• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Harvard And UNC Sued Over Race-Based Admission Policies

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BeatResetsTheWorld

Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/harvard-unc-admission-lawsuit_n_6174288.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000048&ir=Latino+Voices

BOSTON (AP) -- Lawsuits filed Monday against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill argue that affirmative action policies should be banned at colleges across the nation.

The federal suits allege Harvard and UNC rely on race-based affirmative action policies that impact admissions of high-achieving white and Asian American students. The Harvard lawsuit also contends that the Ivy League university specifically limits the number of Asian Americans it admits each year.
Click to expand...

I'll let you read the rest, since the article is fairly short. Attacking higher institutions for attempting to correct systematic issues is incredibly dumb and only shows how ignorant the "The Project on Fair Representation" (laughably ironic) is of the large issues at hand

Although, I will say they have an interesting point with
The lawsuits conclude that "race neutral" policies -- such as giving greater consideration to a prospective student's socio-economic background and boosting financial aid, scholarships and minority candidate recruitment efforts -- can promote diversity better than affirmative action.
Click to expand...

Although, it's almost null, because they fail to realize those other measures are constantly being undermined by racial issues! A school in a poor predominantly white neighborhood vs a poor school in a predominantly black (or non-"model minority") neighborhood. Yes, students from both are in the same economic tier, but which is more likely to get attention and aid? Hmm, I wonder...And let's not forget that affirmative action aids white women the most of any group


Some choice snippets of the surprisingly good comments (an internet first?):
Will this include all the rich white kids who get in because they're "legacies"?
Click to expand...
Affirmative action ends when racism ends.
Click to expand...
End legacy admittance, donor admittance, nepotism, oppression, private prisons, and racism. Then we can end affirmative action.
Click to expand...
No equality demanded for the quality of high schools, but when it comes to getting into college all of the sudden all things have to be equal.
Click to expand...


An excellent video to watch for anyone who wants a good perspective on why AA is still needed
Foxy Fox 39 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uH0vpGZJCo
Click to expand...
 
C

Cagey

Banned
Emphasizing formalism, such as these arguments for overturning affirmative action, in discussions of race is infuriating.

Anyway, moving past that, this is an actual problem:
"Statistical evidence reveals that Harvard uses `holistic' admissions to disguise the fact that it holds Asian Americans to a far higher standard than other students and essentially forces them to compete against each other for admission," the lawsuit argues.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that Harvard is engaging in "racial balancing," enrolling the "essentially the same percentage" of African Americans, Hispanics, whites, and Asian Americans year after year, even though the application rates and qualifications for each racial group have undergone significant changes over time.
Click to expand...

California public univeristies and their demographics demonstrate what happens when such artificial controls aren't in place.

Also, add sports to the list of psuedo-affirmative action programs for whites. Lacrosse, field hockey, swimming, tennis, equestrian, whatever-the-fuck. Sports no one cares about that make no money for schools but allow easier admission standards for their participants to meet for entry to elite schools.
 
entremet

entremet

Member
I vacillate on AA honestly. It's such a tough debate, however, when looking at the vast advantages middle class kids have over inner city ones--schools are better due to better funding via property taxes, less overall stress, which can harm learning, lack of expensive SAT study courses.

I still think the university focus is overblown. Let's focus on building better primary and secondary institutions.

And then there's the SAT, which has a direct correlation in terms of household income and scores.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Oddly enough, the lawsuits actually have a pretty good point

"Harvard's remarkably stable admissions and enrollment figures over time are the deliberate result of system wide intentional racial discrimination designed to achieve a predetermined racial balance of its student body," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuits conclude that "race neutral" policies -- such as giving greater consideration to a prospective student's socio-economic background and boosting financial aid, scholarships and minority candidate recruitment efforts -- can promote diversity better than affirmative action.

Elite schools should also stop giving preference to so-called "legacy" students and offering early admission deadlines, both of which tend to hurt low income and minority applicants and favor wealthy and white ones, the lawsuits suggests.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of incoming data that is showing that looking at socio-economic background & financial aid is better at creating diversity than just doing it strictly by race. For instance, if you kept the percentage of different races the same, but just chose all upper-class kids; that's not really increasing diversity in a meaningful way.

On the bright side, I can see who in this thread didn't read the article. :p
 
C

Cagey

Banned
Cybit said:
There's a lot of incoming data that is showing that looking at socio-economic background & financial aid is better at creating diversity than just doing it strictly by race. For instance, if you kept the percentage of different races the same, but just chose all upper-class kids; that's not really increasing diversity in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

Another problem that exists. Experienced it first hand in law school. Superficial diversity as far as the eye can see, but the vast majority of students came from the same well-off background and had the same shared experiences which shape one's perspective when money is never, ever a concern.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
I agree with the articles point that it only makes sense to do so if you get rid of the other admittance policies of obvious bias, like legacy and donors, simultaneously. If you're going to crow about having a meritocracy, you have to at least be consistent across the board.

Cagey said:
Another problem that exists. Experienced it first hand in law school. Superficial diversity as far as the eye can see, but the vast majority of students came from the same well-off background and had the same shared experiences which shape one's perspective when money is never, ever a concern.
Click to expand...

And this. I don't want to throw an entire group under the bus, but I've heard horror stories about the pretentiousness and exclusionism of black grad students at Harvard Law and Harvard Med.
 
E

ezrarh

Member
entrement said:
I vacillate on AA honestly. It's such a tough debate, however, when looking at the vast advantages middle class kids have over inner city ones--schools are better due to better funding via property taxes, less overall stress, which can harm learning, lack of expensive SAT study courses.

I still think the university focus is overblown. Let's focus on building better primary and secondary institutions.

And then there's the SAT, which has a direct correlation in terms of household income and scores.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment. The problem starts way before college admissions. I know with AA, it's trying to help a little bit but it's not going to solve systemic issues.
 
entremet

entremet

Member
Sho_Nuff82 said:
I agree with the articles point that it only makes sense to do so if you get rid of the other admittance policies of obvious bias, like legacy and donors, simultaneously. If you're going to crow about having a meritocracy, you have to at least be consistent across the board.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I just hate that the debate always has been on or the other. It's way too complex.
 
F

Foxy Fox 39

Banned
No no no. You guys are being silly. Race neutral policies (especially for admission to universities) DO NOT WORK. They've never worked and they won't work anytime soon.
 
Xdrive05

Xdrive05

Member
As a poor white guy (when I was a teen), I can definitely get behind the socio-economic criteria taking priority over a race-based one. I'm not well read on the topic so I'll refrain from weighing in on the morality or efficacy of AA itself. But the socio-economic focus seems to make more sense if we are concerned with correcting the wealth and opportunity disparities.
 
terrisus

terrisus

Member
So that's why I couldn't get into Harvard!


Just to be on the safe side, I'll state explicitly that I'm kidding >.>
 
B

BeatResetsTheWorld

Banned
Xdrive05 said:
As a poor white guy (when I was a teen), I can definitely get behind the socio-economic criteria taking priority over a race-based one. I'm not well read on the topic so I'll refrain from weighing in on the morality or efficacy of AA itself. But the socio-economic focus seems to make more sense if we are concerned with correcting the wealth and opportunity disparities.
Click to expand...

You see this is a nice idealistic look at the problems. I say idealistic, because it assumes that two people of the same socioeconomic class (but of different races) are treated the same, when in reality that's not the case. Race has to be a factor
 
C

captmcblack

Member
The socioeconomic basis would be fine as long as there additionally would be no bias - institutional/subconscious or otherwise - against poor applicants of color versus poor non-minority applicants.

...but I'd imagine there'd be no way to make sure of that.

...and if there was, it'd probably be called affirmative action.
 
entremet

entremet

Member
FunkyMunkey said:
Do you think a race-based admission system is better than a socioeconomic-based one? Or are you just going for an empty one-liner?
Click to expand...

Even a socio-economic would be benefit inner city minorities more. I believe African Americans have the lowest net worth of all ethnicities in the US.

Yep:

The median household net worth for whites was $110,729 in 2010, versus $4,995 for blacks, according to recently released Census Bureau figures. The difference is similarly notable when it comes to Hispanics, who had a median household net worth of $7,424. The ratio between white and Hispanic wealth expanded to 15 to 1.
Click to expand...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/wealth-gap-race/

Race and class very much linked.

Things like these frustrate me when I hear stuff from Milennials saying that racism is over.
 
F

Foxy Fox 39

Banned
BeatResetsTheWorld said:
You see this is a nice idealistic look at the problems. I say idealistic, because it assumes that two people of the same socioeconomic class (but of different races)are treated the same, when in reality that's not the case. Race has to be a factor
Click to expand...

captmcblack said:
The socioeconomic basis would be fine as long as there additionally would be no bias - institutional/subconscious or otherwise - against poor applicants of color versus poor non-minority applicants.

...but I'd imagine there'd be no way to make sure of that.

...and if there was, it'd probably be called affirmative action.
Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

People who are against AA routinely think that the world is full of people who wont see color. People see color. And they judge based on color. They even judge based on names that sound like they belong to black people. There is no way that you are going to root out that bias. Making things "even" will again make things incredibly uneven for the black (fe)male.
 
C

CapNBritain

Member
I've always been against affirmative action because it bothers me on an intellectual level, not to mention how it could've affected me personally. I notice a lot of supporters in this thread and I was wondering if someone could send me a link that actual details how it works (in this case)?

I'm curious on the details of its implementation, especially how it handles having too many "Asian" applicants. Because a stereotypical Chinese person will have a very different upbrining (and very different academic options) from a stereotypical Cambodian person. Heck, even two Chinese people can face wildly different challenges.

And yes, I am interested in being educated, as I am ignorant on the topic.
 
Xdrive05

Xdrive05

Member
BeatResetsTheWorld said:
You see this is a nice idealistic look at the problems. I say idealistic, because it assumes that two people of the same socioeconomic class (but of different races)are treated the same, when in reality that's not the case. Race has to be a factor
Click to expand...

Exactly which injustices are these programs or policies (or whatever we will call them) supposed to correct or influence?

The specific answer(s) to that question should decide the degree to which race and socioeconomics should be factored.

There may be an argument* that selecting primarily on race actually exacerbates negative societal perceptions of race which, in part, these policies may be trying to combat. I don't know if the same could be said for socioeconomics, or at least to the same degree.

*don't know that it's a good argument, but something to consider anyway.
 
F

Foxy Fox 39

Banned
CapNBritain said:
I've always been against affirmative action because it bothers me on an intellectual level, not to mention how it could've affected me personally. I notice a lot of supporters in this thread and I was wondering if someone could send me a link that actual details how it works (in this case)?

I'm curious on the details of its implementation, especially how it handles having too many "Asian" applicants. Because a stereotypical Chinese person will have a very different upbrining (and very different academic options) from a stereotypical Cambodian person. Heck, even two Chinese people can face wildly different challenges.

And yes, I am interested in being educated, as I am ignorant on the topic.
Click to expand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uH0vpGZJCo
 
B

BeatResetsTheWorld

Banned
Byakuya769 said:
No they don't.

That same fudd is trotted out every time this same case comes again. The numbers would drop substantially with those programs, as would the preparedness of the incoming minority students.
Click to expand...

Haha, hence why I literally said right after it's null. By interesting, I meant the only point that could feasibly be taken seriously at a glance
 
C

Cagey

Banned
There's no strong argument for the elimination of AA as it pertains to poor black and Hispanic minorities, for the reasons stated above.

However, that doesn't preclude moving to a system whereby it's part of a solution designed to ameliorate the problems faced by poor people in the US regardless of race/ethnicity compared to wealthier people. Among poor applicants, AA is undoubtedly needed between races. Among poor applicants v. wealthier applicants, the sort of action necessary isn't based on race/ethnicity for those in the poor and wealthy group, it's race (poor only) and income (all poor).

Affirmative action and emphasizing economic status issues among all races is not a mutually exclusive concept in college admissions.

For example. Harvard gets to gleefully put a tally in the "African American" diversity category for wealthy African and Afro-Caribbean students, in addition to wealthy African American students. I parse out the former because those students aren't even the people that AA contemplates as in need of assistance due to the legacy of historical discrimination within the United States. Regardless, as discussed above, the wealthy student of any color is in no need of assistance to overcome disadvantaged upbringing in attaining success.
 
B

BeatResetsTheWorld

Banned
Cagey said:
Regardless, as discussed above, the wealthy student of any color is in no need of assistance to overcome disadvantaged upbringing in attaining success.
Click to expand...

True, for the most part, but that doesn't mean they are treated the same. We have no further to look than the fact that the President of the United States still has racist comments hurled his way on a regular basis. If a black person at that level hasn't escaped it, how can you expect a middle/upper-middle class one to have?

Let's not forget there's also studies on name based discrimination, where candidates of exactly the same qualifications have drastically different success based on one having a name that sounds more/less "foreign" sounding.
 
F

Foxy Fox 39

Banned
It's my belief that people who want to end affirmative action don't actually believe that there is still a systemic racial bias against black people today. They think racism is over, thus affirmative action should be abolished.
 
C

CapNBritain

Member
Foxy Fox 39 said:
It's my belief that people who want to end affirmative action don't actually believe that there is still a systemic racial bias against black people today. They think racism is over, thus affirmative action should be abolished.
Click to expand...

Maybe I need to watch the video you linked to before commenting, but doesn't affirmative action "help" more than just black people? Doesn't if affect all minorities such as hispanics and women (although not Asians)? The US definitely has a long history between blacks and whites, but how does that factor into the other minorities? Especially when the article seems to discuss the influx of Asians (as nebulous as that term is), who don't really have that history (at least not with blacks, as far as I understand).
 
C

Cagey

Banned
BeatResetsTheWorld said:
True, for the most part, but that doesn't mean they are treated the same. We have no further to look than the fact that the President of the United States still has racist comments hurled his way on a regular basis. If a black person at that level hasn't escaped it, how can you expect a middle/upper-middle class one to have?

Let's not forget there's also studies on name based discrimination, where candidates of exactly the same qualifications have drastically different success based on one having a name that sounds more/less "foreign" sounding.
Click to expand...

I don't argue that upper class or upper-middle class people of all colors and creeds are treated the same. Anyone who believes that, quite frankly, is a moron. I would argue the significance is minuscule to achievement as we're discussing here, on this thread, about college admissions.

The white son of a single mother in rural New York flirting with the poverty line has significantly lesser prospects at success than the black son of two black parents earning a combined $180K annually (by no means wealthy, just means "life is good") in Manhattan. Does the Manhattan black kid have it worse off than white kids that are his peers? Of course! Dylan Thomas-Fitzgerald from 85th and 3rd isn't raising eyebrows in interviews, whereas Marcus Johnson from that same doorman apartment building faces, among other things, questions about the professionalism of wearing his hair that long and whether he "earned" where he is. Does the rural NY white kid have it far worse off than all those kids in the last example? Of course. This kid isn't getting extra tutoring, can't afford the SAT study classes if he even knows they exist, etc.

And, of course, the black kid in that poor rural boy's community has it worst of all. The argument here would be to help the poor kids first, with acknowledgment of the need for affirmative action to address the additional hurdles a poor minority faces. I don't think this is outrageous.
 
B

BeatResetsTheWorld

Banned
Cagey said:
I don't argue that upper class or upper-middle class people of all colors and creeds are treated the same. Anyone who believes that, quite frankly, is a moron. I would argue the significance is minuscule to achievement as we're discussing here, on this thread, about college admissions.

The white son of a single mother in rural New York flirting with the poverty line has significantly lesser prospects at success than the black son of two black parents earning a combined $180K annually (by no means wealthy, just means "life is good") in Manhattan. Does the Manhattan black kid have it worse off than white kids that are his peers? Of course! Dylan Thomas-Fitzgerald from 85th and 3rd isn't raising eyebrows in interviews, whereas Marcus Johnson from that same doorman apartment building faces, among other things, questions about his hair and whether he "earned" where he is. Does the rural NY white kid have it far worse off than all those kids in the last example? Of course. This kid isn't getting extra tutoring, can't afford the SAT study classes if she even knows they exist, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh, I definitely agree with you. The bolded part is what I wanted to make sure you understood (and it looks like you do)
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
Affirmative action should not exist. It's an unsustainable, inherently problematic, and often exclusionary system that does hurt some people.

But affirmative action needs to exist. I emphathize with all the white and especially Asian kids who would be better off without it, but it's very important to give underprivileged minorities the opportunity to go to college. A poor Black teenager probably needs an education more than a rich white or Asian kid, because they have nothing to fall back on.

In an ideal world, admissions would only be based on the merit and personality of the student. But unfortunately, our world isn't ideal.
 
B

Bjomesphat

Banned
Valhelm said:
Affirmative action should not exist. It's an unsustainable, inherently problematic, and often exclusionary system that does hurt some people.

But affirmative action needs to exist. I emphathize with all the white and especially Asian kids who would be better off without it, but it's very important to give underprivileged minorities the opportunity to go to college. A poor Black teenager probably needs an education more than a rich white or Asian kid, because they have nothing to fall back on.

In an ideal world, admissions would only be based on the merit and personality of the student. But unfortunately, our world isn't ideal.
Click to expand...

Upbringing aside, if you worked your ass off to get into Harvard and far exceeded the academic requirements than a minority candidate, you wouldn't feel cheated if they got in instead of you?

It's easy to stand back and feel empathy for those less fortunate, but when it has to do with your own future and dreams, looking out for oneself is top priority.

Any kind of acceptance process, employment or education, should be completely merit based. End of discussion.
 
C

CapNBritain

Member
Valhelm said:
Affirmative action should not exist. It's an unsustainable, inherently problematic, and often exclusionary system that does hurt some people.

But affirmative action needs to exist. I emphathize with all the white and especially Asian kids who would be better off without it, but it's very important to give underprivileged minorities the opportunity to go to college. A poor Black teenager probably needs an education more than a rich white or Asian kid, because they have nothing to fall back on.

In an ideal world, admissions would only be based on the merit and personality of the student. But unfortunately, our world isn't ideal.
Click to expand...

That's a weird line. What about, "A poor Black teenager probably needs an education more than a poor white or Asian kid, because they have nothing to fall back on." I think this is then point you were trying to make. And while yes, a black person faces a lot more hurdles in his life than a white person (and the size of that gap depends on where in the US we are talking about), is the difference as large as the one between a poor person and a rich person? And is the difference in challenges between white and black the same as the difference between Asian and black? And what Asian are you talking about?

I mean, it seems that with an economic-based policy, everyone that benefits is someone who is disadvantaged. But with a racially-based policy, some people benefit who don't need the boost and other people who do are actively punished.
 
B

BeatResetsTheWorld

Banned
Bjomesphat said:
Upbringing aside, if you worked your ass off to get into Harvard and far exceeded the academic requirements than a minority candidate, you wouldn't feel cheated if they got in instead of you?

It's easy to stand back and feel empathy for those less fortunate, but when it has to do with your own future and dreams, looking out for oneself is top priority.

Any kind of acceptance process, employment or education, should be completely merit based. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Is this minority student the only one that you exceeded academics wise? Why are you ignoring the shitty legacy student who got in? Or the crew/lacross recruits who got in? Or the numerous other people who you were more qualified than, but who got in for other reasons? This is why targeting only AA is laughable. People get in for a ton of other reasons, but when a minority gets in, OUTRAGE.

But I see you address that with your last statement. The problem with that, as has been stated numerous times in this thread is that, a merit based admission process would still disproportionately screw over minority students
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Bjomesphat said:
It's easy to stand back and feel empathy for those less fortunate, but when it has to do with your own future and dreams, looking out for oneself is top priority.
Click to expand...

Here is your premise.

Any kind of acceptance process, employment or education, should be completely merit based. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Here is your conclusion.

Your conclusion does not match your premise; your premise requires that your conclusion be that all those people who benefit from "non-merit" criteria prefer admission systems that privilege "non-merit" criteria, while those who benefit from "merit" criteria prefer admission systems that privilege "merit" criteria. Wouldn't you agree? We also need a way to bridge the systems that applicants prefer to systems that institutions or society prefers.
 
B

Bjomesphat

Banned
BeatResetsTheWorld said:
Is this minority student the only one that you exceeded academics wise? Why are you ignoring the shitty legacy student who got in? Or the crew/lacross recruits who got in? Or the numerous other people who you were more qualified than, but who got in for other reasons? This is why targeting only AA is laughable. People get in for a ton of other reasons, but when a minority gets in, OUTRAGE.

But I see you address that with your last statement. The problem with that, as has been stated numerous times in this thread is that, a merit based admission process would still disproportionately screw over minority students
Click to expand...

There should be an academic standard; if you don't meet that you don't qualify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NYT: Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says
33
2K
TheMikado replied
DoJ to sue colleges that "discriminate against white applicants" w/affirmative action
2 3 4 5 6
284
36K
Journeywalker replied
What a Fraternity Hazing Death Revealed About the Painful Search for an Asian-America
13
4K
Kill3r7 replied
  • Locked
Asian groups file complaint over Harvard admission practices
2 3 4 5 6
259
33K
soundscream replied
  • Locked
The Right does better when a country is doing well from left wing policies?
2 3 4 5
216
17K
sugarhigh4242 replied
Top Bottom