5 ms·

Well, how is legacy admissions free speech and affirmative action “prejudice” and illegal according to the Supreme Court? Neither is based on merit alone. No

Well, how is legacy admissions free speech and affirmative action “prejudice” and illegal according to the Supreme Court? Neither is based on merit alone. No I am not arguing for or against affirmative action in college admissions. I am Black and graduated from an HBCU. I haven’t had a reason to think about affirmative action deeply enough to have an informed opinion.

dgacmu 2y ago
Don't get me wrong: I think legacy admissions should be eliminated. And my understanding is that my university (Carnegie Mellon) has stopped considering legacy status as part of admissions. But the answer is that legacy is a one-hop removed racial bias instead of a direct one, where the schools engaging in it can claim that it's based on a purely financial incentive and that it applies equally to all of their legacies. It's like money laundering for bias: Finding a proxy metric that happens to correlate extremely well with race but never explicitly mentions it. With the current supreme court, that laundering seems kinda likely to succeed.
- dmayle 2y ago
  You actually have it backwards. Your claim is that legacy admissions bias in favor of the predominant race might be true for a school that had race-blind admittance criteria. In the opposite case, however, legacy admissions bias against people of the predominant race (for the general student). Since legacy admissions come first, schools which practice affirmative action have a heavy bias against the predominant race (because those slots are all filled by legacy candidate). Which means that if you're of the predominant race, you have next to no chance to be accepted by these universities... (I mean, everyone has next to no chance, but for people of the predominant race, they are discriminated against severely). In general, though, college admissions are pretty terrible... Having spoken with someone who worked in admissions at one of these universities, if you have a bright kid, you're better off moving to the middle of nowhere to make sure they're the valedictorian, rather than trying to send your kid to a great high school where why might only be salutatorian. Why? For smaller schools they rarely take more than one student from that school in any given year, so when the valedictorian who filled out applications to 10 top schools gets in to all 10? The salutatorian doesn't...
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    The Supreme Court made race illegal as a requirement for admission.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Disparate Impact https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7
  - dgacmu 2y ago
    Hence my comment that "With the current supreme court, that laundering seems kinda likely to succeed." I don't disagree with anything you're arguing from a moral perspective. I'm not a big fan of what's happening at the supreme court these days. We may get to find out: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190123323/department-of-education-launches-investigation-into-harvard-legacy-admissions https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190123323/department-of-educ...
Manuel_D 2y ago
Race is a protected class. Wealth is not. A bank can require a certain amount of money to be deposited in a checking account to qualify for certain cards and benefits. They can't just say "this card is for X race only".
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Fine. If it’s not in the public interest. A “private” college shouldn’t be eligible for federal financial aid, tax exempt status, etc just like a bank isn’t. We should tax earnings from their endowments too
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    "Public interest" isn't an excuse to strip tax exempt status or withhold funding on a whim. The government cannot simply remove the tax exempt status of the NRA or Planned Parenthood because it decides that the organization doesn't serve public interest.
    - Supermancho 2y ago
      > The government cannot simply remove the tax exempt status of the NRA or Planned Parenthood because it decides that the organization doesn't serve public interest. The (aggregate) government is the only one who can, as it's the only one who granted the status. The idea that something is ironclad because it's enshrined in law, is a failing to consider history. Laws change. If you want to argue that it's unlikely, this also depends largely on those who have the money (or power) to fight for the change. I would agree there is not enough public sentiment, despite the wealth inequality implications, for private universities. Planned Parenthood? I think we got awful close. Either way, it could be done. It is important not to dismiss the possibility.
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        Stanford alone has an endowment upwards of 30 billion dollars. They absolutely have the resources to fight the change.

dgacmu 2y ago

Don't get me wrong: I think legacy admissions should be eliminated. And my understanding is that my university (Carnegie Mellon) has stopped considering legacy status as part of admissions. But the answer is that legacy is a one-hop removed racial bias instead of a direct one, where the schools engaging in it can claim that it's based on a purely financial incentive and that it applies equally to all of their legacies. It's like money laundering for bias: Finding a proxy metric that happens to correlate extremely well with race but never explicitly mentions it. With the current supreme court, that laundering seems kinda likely to succeed.

dmayle 2y ago
You actually have it backwards. Your claim is that legacy admissions bias in favor of the predominant race might be true for a school that had race-blind admittance criteria. In the opposite case, however, legacy admissions bias against people of the predominant race (for the general student). Since legacy admissions come first, schools which practice affirmative action have a heavy bias against the predominant race (because those slots are all filled by legacy candidate). Which means that if you're of the predominant race, you have next to no chance to be accepted by these universities... (I mean, everyone has next to no chance, but for people of the predominant race, they are discriminated against severely). In general, though, college admissions are pretty terrible... Having spoken with someone who worked in admissions at one of these universities, if you have a bright kid, you're better off moving to the middle of nowhere to make sure they're the valedictorian, rather than trying to send your kid to a great high school where why might only be salutatorian. Why? For smaller schools they rarely take more than one student from that school in any given year, so when the valedictorian who filled out applications to 10 top schools gets in to all 10? The salutatorian doesn't...
- scarface_74 2y ago
  The Supreme Court made race illegal as a requirement for admission.
scarface_74 2y ago
Disparate Impact https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7
- dgacmu 2y ago
  Hence my comment that "With the current supreme court, that laundering seems kinda likely to succeed." I don't disagree with anything you're arguing from a moral perspective. I'm not a big fan of what's happening at the supreme court these days. We may get to find out: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190123323/department-of-education-launches-investigation-into-harvard-legacy-admissions https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190123323/department-of-educ...

Manuel_D 2y ago

Race is a protected class. Wealth is not. A bank can require a certain amount of money to be deposited in a checking account to qualify for certain cards and benefits. They can't just say "this card is for X race only".

scarface_74 2y ago
Fine. If it’s not in the public interest. A “private” college shouldn’t be eligible for federal financial aid, tax exempt status, etc just like a bank isn’t. We should tax earnings from their endowments too
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  "Public interest" isn't an excuse to strip tax exempt status or withhold funding on a whim. The government cannot simply remove the tax exempt status of the NRA or Planned Parenthood because it decides that the organization doesn't serve public interest.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > The government cannot simply remove the tax exempt status of the NRA or Planned Parenthood because it decides that the organization doesn't serve public interest. The (aggregate) government is the only one who can, as it's the only one who granted the status. The idea that something is ironclad because it's enshrined in law, is a failing to consider history. Laws change. If you want to argue that it's unlikely, this also depends largely on those who have the money (or power) to fight for the change. I would agree there is not enough public sentiment, despite the wealth inequality implications, for private universities. Planned Parenthood? I think we got awful close. Either way, it could be done. It is important not to dismiss the possibility.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Stanford alone has an endowment upwards of 30 billion dollars. They absolutely have the resources to fight the change.