5 ms·

But favoring legacy status in admissions is a form of racial discrimination because non-white people are much, much less likely to have legacy at elite institut

by elil17 3y ago

But favoring legacy status in admissions is a form of racial discrimination because non-white people are much, much less likely to have legacy at elite institutions.

hnboredhn 3y ago
Harvard posted that 70% of their legacy admits were white and 30% non-white. That's higher than the population of 18 year olds but maybe not as extreme as some would think.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sin7 3y ago
  If a 'fair' coin came up 70% you lose, you'd be ready to fight the person trying to scam you. At the very least ready to call the cops on them.
randyrand 3y ago
I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. Everything correlates with race. Height, disease, money, eye color, divorce, number of pokemon cards, you name it. You may as well call it eye-color discrimination, height discrimination, pokemon card discrimination, etc, as well. It just makes no sense at that point. So what exactly is the point of calling it racial discrimination then? Isn't every single policy racist then?
- hx8 3y ago
  > I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. I agree, but we shouldn't be blind to discrimination that correlates with race, because enough of it can be equivalent to racial discrimination at a population level.
- digging 3y ago
  > I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. Fortunately for people of color, it is. You don't have to say you're discriminating based on race in order to be doing so, and the law acknowledges this. That is how gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination. We do actually get to look at reality when we are deciding if an act is racist.
  - cataphract 3y ago
    Well, depends on the day. See the Trump v. Hawaii (the Muslim ban case). In this case Trump did say he wanted to ban muslims, but it didn't even matter.
    - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
      I mean why would it? The law explicitly stated he's allowed to ban immigration and travel of non USA persons based on whatever he feels like. Non USA persons don't get the same rights especially around entering the USA.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      That’s funny because Trump v. Hawaii proves the opposite. Obama was the one who identified those specific countries. They just happened to all be Muslim. Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims, but did so by using a list of countries that Obama had generated based on presumably non-racist reasons.
  - belorn 3y ago
    gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of intention of racial discrimination. Correlation and intent are two very different concepts, and it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent.
    - digging 3y ago
      > it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent. Yes but it is much more dangerous to assume that correlation can't imply intent. Because sometimes it does.
- elil17 3y ago
  Legacy doesn't just correlate with race - the fact that legacy admissions are so heavily skewed towards white people is because of past racial discrimination. It's a grandfather clause of sorts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Origin).
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Actions can have racist outcomes whether or not they have racist intent. (obviously one can argue about the intent until the cows come home if you wish, but the outcomes are more a matter of fairly straightforward facts about the world).
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  So what exactly is the point of calling it racial discrimination then? We should point it out when it happens. Most of us know what sorts of stunts were pulled with Jim Crow era laws. None of these were explicably racist on paper, but we all know they intended racism and exclusion. And these sorts of policies continue that tradition, even if it wasn't meant to. If a policy winds up being discriminatory like this, we should call it out and change it. Not doing so means silently agreeing with the discrimination. The justification matters little. Isn't every single policy racist then? Obviously not.

by elil17 3y ago

But favoring legacy status in admissions is a form of racial discrimination because non-white people are much, much less likely to have legacy at elite institutions.

hnboredhn 3y ago

Harvard posted that 70% of their legacy admits were white and 30% non-white. That's higher than the population of 18 year olds but maybe not as extreme as some would think.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sin7 3y ago
If a 'fair' coin came up 70% you lose, you'd be ready to fight the person trying to scam you. At the very least ready to call the cops on them.

randyrand 3y ago

I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. Everything correlates with race. Height, disease, money, eye color, divorce, number of pokemon cards, you name it. You may as well call it eye-color discrimination, height discrimination, pokemon card discrimination, etc, as well. It just makes no sense at that point. So what exactly is the point of calling it racial discrimination then? Isn't every single policy racist then?

hx8 3y ago
> I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. I agree, but we shouldn't be blind to discrimination that correlates with race, because enough of it can be equivalent to racial discrimination at a population level.
digging 3y ago
> I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. Fortunately for people of color, it is. You don't have to say you're discriminating based on race in order to be doing so, and the law acknowledges this. That is how gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination. We do actually get to look at reality when we are deciding if an act is racist.
- cataphract 3y ago
  Well, depends on the day. See the Trump v. Hawaii (the Muslim ban case). In this case Trump did say he wanted to ban muslims, but it didn't even matter.
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    I mean why would it? The law explicitly stated he's allowed to ban immigration and travel of non USA persons based on whatever he feels like. Non USA persons don't get the same rights especially around entering the USA.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    That’s funny because Trump v. Hawaii proves the opposite. Obama was the one who identified those specific countries. They just happened to all be Muslim. Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims, but did so by using a list of countries that Obama had generated based on presumably non-racist reasons.
- belorn 3y ago
  gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of intention of racial discrimination. Correlation and intent are two very different concepts, and it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent.
  - digging 3y ago
    > it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent. Yes but it is much more dangerous to assume that correlation can't imply intent. Because sometimes it does.
elil17 3y ago
Legacy doesn't just correlate with race - the fact that legacy admissions are so heavily skewed towards white people is because of past racial discrimination. It's a grandfather clause of sorts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Origin).
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
Actions can have racist outcomes whether or not they have racist intent. (obviously one can argue about the intent until the cows come home if you wish, but the outcomes are more a matter of fairly straightforward facts about the world).
Broken_Hippo 3y ago
So what exactly is the point of calling it racial discrimination then? We should point it out when it happens. Most of us know what sorts of stunts were pulled with Jim Crow era laws. None of these were explicably racist on paper, but we all know they intended racism and exclusion. And these sorts of policies continue that tradition, even if it wasn't meant to. If a policy winds up being discriminatory like this, we should call it out and change it. Not doing so means silently agreeing with the discrimination. The justification matters little. Isn't every single policy racist then? Obviously not.