The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
I've Read Harvard's Brief in the Pending Racial Preferences Case, and I Have a Question
Here is the first sentence of the second paragraph in Harvard's brief:
This Court has consistently held that universities conducting such holistic review need not ignore that a person's race—like their home state, national origin, family background, or interests—is part of who they are, and that in seeking the benefits of a diverse student body, universities may consider race as one among many factors provided they satisfy strict scrutiny. [emphasis added]
Harvard gives preferences to three groups: African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The latter group is sufficiently small that I will put them aside for now. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone is going to question whether, whatever one thinks of the concept of "race," that African Americans constitute a "racial group" in American law and common parlance.
But what of Hispanics? The Common App relied upon by Harvard admissions, like every other form people fill out based on classifications created by the federal government in the 1970s, treats "Hispanic" as an ethnic, not a racial classification. Applicants are first asked if they identify as Hispanic, and then, regardless of their answer, about their race. Here are the relevant question from the Common App:
Are you Hispanic or Latino/a/x?
Yes
NoWhich best describes your Hispanic or Latino/a/x background? (You may select one or more)
Central America
Cuba
Mexico
Puerto Rico
South America
Spain
OtherRegardless of your answer to the prior question, please indicate how you identify yourself. (You may select one or more)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
WhiteWhich best describes your White background? (You may select one or more)
Europe
Middle East
Other
The Record in the case shows that Harvard gives any student who checks yes to the first question a boost for being Hispanic status. The boost is given even if the applicant does not mention anything about their Hispanic identity anywhere else in the application, including any evidence that this identity is meaningful to the applicant or that the applicant has ever suffered any discrimination because of that identity.
So let's say that the Supreme Court declines to overrule current precedent holding that racial diversity is a compelling government interest sufficient to overcome an equal protection challenge to racial preferences. What is Harvard's compelling interest in, say, admitting a blond haired, blue-eyed student whose great-grandparents were Italian immigrants to Argentina but whose parents moved to the US thirty years ago, and checks white under race on the Common App? This student isn't considered a racial minority under the civil rights laws Harvard complies with; is of entirely European heritage, and thus is, in common parlance, "white;" and does not look like a member of a racial minority group such that she may have faced discrimination on that basis. How, assuming that this student checks "yes" for Hispanic/Latino, would admitting this student add to Harvard's racial diversity? How would this student add more to Harvard's racial diversity than a dark-complexioned Italian American whose ancestors came to the US from Sicily, who gets no "racial" preference?
How, for that matter, did Harvard conclude that Hispanics, who federal rules tell us "can be of any race," constitute a racial minority such that Hispanic students are the only students who can be of 100% European ethnic heritage and still get a racial preference? Did Harvard even ever consider this question, and if not, how can its claim to deference for its academic decision-making regarding admissions be taken seriously?
One could, of course, claim that Harvard is entitled to pursue not just racial but also ethnic diversity. But Harvard does not formally pursue ethnic diversity the way it pursues racial diversity. It does not give students who check the White box an automatic advantage if they are from any other ethnic group, no matter how dark-complexioned, no matter how much that group has a claim for redress for historical wrongs, and no matter how much that group may add to Harvard's ethnic mosaic. Armenians, for example, get no automatic advantage, nor do darker-complexioned victims of more recent genocidal campaigns who are hardly well-represented at Harvard, such as Kurds and Yazidis. So Penelope Cruz's child gets an automatic advantage in Harvard admissions, but not the child of Yazidi refugees who fled Iraq after ISIS's genocidal campaign, even though it's pretty clear which one would add more "diversity" to Harvard. Hmm.
Whenever I write about racial classifications and their discontents, some folks always chime in that line-drawing in this context will inevitably be imperfect and arbitrary. That's true. But we have to keep in mind the legal standard Harvard needs to meet. Its preferences need to be *narrowly tailored* to serve a *compelling interest* in *racial diversity* in the context of higher education. Given anyone of any race who check the Hispanic box a preference seems to fail all aspects of that test, especially given that as far as I can tell, Harvard has never explained why it treats Hispanic but no other ethnic status as racial to begin with.
Side note: Harvard could argue that it singles out Hispanics as a racial group because even though they are officially an ethnic group according to the Department of Education, by requiring inquiry into Hispanic and no other ethnic status the government treats Hispanics as equivalent to a race. One problem with this reasoning is that the government never intended the classifications at issue to be used as proxies for racial diversity. The other problem is that, as I explained in a previous post, the Department of Education once allowed the use of a one-question format for race and ethnicity that did in practice treat Hispanic as akin to a race. However, in 1997 new federal rules prohibited the one-question format, and required various entities to ask the Hispanic ethnicity question separately from the question about race. In other words, federal law specifically now affirmatively prohibits schools from treating Hispanic like a race when they gather admissions statistics.
Second side note: There is no evidence in the Record, I believe, that Harvard changes the admissions bump a Hispanic applicant gets based on what Spanish-speaking country his ancestors lived in.
Third side note: SCOTUS also tends to refer to Hispanic preferences as "racial" preferences. It should stop doing so, at least without explaining itself.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So, would it be impossible for Harvard to sanction any student for checking "Hispanic" regardless of race, or ethnicity?
Why wouldn't all white and Asian students check "Hispanic"?
I don't know how this developed or why, but it's interesting that the ethnicity question on the Common App "Are you Hispanic?" is phrased differently than the race question "how you identify yourself."
A survey from last year found that a third of white students (half of males, 1/6 of females) applying to college did exactly that: falsely declare they were a different race. Most pretended to be Native American.
How dare they appropriate Lizzie The Liar's culture like that!
-jcr
If it’s how you identify yourself it is never false. No difference from gender.
This is so stupid. Could you identify as a woman? No. You're a man. If you said you were a woman you'd be lying, just like if you said you were Inuit.
Look at the out-and-proud transphobe!
I don't see any indication that he's afraid of them. I assume if he were afraid of them he'd be humoring them.
Not a transphobe. Just pointing out the obvious. If you're a trans woman and you say you're a man, you'd also be lying.
You know what gender you are.
Agreed. If she said she was a man she would be lying. OTOH if she said she identifies as a man she would be truthful.
I don't think you know what "identify" means.
according to progs or at least progs 20-30 years ago race is meaningless and has no quantitative definition so how could you falsely state you are of the wrong race unless they're admitting they were wrong and are now taking the same position their white supremacist opponents used to occupy?
The whole racial spoils system is corrupt and un-American to it's core.
What do you mean by "heritage"? My heritage is Californian and American, in that order, going back four generations. I'm white, which is my race, but not my heritage. How is it that a family which has been in Argentina for generations has no Argentine heritage?
"Racial" heritage. "Argentine" is not a racial heritage. We consider "White", based on European ancestry, to be a racial heritage.
That's explicit in federal law--"white" is defined as having origins in the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
why do Italians always seem to be the short end of the stick by elites in America. My grandparents immigrated from Italy and had to deal with (as my folks did) anti-Italian bigotry in employment. No, it didn't stop them for earning a living but there was some impact. Now we are "white" and need to be punished.
As an undergrad at an Ivy, I also had to deal with this firsthand. Italians were def in the minority and honestly, I got sick and tired hearing about how white folks were privileged. Just go by SAT scores and let the chips fall where they may.
Half Italian here. Isn’t it interesting how we went from being one step above being a n****r to being privileged because we’re white in my family’s case in the space of less then two generations?
Talk about upward mobility!
*Actually I'm adopted, and there's good evidence I was born in Ireland, but I was raised Italian and Polish. In today's crazy world I'm not sure what I'm supposed to call myself.
The Irish would agree if we weren't so piss-faced drunk.
You have that correct, Bill.
And as most people of Italian ancestry were also Catholic 30 years ago and before, they had a double whammy against them at the Harvards and the Yales.
And if your heritage is from south of Rome those in the north will tell you that you are from North Africa.
"I've Read Harvard's Brief in the Pending Racial Preferences Case, and I Have a Question"
I'm reminded of a refrain in the movie *Clue.* To paraphrase:
"There's one thing that bothers me."
"ONE thing?"
There are a lot of questions, it's true! But it really stuck out at me that Harvard focused like a laser beam on racial diversity, without explaining why it uses a federal *ethnic* classification to achieve *racial* diversity.
Harvard did no such thing. You did.
Because Hispanics are routinely called "people of color" in woke parlance.
Bottom line; Harvard is racist.
And ethnicitist!
And probably speciesist.
I doubt that Harvard expects this decision to have a substantial effect on whom it admits. The decision will only affect the rationale Harvard gives.
This is obviously true, and I expect everyone knows it, including the justices.
So then the question is, is it better for Harvard to be transparent about its desire for racial diversity, or have to hide it behind various proxy characteristics? I tend to prefer transparency, but maybe in this case it would be better for Harvard to just pretend like it's race-neutral so all y'all racists won't get so riled up all the time.
Funny how in your mind the racists are the ones who don't want people judged by their race.
Yeah, you're the racist. Know how I know?
Harvard takes race into account. Why do you care? It's because you think Harvard is being unfair to white kids. (And Asians. Ha just kidding, you don't care about that.)
But Harvard admissions is unfair to tons of kids. It's unfair to kids from the coasts. It's unfair to girls. It's unfair to rich kids. It's unfair to metropolitan kids.
But you don't care about any of that for some reason. In fact, a common suggestion is to make Harvard more socioeconomically unfair as a sort of proxy for race. Why is that better?
How come the only group of kids you care about are the white kids? Because you're racist.
"Yeah, you’re the racist. Know how I know?"
Because the voices in your head told you?
“Only a racist opposes racial discrimination” sounds like that line in Monty Python’s Life of Brian about how “only the true Messiah denies his own divinity.”
And you may want to have a word with Congress, which seems to believe discrimination based on race is worse than discrimination based on coastal status. Which meant that Congress in 1964 was…racist!
I still use the traditional definition of "racist" to mean someone who believes that different races are superior / inferior to each other.
The purpose, of course, of the Civil Rights Act was to fight racism. Not to fight diversity efforts.
Racial discrimination is not automatically racism. But being concerned about the fate of white people at Harvard over all else, well I can't see any justification for that other than racism. Please, tell me what it is! Do you think Harvard is racist against whites? That would make you profoundly stupid / brainwashed, but at least maybe not racist.
The traditional definition of racism I read in my pre-woke dictionary is “racial prejudice *or discrimination.*” [emphasis added]
Caring only about one manifestation of racism, while laughing off others, is itself racist.
That should be a sufficient answer to the likes of you, but let’s also look at the context of rising hostility against whites qua whites. It certainly looks like racist sentiment. Though again, the best measure of racism is a willingness to discriminate based on race. And did you notice that white Jews tend to be demonized and discriminated against along with their fellow-whites?
As for the supposed good intentions of the racists, the Jim Crow supporters claimed to have the interests of all races in mind, including blacks. Give people a pass on racism because of their subjective feelings of self-satisfaction that *their* racism is better is itself racist.
I don’t trust racists and I don’t like them gaining influence, even if, like prior generations of racists, they trumpet their “good intentions” for everyone willing to listen.
And if you think asian-Americans have no agency and are simply cats-paws for white racists, you’re daft. They don’t like racism aimed at them, they don’t need sinister whites to convince them of that. Why *don’t* you care about discrimination against asians? Because they’re guilty by association with the whites? You're racist against asians, so don't pretend this is only about whites. If Harvard didn't want anti-asian discrimination confusing their narrative, they shouldn't discriminate against asians.
And do you think that Biff Biffington III, or someone whose dad’s name is on a building, is going to get the shaft as a victim of racism? It’s probably going to be the hard-working white would-be scholarship student from what Kirkland calls can’t-keep backwaters getting left behind in modern America. Why not let such people, even if white, have the chance of success in a meritocratic environment since even Kirkland, the id of your movement, acknowledges that they are disadvantaged?
Well yeah, if that’s your definition of racism, then racism isn’t always bad, everyone’s racist, and it’s all fine. That’s why, like the woke one, it’s not a good definition of racism.
There is no rising hostility against whites. That’s just right-wing politicians trying to scare you into voting for them and right-wing media using fear and anger to drive ratings.
The one at least cogent point you almost make is that the benefits of a diversity program like Harvard’s aren’t worth the risk of making it easier for prejudice-based discrimination to take hold by masquerading as a diversity effort. But a) it’s cogent but not very good… Harvard’s program is subject to strict scrutiny, and there’s no evidence that prejudice is at work at Harvard or anywhere else, and b) no one is actually making that argument. They’re saying that all race distinctions are inherently bad, which is just plainly false / hypocritical.
“no rising hostility against whites”
How is the weather on your home planet?
Your prejudice-based definition comes down to racial discrimination being good or bad based on the subjective *feelings* of the people doing the discriminating. The thing is, it doesn’t really make much difference to those discriminated against that the people doing the discrimination *feel* that they’re serving a broader public good. Anyway, the Jim Crow supporters also thought they were helping the public good.
You don’t even bother trying to defend discrimination against asian-Americans. Stop Asian Hate!
Your prejudice-based definition comes down to racial discrimination being good or bad based on the subjective *feelings* of the people doing the discriminating.
Not at all. My definition of racism may come down to that, which I think is correct. "Racist" should have an element of intent to it.
But for a particular instance of discrimination to be acceptable, it must pass a much higher bar. Strict scrutiny so far seems to work pretty well there.
Are you actually showing a disposition to discuss Harvard’s policy on its own merits?
Very well, then, how does its policy meet strict scrutiny?
(Ignoring for the moment the exception-free language of the 1964 law)
The courts have done a better job of that than I could. From the first circuit ruling:
The court held that Harvard had a compelling interest in student body diversity that was sufficiently precise to permit judicial scrutiny. It held that Harvard met its burden under strict scrutiny and Supreme Court precedent to show its use of race in admissions was narrowly tailored. It held that Harvard did not engage in racial balancing, did not use race as a mechanical plus factor, and did not have workable race-neutral alternatives.
and
The model including the personal rating showed that Asian American identity has no statistically significant effect on an applicant's chance of admission to Harvard. The model excluding the personal rating showed that Asian American identity had a slightly negative effect on an applicant's chance of admission to Harvard. The district court found the statistical evidence "inconclusive" and held that it did "not demonstrate any intent by admissions officers to discriminate based on racial identity." Based on the non-statistical and statistical evidence, it held that there was no intentional discrimination.
https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/06/first_circuit_court_of_appeals_opinion.pdf
Someone got hold of your computer and started typing rational comments. I don’t know how long that will last, so I’ll enjoy it while I can.
The 1st Circuit was of course following the Supreme Court's dubious and text-disregarding precedents, and the Supreme Court in this case is deciding whether to continue following those bad precedents.
If I had to describe the targets of the discrimination, it would be “those who are non-black, non-hispanic, and non-Native American.” A category which includes the whites and the asians.
I don’t know the details of the asians’ suit, but if they’re trying to claim they’re being extra-specially discriminated against, even more than whites, I’m willing to be skeptical.
"Harvard takes race into account. Why do you care?"
Well, for one thing, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Congress, of course, can change that language to allow for preferences. Until it does, however, discriminating based on race in admissions is banned by law, and has only been allowed because the Supreme Court has chose to ignore the law.
That doesn’t explain why you care. The Supreme Court chose not to care, as you mentioned. Lots of laws don’t get enforced in contexts beyond their original focus, where a maximalist reading would be detrimental. Why do you care about this one?
But it could have a substantial effect on what alumni think about Harvard. And it could have a substantial effect on their public reputation, and that could have very large, unhappy consequences so downstream of the issue at hand that no one is going to remember when it started, or why. They'll just say, "yes, Harvard used to be a great institution".
A reputation, once lost, is almost never found.
“Meanwhile, I don’t think anyone is going to question whether, whatever one thinks of the concept of “race,” that African Americans constitute a “racial group” in American law and common parlance.”
If these racial groups are casual social things then no. If they’re going to have massive, life-altering consequences– such that being able to check the right box on an application makes a massive difference to your chance to being admitted– then I think this group has to be defined. It's like how we use "tall" or "pretty"-- they're loose categories because they're informal social designations, they don't have formal legal consequences. If colleges decided to start discriminating on the basis of height, then we'd likewise have to determine how tall someone is before they're "tall."
The three plausible choices are by an African ancestor, by skin color, or by self identification.
If by African ancestor the category is meaningless because everybody has one of those. So, to claim the benefit, someone has to be able to trace an ancestor that was born in Africa by what date?
If it’s done by skin color, then Harvard needs to distribute and publish an image of the fleshtone they need to be so they can qualify for the benefit.
If it’s done by self identification then everybody should get in touch with their connection to the home continent and claim African American, they’d be stupid not to.
If Harvard knows how this is supposed to work, then they should tell us. If they don’t know, then neither does anybody else.
Different issue that I've addressed previously:
Do the Ethnic Categories Used by Universities for "Diversity" Purposes Make Sense?
No, argues an amicus brief filed on my behalf in the pending Supreme Court affirmative action litigation.
DAVID BERNSTEIN | 5.4.2022 6:50 PM
...
Harvard and UNC's racial and ethnic categories match the categories adopted by federal agencies, including the Department of Education. Whatever value the categories may have in allowing for consistency in data collection, they lump together members of very diverse groups into arbitrary categories. As Michael Omi and Howard Winant, two of the leading sociologists of race in the United States, point out: "These racial categories are rife with inconsistencies and lack parallel construction. Only one category is specifically racial, only one is cultural, and only one relies on a notion of affiliation or community recognition." MICHAEL OMI & HOWARD WINANT, RACIAL FORMATION IN THE UNITED STATES 122 (3d ed. 2015); see also PETER H. SCHUCK, DIVERSITY IN AMERICA: KEEPING GOVERNMENT AT A SAFE DISTANCE 164 (2003) (describing the racial categories as "almost comically arbitrary").
Harvard and UNC cannot explain why they use these particular racial and ethnic categories in their admissions policies….
Given the unduly broad nature of the "Asian" category, it is no surprise that only a minority of people assigned to that category identify as "Asian" or "Asian American." See JANELLE WONG ET AL., ASIAN AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: EMERGING CONSTITUENTS AND THEIR POLITICAL IDENTITIES 162 (2011) (finding that less than 40% of Indian, Chinese, and Filipino respondents identified as "Asian" or "Asian-American," even as a secondary identity)….
The question of who counts as "Hispanic" has continually befuddled federal and state authorities. ...
There is a tremendous amount of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity within the category of people that Harvard and UNC classify as white…. The category includes, among others, Welsh, Norwegians, Greeks, Moroccans, Chaldeans, Afghans, Iranians, and North African Berbers. To place people descended from all these groups into one category is inconsistent with the goal of achieving genuine educational diversity….
A descendant of American slaves who grew up in a working-class, majority-black neighborhood in Milwaukee does not contribute to diversity in the same way as a child of an African diplomat, nor as a black-identified applicant with multiracial ancestry who grew up in an overwhelmingly white small town in Montana…. Yet they all fall into the same diversity category at Harvard and UNC….
My problem with flesh tones is that they can vary substantially between full siblings. I know a pair of siblings with a white mother and black father. One has darker skin, darker, but straighter hair. The other has much kinkier hair and more African features. Neither used their race for college admission, but the second one is accentuating his African heritage in grad school, focusing on his Black father’s life work.
Even if they both qualified as Black for college, it is likely that one or more of their children, with White partners, would likely be able to fully pass as White, and likely at least one would still easily pass as Black.
Don't forget people with albinism and vitiligo.
Uh… I feel like Harvard has described how this works like a million times. The crux of it is even in the OP’s quote of Harvard’s brief.
The idea is that Harvard shouldn’t be required to ignore a person’s race, and at the same time, race isn’t a standalone factor. It’s considered “holistically” along with everything else.
So if you can convincingly claim that your African ancestry has had a meaningful impact on your life and disposition despite having white skin, go for it! There certainly are a lot of South Africans for whom that’s true, for example, and whom Harvard would love to have.
It’s only David here who’s spinning this fantasy in which the Harvard admissions office buckets applications according to the Common Application checkboxes and then blindly applies the Master Formula for Racial Campus Diversity to figure out who gets in.
That's like saying that a hotel can holistically consider race with other factors in deciding to turn away customers. Race is still a factor, it's still going to be the deciding factor in many cases, and federal law still says that is illegal.
It would be like that, if hotels had a diversity interest in their guests. But they don't.
The "holistic" business is just so that they can introduce enough ambiguity that a court might be willing to pretend they're not running a racial quota system. I doubt anybody takes it seriously as anything but camouflage for a quota.
I don't think it's camouflage, because like you said, everybody knows that diversity is essentially a quota. There's no need to camouflage that.
What it does is to reinforce the points that a) there's more going into the evaluation than just the Common Application check boxes and b) 99% of totally qualified applicants don't get in. Nothing about Harvard admissions is fair, it's holistically unfair.
"I don’t think it’s camouflage, because like you said, everybody knows that diversity is essentially a quota. There’s no need to camouflage that." Harvard absolutely denies that it has anything like a quota. I find it interesting that you consistently take positions that you think are unassailable, but that Harvard has vociferously disclaimed because it knows it would lose (including possibly Kagan's vote) if it actually expressed those positions in its briefs.
Of course they claim it's not a quota, because that's become a bad word. It probably isn't a quota in some technical sense, so they're not exactly lying. But it's self-evident that diversity requires a minimum amount of diversity, I mean what else could it mean? So in that sense, it's no different from a quota system, even if the mechanics are sufficiently distinct that you can get away with saying "it's not a quota."
I like Brett's idea below of calling it "pro forma deniability."
Still... I do think that there were problems with the old quota systems of affirmative action that these diversity systems don't share. The basic idea of a minimum representation goal is ok. The problems come with how the goals are defined.
Quotas were determined based on an attempt to ensure proportional representation, or some sort of social-justice economic goal, and used specific, rigid categories. I agree that doesn't really work. There's no real reason to expect proportional representation, the rigid categories can't be defended or fixed, and admissions policy isn't the right place to be implementing economic initiatives. Good not to be doing that anymore.
Diversity goals are based on ensuring sufficient representation of a broad set of characteristics, including racial groups, for the benefit of the other students. (It's like how, if you're going to have a singles mixer, you invite roughly the same number of men and women in order to ensure diversity, even if you have more male friends than female ones. It's not sexist to invite all your female acquaintances but to leave off your more distant male ones in order to get the best distribution of attendees for everyone's enjoyment.) "Sufficient" can be much higher or lower than "proportional" depending on the characteristic in question. And the groups are more flexible and intertwined, because the purpose isn't social justice or economics but just representation for its own sake. I don't see any problem with that for Harvard.
"“Sufficient” can be much higher or lower than “proportional” depending on the characteristic in question."
But what reveals that it's actually a quota, is that the numbers they determine to be necessary to achieve ideal "diversity" just happen to be the population numbers.
And, think of just how evil it is, to be admitting under-qualified minorities who are likely to fail, for the benefit of the majority students getting exposed to them. It's treating the affirmative action students like props, not admitting them for their own benefit.
Your last point is certainly not true at Harvard. They have no shortage of qualified applicants of all races to choose from. I've been keeping my comments confined to Harvard.
I don't think Harvard is using the population numbers to define diversity. Do you have evidence for that? My very quick look says that blacks make up 15% of the US population but just 10% or so of Harvard's undergrads.
Perhaps camouflage is the wrong term. I think "pro forma deniability" might sum it up better. Everybody knows what they're doing, but they think they can get away with it so long as they don't come out and admit it.
And why wouldn't they think that? It's been true for decades.
Shocking…the Rev. has not yet chimed in to label you a racist for raising these issues.
Professor Bernstein,
You had said that race isn’t like boundary cases that get classified into binaries. But it is. The binary here, the basis of classification, is black and white. That’s why there isn’t really a lot of thought given to the various intermediate and “other” categories. They are all essentially boundary cases. The only relevant question is whether they are more black-like or more white-like. Their individual characteristics, as such, simply don’t matter. Perhaps there should only be 3 categories, white, black, and other. Also, the reason it doesn’t really matter whether Iranians and such are considered white or Asian is that Asian is basically classified as white-like on this spectrum.
From this point of view, there is simply no need to have an exact classification. If you classify substances as edible, poisonous, or other, the fact that foods with very different nutrition content both get classified as edible simply doesn’t matter. However much a chef might clmplain about it, it’s irrelevant detail for the purpose of the classification. A chef’s purposes are different.
This situation is similar. You have to take into account the purpose of a classification system to assess how reasonable it is. And the sole purpose of this classification system is placement on a black/white binary. The details you focus on, like the difference between a Fillipino and a Singaporan, simply don’t matter to that classification purpose.
The black-white binary is, in fact, what everyone had in mind back in the 70s, especially because the other groups were quite small and people still mostly thought of Hispanics as "white" ethnics. The problem becomes what do you do with a classification system design for when the US was 85% white (including Hispanics) and 13% black, and now is more like 60% white (including some groups who don't necessarily think of themselves as such), 14% black, 18% Hispanic, 7% Asian, etc., and the latter two classifications are incredibly internally diverse, as is the white category. The answer until today has been "inertia and pretend it's still coherent." But you may be interested to know that many sociologists and anthropologists believe that "black, white, and other" is the way to go. Or just "black and analogously dark-skinned and subject to colorism" and white. I would say that if we let nature take its course, though, given intermarriage rates and the like, even such changes will become increasingly incoherent.
When did Hispanics become different from other White ethnics like Slavs and Greeks?
When the United States annexed large amounts of Mexico’s territory and incorporated a large Spanish-speaking minority, long before the Greeks and Slavs ever arrived.
1970s, though of course they were sometimes treated as non-white locally, especially in Southwest border areas, and especially if they were farm workers.
You may recall that the Parents Involved case comprised two companion cases: one about Seattle and one about Louisville.
Seattle's policy treated "other" as being in the black category for classification purposes. Louisville's, on the other hand, treated "other" as being in the white category.
“Regardless of your answer to the prior question, please indicate how you identify yourself.”
So, what you are means nothing, only how you choose to identify yourself. What a joke.
This is the same as the gender scam. It’s only about how you identify yourself. What’s good on Monday may change by Wednesday.
This whole thing is only possible because the Supreme Court read a "racial diversity" exception to the Civil Rights Act, even though pretty much every man on the street understood it to mean "No Racial Discrimination in Education, Period. No Exceptions."
My daughter grew up in Texas. She identifies as Hispanic.
Jesus David, you're so desperate to come up with anti-Harvard talking points that you're not even making sense any more.
If the lawsuit is about racial preferences, and your position is that Hispanic doesn't count as a race... then Harvard's preference for Hispanics isn't a racial preference and is out the lawsuit's scope. Harvard gives preferences to lots of things that aren't race, like geography, midwesterners in particular. So your argument is... midwesterners aren't a race and so that particular admissions policy complicates a lawsuit about racial preferences? What?
But Harvard does not formally pursue ethnic diversity the way it pursues racial diversity.
I mean, they obviously do... you just finished describing the whole scheme!
But anyway, what do you mean by "formally pursue?" What possible relevance does it have whether an admissions preference is formal or informal? To the extent it means something like quotas, isn't informal better?
And if you think Kurds and Yazidis don't get an admissions bump at Harvard, you need to put down the kutchie.
Once again, as with all your posts on this topic, your confusion comes down to the Common Application. Harvard didn't invent the CA. The race and enthnicity questions on the CA mirror the federal government's reporting requirements. They don't reflect Harvard's admissions policy. I'm sure Harvard would agree with you that the CA by itself is a woefully inadequate diversity indicator. By criticizing the CA, all you're doing is dragging the fed's ancient racial classifications, which we all agree are terrible. But those criticisms don't reach Harvard.
Title VI covers more than just strict racial basis:
Under federal law, "Hispanic" is a clarification based on national origin, so it's still illegal to use as a discriminatory factor.
What he means by "formally pursue" is that Harvard doesn't try to achieve ethnic diversity by identifying a variety of ethnicities -- they only care about one.
Among the reasons that your analysis is incorrect is that to the extent Hispanics are white and Harvard is giving them a racial preference, it is engaging in racial discrimination against Asians, who at best get no preference relative to other whites.
And the reason that analysis is incorrect is that unlike affirmative action, diversity doesn't treat whites as the least-favored race. White kids could conceivably get a boost if a class would be too non-white otherwise. So it's no problem -- expected, really -- for white kids to do better than Asians if Asians are even more overrepresented.
The other reason your analysis is incorrect, of course, is that "white" and "Asian" are too coarse of categories. Harvard can and does seek diversity within those categories.
"Harvard can and does seek diversity within those categories." Not really.
"So it’s no problem — expected, really — for white kids to do better than Asians if Asians are even more overrepresented." I'm glad you have the chutzpah to argue that discrimination against Asians in favor of whites would be legal to cure "overrepresentation" but Harvard does not. It argues instead that it does not in fact discriminate against Asians, which is pretty hard to credit given how its staff consistently rates Asians much lower on subjective factors than whites, while alumni interviewers do not. But it knows that arguing that it's ok to favor whites over Asians would lead to 9-0 ruling against it.
Ok great, then we agree. If that's true, then that's the problem with Harvard's arguments. Not this business with Hispanics.
No, we disagree. You think Harvard can successfully argue that favoring whites over Asians is ok in the name of diversity. And I"m saying that if Harvard made that argument it would lose 9-0 (but with Jackson recused yes, 8-0. If UNC made that argument it would lose 9-0).
No, I think Harvard must argue that favoring whites over Asians is ok in the name of diversity, because it is. If it weren't, then it's not really diversity, it's just affirmative action in disguise. Which I know you think it already is anyway. I don't think it is, but Harvard has to actually argue that, otherwise skepticism like yours is justified.
I don't know whether the argument will work. If they make it and lose 8-0, so be it. I happen to think it's the better argument since it's the only one that makes sense, but we'll see.
Well, perhaps they *must* but they don't. And yes, it is affirmative action balancing in disguise, but then Justice O'Connor decided to let U. Mich. Law School get away with what obviously amounted to slightly flexible quotas while claiming it was only after diversity, so Harvard figured it should go the same route.
I don't see anywhere where they argue they could -- or couldn't -- prefer whites to Asians if they wanted to. They do argue that they don't, and that was adjudicated at trial.
The district court found “no evidence of any racial animus whatsoever” toward Asian-American applicants and “no evidence” that “any particular admissions decision was negatively affected by Asian American identity.”
The facts found by the lower courts overwhelmingly confirmed that ruling. Asian-American applicants “are accepted at the same rate as other applicants...”
That seems like it's either true or false, and both the district and circuit courts said it was true.
Also, I think you mean 8-0.
“Diversity” is not a stand-alone good. Like the word, “percentage”, it always asks the question, “of what?”. For example, having a diversity of opinions will make you stronger — but a diversity of diseases will make you weaker.
At best, race and ethnicity are trivial characteristics. More often than not, they are irrelevant.
Reading this discussion thread it amazes me that no one seems to be challenging the base assertion that a diversity of race/ethnicity is worth pursuing. Clearly, it is not. None of us should be lending this utterly misguided project any support whatsoever. Instead, we should be calling for race and ethnicity to be ignored, as it deserves to be.
This focus on race and ethnicity is highly corrosive. It creates nothing but division and ill will on all sides. It is a corrupting influence that hastens our demise. When you spend all your energies on things that don’t matter, eventually you won’t matter.
" Here is the first sentence of the second paragraph in Harvard's brief: "
That link leads to a brief submitted by William Consovoy. Why would Harvard hire William Consovoy?
To see racism in action has a look at this in today's NYT.
"In Detroit, Why There’s No Black Democrat on the Ballot for Congress....Shri Thanedar’s primary victory means that for the first time in 70 years, America’s largest majority Black city may not send a Black representative to Washington."
Guess Harvard's opinion is once you go black you never go back.
Looks like a standard filter ... those willing to put down "Hispanic" are willing to take advantage of the system in order to get into Harvard. Those who have more integrity ... are not welcome.
What's it called when someone takes your application money, claiming that they're giving you a fair chance of admission, and it turns out they're not?
Do they teach that at Harvard?
Sure, at Harvard Law.
I don't think he was questioning that it's a racial group, but rather questioning who gets to claim membership in the group (and thus the benefits of membership)
His "plausible choices" would also seem to dismiss as implausible a question that has been posed quite often recently: Is Elon Musk African American?