This can’t be true. You cannot discriminate against white people. Nor can you be racist against white people. Just ask anyone who is woke.
if you favor 1 side. arnet you discriminating the other side? how does it not work against the people left out. i understand keeping an even keel where we should give advantages in some areas to a disadvantage group. but call it what it is. like i tell people. i am pro choice. but lets not beat aroudn hte bush. it legalized baby killing. much like euthanasia is legalized old people suicide.
pro death penalty?
only if they lower the legal costs. my biggest issue with the death penalty is that it is too costly at about 1.25 million per execution. it should not cost more to kill a person that to keep them alive in captivity. the fact that it is that expensive is a waste of money and a boon for legal fees.
Agree with Nerdy, they need to get that cost down people largely point to overturned pre-1990 convictions when DNA wasn’t used. Nowadays, you get someone like the Golden State Killer, he gets one year to appeal then bullet to the head in the prison yard, costs you $1 unless you’re reloading your cartridges, then it costs you $0.6. I favor recycling, better for the environment.
I get the Yale argument. It “could” be discrimination in the strictest sense of the word, I get that. However, legal discrimination is allowed when it confers an advantage to the student body (aptitude, diverse atmosphere) that couldn’t be otherwise gained (which is what Harvard is arguing). At the same time, we understand analyzing fundamentals goes beyond reported data. The playing field is not level and often the effort and talent it took to get a lesser result from someone given less opportunities and from a more difficult environment may mean they are fundamentally a stronger candidate albeit starting from a weaker position. I think the evidence of the top Ivies long standing dominance in the field says they have figured out the science of identifying the highest potential candidates and that they understand being good at tests is only a small part of the equation as you move beyond school. We all know this and that is what they’re seeking.
It’s also the simple truth that people are regularly opting for Harvard over Peking as opposed to the inverse for a reason. If they wanted a strictly test based admissions process and monolithic un-diversified student body they could have had that. Of course when they don’t make the cut, then it’s sour grapes and demands that Harvard turn into Peking 2.0.
I will be interested to see if the Yale case impacts Harvard’s trial or if they have sufficiently differentiated their position.