same discrimination, but with a new name ("legacy admission"). But are you saying legacy admission are unfair or illegal? “Discriminatory” admissions practices are not necessarily illegal (by gender) nor even bad (by grades).
threatofrain 3y ago
Actually, it is legal to discriminate on race, such as by saying that you only want to hire white actors to play Abraham Lincoln (BFOQ), and it is also legally murky to use things which can act as a proxy for race, and hence why police had to argue for the use of IQ tests to exclude high-IQ candidates. There are also parallels to BFOQ's in other peer nations.

dcdc123 3y ago

> Thats a job for congress. The Supreme Court doesn’t seem to think so.

nonethewiser 3y ago
You’re referring to making gay marriage legal? In any case its the Supreme Court”s case to rule on what the law says. They cant just conclude legacy admissions are unlawful because they are bad. Congress can.
- code_runner 3y ago
  The court ruled its unconstitutional to have a law forbidding gay marriage. They did not make a law.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    They can essentially strike down laws as unconstitutional. But that’s a legal basis - they cant just say they think its bad and strike it down. Edit: (no reply button below) please clarify what you don’t understand. I dont see any disagreement between us despite your oppositional stance and fear of bigotry.
    - code_runner 3y ago
      I’m not sure at all what you’re trying to say here but I hope it’s not bigoted.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  The court can rule that it is against existing laws and allow individuals to sue schools for damages.

tyingq 3y ago

The Civil rights act did put restrictions on literacy tests used as a form of indirect discrimination. So there's some language for things outside of direct discrimination.

glimshe 3y ago
I think that it would have to be demonstrated that the legacy admissions process is a proxy for racial discrimination, i.e., put it in place as a stealthy race-based criterion.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  I think you’re right. If they can prove that is the intent I think that would demonstrate that its illegal. But merely by effect, not buying it. Any way of choosing that is not by race, which is a legal requirement, can have very unequal outcomes. If its by effect then choosing by grades and test scores is illegal. I wonder what would cause a university to both pursue affirmative action to meet diversity quotas while also actively trying to discriminate against minorities via legacy admissions.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> The Civil rights act did put restrictions on literacy tests used as a form of indirect discrimination. As a prereq for voting. But getting accepted into a university isnt a right. And obviously universities discriminate against the illiterate.
- tyingq 3y ago
  "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race...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 "Federal financial assistance" part puts it in scope. And "program or activity" specifically includes "(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution".
  - 3y ago

_8j50 3y ago

> But you can favor people for other reasons, which may result in more people of a certain race No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs entire purpose is to sue/prosecute orgs that discriminate without being direct about it. If you only interview white sounding names for example, there is no proof of direct discrimination or if a policy you have has the effect of excluding a protected class. The bar for proving malice, as with all things legal is if a "reasonable person" can recognize the indirect effect of those actions as harming protected people because then intent to discriminate can be proven.

nonethewiser 3y ago
> No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs entire purpose is to sue/prosecute orgs that discriminate without being direct about it. Having unequal outcomes doesnt mean your are discriminating.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Yes but if it is a pattern anyone can recognize it is cause for investigation and if there were pattern breaking applicants then that is probably a suit. Of course, a court will decide case by case if what happened was actually discrimination. Even with all this, there is a crapton of actual discrimination just based on people's names. Another commentie on this post was mentioning how their employer was tossing out all indian sounding names, i have seen similar things as well. This is very common and the law allows lawsuits based on patterns of unequal outcomes and in civil cases, the defendant has to prove the accusation is false (opposite of innocent until proven guilty).
- triceratops 3y ago
  Law isn't code. Believe it or not judges, and regular people, can suss out when someone is trying to be clever with their illegal discrimination. If admission to a college is based on a standardized test that is administered only on Sunday mornings, no one is going to buy that it is not designed to discriminate against devout Christians. It doesn't matter if the college swears up and down that that's the only day they have proctors or testing sites available. You don't have to say or even imply you're doing it for an illegal reason. Unless there's a legitimate reason for applying whatever criteria you choose to apply, you have to check whether they're a proxy for a protected class. This definitely applies to hiring. I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to college admissions. Does having a parent who studied at Harvard better qualify a student to study there?

lawtalkinghuman 3y ago

You can read the complaint here - http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/our-impact/education/federal-civil-rights-complaint-challenges-harvards-legacy-admissions/ http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/our-impact/education/federa... PDF - http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Federal-Civil-Rights-Complaint-Against-Harvard.pdf http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/... Their legal argument starts on p17 of the PDF and across pages 17 and 18 it cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and points to 34 CFR §100.3(b)(2) which states universities in receipt of federal student funds: > may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin [1] The general rule across most jursidictions is you can have a test for employment, admissions etc. that leads to a disparate impact - e.g. a tough physical fitness test that it is harder for women to pass than men - but if that can't be justified as relevant to the job or serving a valid role for the organisation, that's a problem. To use the fitness test example, it's highly likely that the Marines applying such a test to decide who gets to train for special forces could justify such a test, but rather less likely if you're a company deciding on who to hire to write software or adminster databases or whatever. The argument made in the complaint is that the justifications for legacy admissions policies don't work, and without a satisfactory justification, it's a breach of Title VI. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-100 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/p...

nonethewiser 3y ago
This is a great summary thank you for providing it. The clarification that requirements must fit the job or serve the organizational interests seems key. The latter sounds like it has more wiggle room for Harvard in terms of building and maintaining a strong donor base. But perhaps there are more guidelines on this requirement. I guess you might be able to argue legacy admissions might be more fit for the job (expectations, culture fit, etc) but that seems weaker and frankly not the real reason for Harvard admitting so many legacies.

triceratops 3y ago

> But you can favor people for other reasons, which may result in more people of a certain race. That doesnt violate the Civil Rights Act. I don't know where you got that idea from but it's not true. There's plenty of precedent that using a proxy for a protected class to discriminate violates the CRA. If elite institutions have favored people based on a protected class in the past, then preferring their children is likely to perpetuate that same discrimination in many cases (religion, race, ethnicity) that are inherited or inculcated. Obviously not for others (gender, sexual orientation, veteran status) that aren't inherited. I saw that you were supportive of ending affirmative action. This is basically the same thing.

nonethewiser 3y ago
> I don't know where you got that idea from but it's not true. There's plenty of precedent that using a proxy for a protected class to discriminate violates the CRA. You’re assuming unequal outcomes means there is something being used as a proxy for race. In a merit based system you would take the best students and judge by grades and test scores. This would have unequal outcomes.
- triceratops 3y ago
  You don't have to measure outcomes at all. Harvard has had discriminatory admissions criteria in the past. Many axes of discrimination are inherited. Ergo preferring children of Harvard alumni causes that same discrimination, but with a new name ("legacy admission").
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    > You don't have to measure outcomes at all. I think I compete agree with this. > Harvard has had discriminatory admissions criteria in the past. Many axes of discrimination are inherited. Ergo preferring children of Harvard alumni causes that same discrimination, but with a new name ("legacy admission"). But are you saying legacy admission are unfair or illegal? “Discriminatory” admissions practices are not necessarily illegal (by gender) nor even bad (by grades).

threatofrain 3y ago

Actually, it is legal to discriminate on race, such as by saying that you only want to hire white actors to play Abraham Lincoln (BFOQ), and it is also legally murky to use things which can act as a proxy for race, and hence why police had to argue for the use of IQ tests to exclude high-IQ candidates. There are also parallels to BFOQ's in other peer nations.