Wow - I thought evidence was super clear that Harvard DID discriminate. If what Harvard was doing was not discrimination than a whole world opens up for this type of "non-discrimination" against minorities, Asians and others.
How in the world are other much more nebulous and tenuous cases being won and this one is not?
If you read the rest of the article it says while they did aggressively discriminate the judge ruled that as ok since they did it to create a more diverse campus.
I love how the title and the first sentence of the article are completely at odds. The judge said that it was ok that Harvard discriminated not that they didn't do it.
Another instance of the press trying to convey its ideology in a subtle way? Most people don't read the body of the news (probably not even the NYT news), as you can witness recurrently on social networks or reddit.
On the other side of the Atlantic these things are also beginning to happen. In the name of positive discrimination there are collectives, larger or smaller, that are effectively discriminated against, and in a very tangible way.
In Spain the cases that have been most discussed are about selection processes for public officials, where women have easier physical tests, and in some cases the simple fact of being a woman already gives you points.
As far as I know, we have not yet reached the point of favouring certain nationalities or ethical groups, but as all these trends from the USA end up arriving in Spain, I have no doubt that sooner or later it will be on the table.
One thing that worries me a lot is seeing how being against these measures seems to be interpreted as a conservative position. I am honestly quite surprised that we have reached this point with so little opposition from the institutions.
> . I am honestly quite surprised that we have reached this point with so little opposition from the institutions.
Over here, institutions (primarily academic, though also some government administrations) have been the ones leading the charge.
2004 at a university was the first time I'd heard that you can't be racist against a white person in America, and at the time, it was reasonable to debate that position. Now, if you don't agree with it, you stay quiet unless you want to be labelled a conservative bigot who is too simple to understand these things, both in universities and often in public as well.
Just recently, the city of Portland decided to remove urinals from and make all bathrooms on several floors of a remodelled government building any-gendered. I suspect that people will end up avoiding those and going to other floors for now, but by the sound of it, they want to eventually remove all gendered bathrooms. My favorite quote from the Chief Administrative Officer was "I am convinced that this is the right way to ensure success as your employer"
> A federal judge on Tuesday rejected claims that Harvard had discriminated against Asian-Americans in admissions, saying that the university had a right to choose a diverse class.
There's a big difference between "does not" and "is allowed to".
EDIT: I was a bit curious so I took a look at the author of this article and her NYT bio says she graduated from Harvard: https://www.nytimes.com/by/anemona-hartocollis. Now it's generally editors, not the writers, that come up with the final title. But still that's one hell of a conflict of interest.
"In her decision, Judge Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said that while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here."
This article seems pretty biased. Also it seems like the ruling will be appealed.
Judge Burroughs was appointed by Barack Obama. She finished Middlebury College. It is known to be very left: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middleb.... So let's not pretend this is about law or constitution. It's just politics and nothing more.
Unfortunately this is bigger than Harvard and the Asian American students are 'collateral damage'. Fundamentally, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow permeates every facet of American life, education especially. You can't fix hundreds of years worth of discrimination without tipping the scales in a way that seems discriminatory to others, seems like the Judge in this case understands that.
You cannot fix history, no matter what you do, so there is nothing to understand. One cannot fix history by punishing people living in our times, it is not their crime to punish.
