The race-conscious approaches are heavily gamed too. The minority students at elite universities are rarely people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Most often, they’re the children of affluent minorities, often elites from latin america or africa who have no connection to discrimination in the U.S.

Ironically, you’re engaged in some wild racial stereotyping by flipping back and forth between race and economic circumstances. Do you think there aren’t lots of affluent minorities in the U.S.? Harvard doesn’t let in poor minorities.

> the only motivation for such approaches is to satisfy those who are so fervently against the idea of affirmative action

Yes, institutions must satisfy those who are against grouping people together by race and treating them differently on that basis. That’s not only the law, but the law is correct.

> so it’s really just the stupid rich kids who benefit the most from “merit-based” admissions, not some humble, poor, but brilliant, child of the wrong race.

The evidence shows that the people who benefit the most from objective, merit-based admissions is smart lower-class kids of all races.

> There’s absolutely no shortage of educational opportunities.

That doesn’t justify grouping people based on race and treating them differently.

> I’m not sure why you’re arguing about Harvard. It impacts such a small percentage of the population.

Have you read any of the record in SFFA? Harvard just happened to be the headline name. Almost every institution does it. The medical school data I posted up thread is aggregated across all medical schools.

And elite institutions like Harvard are especially important because they’re gatekeepers. That’s how racial preferences jumped the air gap from universities to corporations. While universities had a carve out for affirmative action, employers never did. Race-conscious policies have always been illegal in the employment context (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed 9-0). But Ivy-educated people took those ideas from universities into the workplace and a bunch of Harvard-educated lawyers gave very bad advice.

> Am I “discriminating” against my child Peter when I give his brother Paul a cookie because his other brother Pedro stole Paul’s cookie at lunch

In this hypo, neither Paul nor Peter’s cookie was stolen. People aren’t reincarnations of their oppressed ancestors.

Yes, not because you’re white, but because as a citizen you have a moral obligation to help ensure that our institutions treat citizens as individuals, not as “groups.” Individuals living today shouldn’t be treated as if they personally suffered that discrimination by grouping them together based on skin color with people in the past who did. That doesn’t mean ignoring the effects of past discrimination. But those effects are baked into people’s individual circumstances and can be evaluated in those terms. Rich people should be treated alike morally and poor people should be treated alike morally regardless of the individual path dependency that led them both to the same place.

You can’t have your group identity cake and eat it too. I can’t demand better treatment than a similarly situated white person because other Bangladeshis are poor. I’m not them any more than you are them. Conversely, it’s wrong to discriminate against my wife’s poor white extended family members because other white people are rich. My kids go to private school with WASPs, some of whom definitely have slave owner legacy money. My wife’s family aren’t those people, and it’s racism to arbitrarily group them together.

Those are the same thing. "Discrimination" literally means "treating people differently based on skin color." Which is what the universities were doing.

> giving children who grew up in zip codes with terrible education outcomes a handicap during college admissions

That's not what universities were doing. We know that because they said so! In Harvard's brief to the Supreme Court, for example, Harvard argued that it had no "workable race-neutral alternative" that would achieve its goal of "diversity." Harvard.Br.52-53.

What you're describing--"giving children who grew up in zip code with terrible education outcomes a handicap"--is a race-neutral approach that focuses on socioeconomic factors. Harvard told the Supreme Court that such approaches would not work to achieve its goals: To achieve diversity targets without considering race, "Harvard would have to give socioeconomic tips of disproportionate magnitude ... so large that they would 'essentially automatically put[] in any applicant ... with an average probability of admission.'" Harvard.Br.53.

Are you speaking from experience? As a “brown guy with a beard,” Utah was like heaven compared to Maryland or New York. I’m so fucking sick of the mid-Atlantic “we’re not racist, we’re assholes to everybody” shtick.

In fact, the distinction between political appointments and those other things is critical. In politics, you appoint people to reward your various constituencies. That’s just how politics works. But jobs and universities shouldn’t work that way.

If you believe this, go to where my mother in law lives in rural Oregon and spend a few months there among the people who weren't smart enough to go live somewhere else.

But negligence is evaluated from the point of view of a reasonable person. Would a reasonable person foresee that telling an AI to do that could cause it to do illegal things? We'll likely have to develop that through case law as the facts develop.