Maggie's Farm

That is not correct in light of the court's decision. Policies must be formally race neutral, but they can have a racial impact in effect.

For instance, past discrimination at universities led to student populations that were largely white and well-to-do. Legacy admissions grant special access to student's whose parents were previous students. With these two facets combined, the effect is to perpetuate racial disparities, locking in previous injustice. The discriminating class gets to keep their ill-gotten gains. Legacy admissions are a type of systemic racism.

Nor do the policies have to be blind to race. For instance, the University of Texas grants admission to the top 10% of students in every high school in the state. Because schools are de facto segregated, that means a significant proportion of Blacks will be admitted. This policy was explicitly designed to increase racial representation, so the enactment of the policy was not blind to race.

BornSouthern: Hmmm, "ill gotten"... an interesting phrase which could be applied to many things related to higher education admission practices which you'd likely be opposed to having them described as such.

Didn't know the long history of racial discrimination was in dispute.

BornSouthern: I feel it safe to presume that an incoming African-American or Hispanic or Asian or Caucasian freshman whose parent attended Harvard as an undergraduate would receive that same legacy consideration.

Sure, but they are fewer in number due to past discrimination, a case of systemic racism which affirmative action was meant to help address.

BornSouthern: The practice will be a bit more obscured

As pointed out above, the policy must be formally race neutral but not race blind.

Mike Anderson: They're probably the lucky ones; UT Austin has, besides some great CS/EE folks, a horde of slackers, tweakers, tokers, and outright junkies.

Much like many legacy admissions, students with a "gentleman's C".

eeyore: Zachriel: Astrophysicist, property lawyer, affirmative action expert.

We claim no particular expertise. However, we note that some evidence is generally a stronger argument than "Is not!"

indyjonesouthere: Whites are discriminated against by Harvard.

Your link doesn’t work, but the 70% figure apparently comes from Arcidiacono et al., Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard, National Bureau of Economic Research 2019, and refers to applicants not admissions.

The study found that admissions were disproportionately whites. The study also found that only a quarter of white ALDC (athletes, legacies, deans list, children of staff and faculty) admissions would have been admitted if they had been treated as non-ALDC applicants. Finally, the study determined that ending ALDC would result in fewer whites being admitted.

indyjonesouthere: The admissions would be disproportionately white as the census figure points out.

That’s right! It’s right there in the report you indirectly cited. Even though whites only constitute about half of the college age population, they represent about 70% of legacy applications, most of whom would not otherwise qualify for admission based on their “gentleman’s C” scholastic record. It’s affirmative action for white people.

indyjonesouthere: You are comparing the white race average in all institutions instead of what is the percentage of whites in Harvard?

Non-Hispanic whites account for 60% of the U.S. population, but only 50% of the college age population. Non-Hispanic white people are old (on average).

The study you cited indirect, but apparently never read, uses data that Harvard was required to release due to the lawsuit. The data shows that most white ALDC admissions would not have been admitted if treated as non-ALDC applicant. It also shows the student population would be less white if ALDC was ended. It's affirmative action for white people. Who will think of the rich, well-connected white people?

indyjonesouthere: Same data as other source.

Uh, no. We cited the actual study: Arcidiacono et al., Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard, National Bureau of Economic Research 2019.

indyjonesouthere: And your data referenced as "most white ALDC students", gives no percentage or number of students as well.

Huh? Only a quarter of white applicants would have been admitted without the benefit of ALDC. You might want to read the study with the data first before pontificating. Oh, that's right. You "don't really care which side has more or less data."

You might want to read the study with the data first before pontificating. Oh, that's right. You "don't really care which side has more or less data."

Here's the correct link.

indyjonesouthere: AP data from MSN

It's not "AP data." The data is the data. AP is summarizing the study. (The AP article is called a secondary source. You often use tertiary or even quaternary sources.) If you think they missed something important, then you can refer back to the actual study.

indyjonesouthere: What is hilarious about the democrats entire argument over legacy admissions is that they can easily ban it in their state.

You're making the point. Whites still control most of the power, and systemic racism helps keep non-whites out of power.

indyjonesouthere: Harvard is in the hands of the progressive socialist (marxists) so it is not my problem.

Of course not. That's the very essence of privilege.

indyjonesouthere: My privilege is NOT being a citizen of Massachusetts where they seem unable to solve simple problems.

Systemic racism, such as legacy admissions, are found throughout the United States. This is true whether you care or not. It’s affirmative action for white people!

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” ― Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail

Louis Miller: The “gentleman’s C” argument is valid for under-qualified legacy candidate acceptance.

For generations, there was affirmative action for whites, explicit and implicit segregation and legacy admissions. Then there was affirmative action for whites, as well as affirmative action for minorities meant to compensate somewhat for past discrimination and to balance affirmative action for whites. Now, it's back to just affirmative action for whites. Progress!

Legacy admissions are a type of systemic racism. Consider a society that discriminated in access to higher education, thereby giving whites greater access while denying access to minorities. (It might seem incredible, but it could happen like that, so please suspend your disbelief for a moment.) That means alumni will be primarily white.

Now, let's pretend that all forms of racism just magically disappeared. There's not a bigot in sight. (You might have to really work to suspend your disbelief.) Legacy admissions is a formally race-neutral policy, but the children of white alumni will also generally be white. Consequently, the result of legacy admissions is to perpetuate the racial disparities that were the result of the previous discriminatory policies. The really odd thing is that white people won't even notice the problem!

Another such systemically racist policy is the old-boy network, that is, hiring based on referrals, an honored practice with much to recommend it. Without a bigot in sight, white managers in a society segregated from the racist policies and behaviors of the past will tend to hire those they know or are referred by those they know from their white churches, white clubs, white neighbors, white colleagues. Again, the formally race-neutral policy perpetuates the racial disparities of the past.

BornSouthern: Are you willing to concede however, that steps that may be taken to advantage a group over the individual may not necessarily be just?

That’s indisputably true; Jim Crow, for instance. See our comment 1.2.4.1.1 concerning legacy admissions.

Aggie: Looks like Twitter just slammed the door on casual browsing?

User reports indicate problems at Twitter