Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's now how the law works. Your home isn't a public accommodation or a public place. Therefore you can discriminate about who enters. On the other hand, when you hold the house out for sale to the public, you can't discriminate on who you sell to.
Harvard is a private college, but it's not analogous to a private home. And for damn sure kids that go there qualify for federal loans, etc. Which means Harvard needs to play by the rules.
"That's how the law works" isnt a sufficient explanation as to why I cant decide who to admit into my building.
LMAO You have absolutely no proof that conservatives support AA. NONE. Of course there isn't any research showing that because you would have provided the actual study if it were true.
Serious question - Where is the research you speak of?
"Likewise, it leads us to underestimate (and thus underemploy) the potential for those often-maligned status quo conservatives to serve as guardians of liberal democracy and bulwarks against fascist social movements (see also Sniderman, Brody, & Tetlock, 1991; Sniderman & Piazza, 1993). Most provocatively, it leads us to underestimate the potential for authoritarians, under the right conditions, to get behind programs like affirmative action for minorities, which hold out the prospect of minimizing some of the difference they so abhor."
It's hard for people to see the world in any way except through their own eyes - but believe it or not, everyone is not dittoes with you...or I.
If it cant admit who it wants, its not private.
Its gotten so bad nowadays,everyday people like yourself dont know the meaning of the word any longer.
Silly.
That's like saying air pollution has no right to enter my private acreage. Well, does it or does it not?
Everything we think and do is within a framework - society, law, precedent and other factors. It is a private college. Period.
It's not like a Madrassa, no. Maybe that's the kind of thing you approve of, but even that has to meet standards. A private college has to let "authorities" approve every building for vast codes and zoning and many many other things.
Making the assumption that because billionaire echo chambers fire up right wingers...that "this is why there is an issue" is false on the face....
"Harvard University is a private institution that was founded in 1636."
It's private. That doesn't mean public roads don't lead to it. But it's private.
No it isn't. Harvard, like most institutions claiming being private, accepts federal money in the form of grants and participation in the guaranteed student loan and financial aid programs.
As of 2017, there were 16 truly private colleges in the United States, where they do not take a single penny of federal or state aid, and do not participate in any state/federal aid/loan programs:
You'll note that all are religious in nature, and are truly private so they can retain their freedom of religion and free exercise thereof without federal strings attached.
Harvard is not truly private. It must dance to the federal and state tunes on demand.
I am a white male but if whites can't compete with Asians, then no special treatment. A study finds 43% of white students at Harvard were not admitted on merit but because of athletics, related to donors or children of faculty.
If daddy was a donor or you can play squash or water Polo, you are set.
I actually know an ivy league recruiter and they aren't looking to fill their school with a bunch of kids that spent 6 years prepping for the SAT, all play the violin and so forth.
So, I find your use of the word "merit" to be odd.
I especially find your condemnation of lower admission test scores for sports to be *weird* since every college in the US does that.
Being well rounded and having creativity, special drive etc. are more valued than just a high test score.
That's exactly it. We would've been had universal hc if this country was 99% White.
Oh...no doubt about it! They have faith that such programs would not be abused and that people who really need it would have access, understanding that sometimes life deals unfortunate blows and people legitimately need help. However, they see certain races of people as parasitic, not as hard working or intelligent and who would be satisfied to just "live off the system". Thus, they are willing to deny their own, who they would otherwise allow social help, just to keep from feeding those groups they see as social parasites.
I don't know the OP or what is in his mind. However, it may very well be true that the primary reason that he is against affirmative action for whites, at Harvard, is because he has already set the precedent by being against it for blacks. I would further say that if not for AA for blacks, meaning that it did not exists, the OP might not even care or think twice about things like this. I just do not see that it would be an issue at all and the only reason that it is now is because of the hypocrisy of having a problem with blacks getting something but not having a problem with whites getting something.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 10-04-2019 at 08:56 AM..
I actually know an ivy league recruiter and they aren't looking to fill their school with a bunch of kids that spent 6 years prepping for the SAT, all play the violin and so forth.
So, I find your use of the word "merit" to be odd.
I especially find your condemnation of lower admission test scores for sports to be *weird* since every college in the US does that.
Being well rounded and having creativity, special drive etc. are more valued than just a high test score.
The merit seems to be related to a donor who can contribute to Harvard's enormous endowment. Being relater to a donor, a legacy student with ties seem to be highly valued.
Harvard athletics has stuff like crew, rowing, that inner city kids could never afford. Squash, water polo, etc., Harvard has tons of athletes who are white. If you say no athletes should get special treatment, we will see how the California law changes things.
What’s wrong with inherited privilege? What are you, a socialist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
