Can universities discriminate while privately owned businesses cannot?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by sheena12

Obviously, the OP was referencing affirmative action, which is legal and is not a form of discrimination.

How is race-based discrimination legal?

Race is a Protected Class under the Federal Civil Rights Act.

Aside from academic performance, admissions officials take a myriad of factors into consideration when accepting students. including geography, writing sample, interview, personal accomplishments, hardships, and achievements.

If they did not, every Ivy, and other elite colleges would be filled with the sons and daughters of professionals and business professionals, who were coached in standardized test skills (SAT ACT) since 10th grade, are legacies and are not in need of financial aid.

Most would be graduates of prep schools or elite suburban school districts.

And yes, most would be white.

This is what the anti-affirmative action crowd seeks to return to - in college admission and in society in general. And, it is aberrant.

So... Discrimination is OK for universities but not OK for privately owned businesses?

You can't have it both ways. Either discrimination is OK for both, or neither.

Equal protections clause.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

so like i said, you arent indifferent, you want college based discrimination.

I'm only for consistency. Either discrimination is OK for both universities and businesses, or it's OK for neither. Equal protections clause.

[Nepenthe]

If I'm a bleeding-heart, left-leaning, collective justice, slightly anti-capitalist, emotion-based pundit, I see nothing contradictory or wrong in the following:

• forcing businesses of all sorts (probably even the Airbnb host and little old lady in my post early in the thread) using government force to serve everyone and anyone at all times (because business is kinda the enemy, screw money-grubbing business owners, regulation is always good, and, as Anita Sarkeesian said, "everything is sexist, racist, homophobic, bigoted, and you have to point it all out" so not only should we force this but we should actively try to push limits to try and find that one business here and there that deigns to discriminate)...
  
  
• having highly discriminatory practices at universities both public and private (as well as plenty of other places) so long as those practices are strictly benefiting people of color, LGBT, women, and other "oppressed" identity groups strictly at the expense of the diametrically opposed "oppressor" groups; lower standards, more aid and other money, quotas, programs, etc. -- these are all good, distributive justice methods that can be used to tear down the vile "meritocracy" idea pushed by alt-right extremists... but we can always do more...

I believe a lot of people out there see these as the only ethical / moral positions worth having. They see nothing inconsistent or irrational or problematic about holding both positions simultaneously. They may vary in how strongly they would push for each. My ex-GF, for example, would be a lukewarm purveyor of both of the above, while her niece who's just about to start her second year of college fits both of the above to a T.

So, in their minds, of course you can and should have it both of these ways. And you're a jack*ss if you don't think so.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

But he isnt arguing either of those point, and was just fine with Discrimination of LGBT people. By trying to dumb this down into claiming both situations are equal, he is calling himself a hypocrite.

Yes. Sometimes I need to use the emoticons more. My statement, because of the way I framed it, is the important part. That is my way of getting to the point and not to focus on a misguided point.