Opponents and Others 2023-24

Started by Iceberg, June 02, 2023, 05:40:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roy 82

At least according to the recent SCOTUS decision, we don't have to worry about another Donato at Harvard. ::starwars::

Roy 82

Quote from: Roy 82At least according to the recent SCOTUS decision, we don't have to worry about another Donato at Harvard. ::starwars::

And keeping with the theme of admissions criteria, I found this piece on athletics and selective admissions to be annoyingly thought provoking. I think it unfairly singles out the Ivies, but I generally agree. While I enjoy seeing the best of the best play, it would be good to know that the athletes did not receive special treatment. That is not to say that athletic excellence doesn't demonstrate something of merit. But in many sports (e.g. hockey and lacrosse - to pick random examples :)) it favors players that come from families that can afford expensive coaching and traveling teams.

ugarte

Quote from: Roy 82At least according to the recent SCOTUS decision, we don't have to worry about another Donato at Harvard. ::starwars::
why would this possibly be true? SCOTUS didn't say anything about legacies. if anything, we have to worry about too many donatos.

Dafatone

Quote from: ugarte
Quote from: Roy 82At least according to the recent SCOTUS decision, we don't have to worry about another Donato at Harvard. ::starwars::
why would this possibly be true? SCOTUS didn't say anything about legacies. if anything, we have to worry about too many donatos.

Are we at least done with the Biegas? It's fun to yell at each one of them that they're the worst of the Biegas, but it eventually gets old.

Trotsky

I'm pretty sure OP was ironic.  As in, SCOTUS is deeply concerned about students being admitted to universities who aren't qualified to be there... except rich ones.

It's Need Based Admissions, and we need another building.

Troyfan

Did the decision refer to how U of Texas does admissions?  Admission is pretty much guaranteed to Texas applicants who graduate in the top 10% of their HS class. This does a lot to level the playing field for disadvantaged kids. So it boosts diversity without resorting to racial quotas.

The great majority of black and hispanic kids admitted under Harvard's approach were from the top 20% of the income distribution.  A large share of the black kids, over 1/3 I believe, came from interracial or well-off foreign families.  To me, Harvard's program was more designed to perpetuate a permanent, if diverse, ruling class than extend opportunity to people who have little.

One of the justices commented something like that a white student from Beverly Hills would experience more diversity encountering a white student from Appalachia than he would encountering a black student from Scarsdale, which I felt was a good point.  It would certainly be more unsettling, too.

I can't see any of this effecting Cornell hockey or lacrosse except if it decided to focus more on sports black kids play, which would be futile anyway and so something they might very well do.  Also, legacy admissions seems to be another matter entirely.

Roy 82

Quote from: ugarte
Quote from: Roy 82At least according to the recent SCOTUS decision, we don't have to worry about another Donato at Harvard. ::starwars::
why would this possibly be true? SCOTUS didn't say anything about legacies. if anything, we have to worry about too many donatos.

It is my understanding that the ruling opened the door for those seeking to end legacy admissions:
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4084026-attention-turns-to-legacy-admissions-after-affirmative-action-ruling/
But you are right that the immediate ruling does not eliminate that.

Trotsky

The ruling is irrelevant to legacy admissions as a matter of law.  It's simply a particularly hilarious self-own by our ruling class (and many of our classmates) of their hypocrisy.  It should be enjoyed and savored as one of those moments when the scenery falls away and we see the bare wall at the back of the theater.

Swampy

Quote from: TrotskyThe ruling is irrelevant to legacy admissions as a matter of law.  It's simply a particularly hilarious self-own by our ruling class (and many of our classmates) of their hypocrisy.  It should be enjoyed and savored as one of those moments when the scenery falls away and we see the bare wall at the back of the theater.

I think the SCOTUS decided it was illegal to use "race" in admissions. Legacy admissions are de facto racially biased, but not explicitly race-based. Some "progressives" took this to imply the decision would open the door to similar lawsuits against legacy admissions. But I'm skeptical that this SCOTUS would treat de facto racism as unconstitutional, even though fair housing legislation has made de facto racism illegal (if you can prove it).

Trotsky

Quote from: Swampyeven though fair housing legislation has made de facto racism illegal (if you can prove it).

For now.  I assume the fasc will eventually end disparate impact and force us to prove intent.

Swampy

Quote from: Trotsky
Quote from: Swampyeven though fair housing legislation has made de facto racism illegal (if you can prove it).

For now.  I assume the fasc will eventually end disparate impact and force us to prove intent.

Oh, right. There's no such thing as structural racism.

Troyfan

This article say Cornell has more legacy students than black students! (Notre Dame and USc, too.)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66249601

It's about Wesleyan University dropping them.  MIT and Johns Hopkins already have. Maybe Cornell needs the $$$ more than they do? It's bad policy and they should drop it as soon as they are able to.

Trotsky

The People's Ivy.

But Jesus Christ, not those people!

billhoward

Cruising through Canton and Potsdam last week, there's a lot of stuff you see by day that you don't see if you pull in at 5 p.m. in winter and head right from a diner to the rink. On Route 11, across the street from the Clarkson entrance wall, there's a display of dozens, maybe a hundred, old toilets with flowers in the bowls.

According to Syracuse station WSYR, the line of latrines stems from a circa 2000 protest by a resident (also artist and film-maker), who felt he was treated poorly in a land transaction back then. In protest, Morgan Elliot created a protest-in-art and, and with a background in film, made a movie, "Potty Town."

Will

Is next year here yet?