▲ | wredcoll a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure this is terribly relevant given where the conversation has gone, but in your example, college admissions, race was essentially used as a tie breaker between equally qualified candidates. I suspect that's how it ended up being used in a lot of places (aside from deliberate outreaches to encourage applications, etc). Beyond that though, I'm not sure not getting into harvard is exactly a "grave injustice". You don't have a right or entitlement to go to harvard regardless of what your academic score is. And I don't think there's a reasonable argument that there should be such a right. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | rayiner 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> race was essentially used as a tie breaker between equally qualified candidates. That’s demonstrably untrue. At Harvard, an Asian candidate at the top decile of academic index scores had roughly the same admissions rate as a black candidate in the 4th decile: https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-acti... The candidates were basically competing in entirely different lanes based on race. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I have argued elsewhere that Harvard has no obligation to accept anyone. However, the civil Rights act does prevent discrimination based on race if they do. The supreme Court case on the admissions topic showed extremely clearly that race was not just a tiebreaker. Imo, the far more egregious use is public universities. Similarly, if I run an organization, I can choose to serve 10 or 10,000. I just can't hang out a sign saying "no blacks/whites allowed". | |||||||||||||||||
|