5 ms·

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 di

by 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".
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    I don’t understand how you’re positioning this. It seems like you’re saying they have extra compliance because they accept federal funds. I don’t disagree. So what? This has nothing to do with literacy tests. Are you suggesting legacy admissions discriminate by race? As I mentioned there is an unequal outcome but equal outcomes are not required.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      > Are you suggesting legacy admissions discriminate by race? Other than adoptive children, people tend to be of the same race as their parents. How is it not racial discrimination?
    - tyingq 3y ago
      > This has nothing to do with literacy tests I mentioned literacy tests as the restrictions put on them by the civil rights act are an illustrative example of the act calling out indirect discrimination. I understand they aren't directly related to college admissions. I could have used a contrived example. Like how height requirements could discriminate against women. But that's not mentioned in the act, while literacy tests are...so it's a better and more relevant example. It was in reply to this: "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." Again, an example where that's not true. In that case "literacy tests" for voting were restricted, even through it's "other reasons" and indirect. The literacy tests have, as you say, "unequal outcomes". I'm not 100% convinced that legacy admissions would fall into the same category. But, I imagine many people are. In other words, I brought up the literacy tests as an example of something that contradicts your assertion, which I read as something like "only clear and direct discrimination is in scope for the civil rights act".
- triceratops 3y ago
  Very interesting that you saw affirmative action as "institutionalized racism" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36549656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36549656) but now "getting accepted into a university isnt a right". You seriously don't see how preferring children of alumni (other than edge cases like adoptive children) isn't institutionalized racism by proxy?
roenxi 3y ago
Possibly, but as I understand it the courts had to get involved to drag Harvard away from racially discriminating in favour of various minorities people. It seems unlikely that Harvard are secretly discriminating against minorities with their legacy admissions program. There seems to be a consensus that if admissions was left to their own they'd be trying to filter out Whites & Asians. So it seems a bit far-fetched to claim that might be an indirect attack against the very people Harvard were just trying to advantage. They're clearly discriminating based on social standing, money and power.
- tyingq 3y ago
  >It seems unlikely that Harvard are secretly discriminating against minorities with their legacy admissions program I agree, though it's also likely they protect and promote their legacy admissions because it drives a lot of alumni funding. I don't think there needs to be proven deliberate intent to discriminate for a lawsuit to succeed. Lots of ADA lawsuits, for example, aren't about intent.

by 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".
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  I don’t understand how you’re positioning this. It seems like you’re saying they have extra compliance because they accept federal funds. I don’t disagree. So what? This has nothing to do with literacy tests. Are you suggesting legacy admissions discriminate by race? As I mentioned there is an unequal outcome but equal outcomes are not required.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    > Are you suggesting legacy admissions discriminate by race? Other than adoptive children, people tend to be of the same race as their parents. How is it not racial discrimination?
  - tyingq 3y ago
    > This has nothing to do with literacy tests I mentioned literacy tests as the restrictions put on them by the civil rights act are an illustrative example of the act calling out indirect discrimination. I understand they aren't directly related to college admissions. I could have used a contrived example. Like how height requirements could discriminate against women. But that's not mentioned in the act, while literacy tests are...so it's a better and more relevant example. It was in reply to this: "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." Again, an example where that's not true. In that case "literacy tests" for voting were restricted, even through it's "other reasons" and indirect. The literacy tests have, as you say, "unequal outcomes". I'm not 100% convinced that legacy admissions would fall into the same category. But, I imagine many people are. In other words, I brought up the literacy tests as an example of something that contradicts your assertion, which I read as something like "only clear and direct discrimination is in scope for the civil rights act".
triceratops 3y ago
Very interesting that you saw affirmative action as "institutionalized racism" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36549656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36549656) but now "getting accepted into a university isnt a right". You seriously don't see how preferring children of alumni (other than edge cases like adoptive children) isn't institutionalized racism by proxy?

roenxi 3y ago

Possibly, but as I understand it the courts had to get involved to drag Harvard away from racially discriminating in favour of various minorities people. It seems unlikely that Harvard are secretly discriminating against minorities with their legacy admissions program. There seems to be a consensus that if admissions was left to their own they'd be trying to filter out Whites & Asians. So it seems a bit far-fetched to claim that might be an indirect attack against the very people Harvard were just trying to advantage. They're clearly discriminating based on social standing, money and power.

tyingq 3y ago
>It seems unlikely that Harvard are secretly discriminating against minorities with their legacy admissions program I agree, though it's also likely they protect and promote their legacy admissions because it drives a lot of alumni funding. I don't think there needs to be proven deliberate intent to discriminate for a lawsuit to succeed. Lots of ADA lawsuits, for example, aren't about intent.