3 ms·
They can do things that have the effect you describe, using broad and not 100% precise methods. But they can no longer explicitly "giv[e] Black and Latino stude
by gnicholas 3y ago
They can do things that have the effect you describe, using broad and not 100% precise methods. But they can no longer explicitly "giv[e] Black and Latino students a boost."
- rahimnathwani 3y agoYup. My understanding is that Harvard could still give someone a boost for having attended a particular high school (which happens to be 95% non-white-non-Asian).
- gnicholas 3y agoThat is an open question, especially if their reason for doing so is based on racial considerations. This question (is a policy that is racially neutral on its face allowable, if it was motivated by racial animas?) is being litigated in the TJ case, where school board members are alleged to have tweaked their HS admissions program with the goal of reducing Asian student enrollment.
- rahimnathwani 3y agoRight. For now it's an open question. I hope it gets cleared up soon. I think the TJ case is a bit complicated, because: - an action motivated by racial balancing may be trying to correct for other issues, and not necessarily by 'racial animus' - a lot of the comments (from board members) suggesting racial animus were a precursor to the original proposed policy AIUI the most recent ruling suggested you couldn't assume the latest policy was informed by such animus just because the first one proposed was. To draw such a conclusion would mean the board could never make a new policy without it being tarnished. Such a messy situation.