In recent times, it's far easier for quota-filling students to get in than the actually deserving, non-quota students. Secondly, legacy is a race-blind category
Legacy isn’t merit.
Think of being a legacy as getting a co-signer on a loan.
The bottom line on this discussion is that any preference not based on merit, be it due to race or legacy, is completely wrong.
That should be obvious to everyone.
And the democratic leaders are on the wrong side of this issue. The population is against race based preferences. Its a loser issue for them. Its not like abortion where the population wanted the government to stay out of personal medical decisions.
Most Americans favor some government-set restrictions on direct abortion. Before Dobbs overturned Roe, and still in many US states, direct abortion may be procured at any stage of pregnancy. In such cases, the USA resembles Russia, North Korea, China and Vietnam more than it does the countries of western Europe, which usually limit direct abortion to 12-24 weeks. There is considerable evidence that human fetuses can feel pain in mid-late term abortions.
Charlotte Lozier Institute September 13, 2022: Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain wrote:
The idea that unborn and newborn babies cannot feel pain is obsolete, refuted by an extensive and growing body of scientific evidence. The myth that unborn babies cannot feel pain comes from a bygone era when newborns were strapped down for surgery without pain relief.[i] The substantial published scientific literature on the topic shows that unborn babies can experience pain at least by 15 weeks gestational age (15 weeks LMP, since Last Menstrual Period, the fetal age estimate used by most obstetricians) or earlier.
Carlo V. Bellieni, "New Insights into Fetal Pain," Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine Volume 24, Issue 4, August 2019, 101001, wrote:
An increase in stress hormones is seen after a painful intervention in 16–25 WGA fetuses: in a group of fetuses, an in utero blood transfusion was performed using the intrahepatic vein the process of which activates nociceptors, while a control group received the transfusion using the umbilical vein without activating the nociceptors [42]; the result was that in the former group, a dramatic increase of cortisol, adrenalin and beta-endorphines was seen, while in the latter, these hormones showed no changes in their blood level.
This suggests to me that some abortions might be torturous. I do not think it is ever just to deliberately kill an innocent human being. I realize some people think otherwise, but I hope that consideration of fetal pain and even the likelihood of fetal torture tempers their tolerance.
I know that math is difficult for your kind, but do try to keep up.
Legacy admissions DO NOT favor whomever has the greatest number of alumni but rather, whomever has the greatest number of alumni RELATIVE TO the number who would be admitted sans legacy admissions. As a result your statement, "Legacy will favor Asians more than whites in the very near future" is profoundly WRONG and a clear indication of your ignorance.
Again, do try to keep up.
Lol I highly doubt Uppity Black knew that whites were in the minority compared to non-whites when making his argument. Good on you for moving the goal posts for him in your logical sleight-of-hand.
So then legacy admissions didn't favor whites until recently, since (according to you) legacy admissions favor those who are in the racial minority. I don't adhere to that logic, but that's what you're saying.
Ah, so correct math is now, "logical sleight-of-hand"?
Welcome to Idiot World, folks.
I mean, seriously, how stup!di are you? Do I really need to explain the patently obvious in more detail for you? Would you be capable of understanding something so simple even then?
After the Supreme Court banned race-conscious affirmative action, activists filed a complaint, saying legacy admissions helped students who are overwhelmingly rich and white.
It just means it isnt about merit. You can't claim you want a merit based process and continue to have legacy advantages. Before this ruling race was also treated as a "plus factor". Why should legacy be a plus factor?
But good for donations and keeping a family committed to said school. Keeps alumni cheering for their school and not a new school their child is attending.
It just means it isnt about merit. You can't claim you want a merit based process and continue to have legacy advantages. Before this ruling race was also treated as a "plus factor". Why should legacy be a plus factor?
Money. Why should it solely be about merit? There is no such constitutional right. Schools are businesses, so affluent stupids should be able to purchase an education by paying more, or equivalently, by increasing the likelihood of alumni donations, which legacy brings about.
I read a study that predicted what would happen if colleges banned it. Campuses would end up being around ~47% each white and Asian.
But of course, the "party of science" doesn't want to accept that IQ gaps exist.
That would be fantastic! There are FAR too many blacks on campuses these days who have no business being there and were only admitted because of "affirmative action" i.e. racist admission policies.
Lots of talk of racism on this thread. Whites did not start slavery but did end it. Kudos.
There are obviously exceptions, but across the population IQ strongly correlates with SES. You should read The Bell Curve and Coming Apart as they both talk about this and how it changed over the last 50 years.
If affirmative action is discrimination, legacy admissions must also be discrimination. Remember that the litigants in the SC case did not show that they were denied entry because their specific spot was given to a minority. They simply presumed that they would have been admitted but for a spot being given to a minority. Discrimination law has a fairly low bar for plaintiffs (burden shifting analysis, disparate impact, etc.). But Roberts' "zero sum game" argument basically means that discrimination is presumed whenever there are a select number of spots and race is a factor in one person getting a spot.
So, with legacy admissions, you have a lot of prestigious schools that pretty much had no minorities up to the 1960s. And many students gaining admission during the civil rights era came from schools that were segregated with minorities having to attend vastly inferior schools that whites attended. De jure discrimination and segregation in schools would then give way to de facto segregation with white flight to suburban schools in the 1970s and 80s. So, many legacy admissions have deep roots in students who went to high school in a time when minorities had no real shot at getting into an elite school, much less any college. Thus, legacy admissions just freeze in time discrimination of the past.
You are conflating disparate outcomes with discrimination.
(I'm all for ending legacy admissions, by the way.)
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination"
Speaking of preferential treatment, at least Neil Gorsuch got something right:
“[Harvard’s] preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives. While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most. Still, Harvard stands by them.”
White people have gotten so used to preferential treatment in college admissions, hiring, rate of pay, promotions, etc., that anything that threatens that is very scary, indeed.
Hiring? Like how almost all large companies have unstated rules that more 'diverse' candidates are to be favored? And for the last time, legacy is far different than affirmative action.
Also, I'm not 'white' so you should respect my lived experience.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Employers may be selecting or overlooking prospective job candidates for interviews based on their potential race as suggested by names, according to a recent study by two professors from the...
There are obviously exceptions, but across the population IQ strongly correlates with SES. You should read The Bell Curve and Coming Apart as they both talk about this and how it changed over the last 50 years.
All this pseudo-BS, just say "I want less black people in college".
Are you denying that if there are two almost identical candidates, one white and one black, the white one is far less likely to get chosen for such a job?
I think merit is far more important. If choosing the best students ends up in top colleges being around 95% (combined) Asian and white, then it is what it is. Would you rather have a doctor operating on you be qualified or quota-filling?
