Yale discriminates against whites and Asians: US Justice dep't finding

[Metaphor]

Multiple sources available, this is from the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53774075

The US government says Yale University is illegally discriminating against white and Asian-American applicants.


The results of a two-year investigation by the Department of Justice found the Ivy League university had breached civil rights law in its undergraduate admissions process.


The department threatened to file a lawsuit against the university if it failed to take "remedial" measures.


A Yale spokeswoman said the university "categorically" denied the accusations.


President Donald Trump's administration has been a strong opponent of so-called affirmative action.


The programmes, which were supported by former President Barack Obama, seek to boost admissions of under-represented minorities, particularly Hispanics and African-Americans..


The Department of Justice's report, published on Thursday, said that while the Supreme Court allows universities that receive taxpayer funding to use race as "one of a number of factors" during admissions, "Yale's use of race is anything but limited".
"Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant's likelihood of admission," it said.


Yale strongly rejected the report's conclusions, which it said had been made before the university was able to provide all of the information requested by the Department of Justice.

The investigation was already two years long. I wonder what exonerating information they decided to withhold from the Department of Justice?

"Had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information, it would have concluded that Yale's practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent," Yale said in a statement.


The university said it considers a many factors during the admissions process and said it would not change its process "on the basis of such a meritless, hasty accusation."


Last year, Harvard University was cleared of discrimination against Asian-American applicants by a federal judge following a lawsuit, although the ruling is now being appealed.

Below, the DoJ demands Yale 'not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 undergraduate admissions cycle', and above Yale has openly said it will change nothing about its admission process.

This doesn't appear to be a court case, so if Yale simply says "I don't care", what powers does the DoJ have?



The DoJ statement is here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...nates-against-asians-and-whites-undergraduate

The Department of Justice today notified Yale University of its findings that Yale illegally discriminates against Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions process in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The findings are the result of a two-year investigation in response to a complaint by Asian American groups concerning Yale’s conduct.

“There is no such thing as a nice form of race discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “Unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes, bitterness, and division. It is past time for American institutions to recognize that all people should be treated with decency and respect and without unlawful regard to the color of their skin. In 1890, Frederick Douglass explained that the ‘business of government is to hold its broad shield over all and to see that every American citizen is alike and equally protected in his civil and personal rights.’ The Department of Justice agrees and will continue to fight for the civil rights of all people throughout our nation.”


As a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, Yale expressly agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone civil-rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.


The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year. For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit.


Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes.


The Department of Justice has demanded Yale agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 undergraduate admissions cycle, and, if Yale proposes to consider race or national origin in future admissions cycles, it must first submit to the Department of Justice a plan demonstrating its proposal is narrowly tailored as required by law, including by identifying a date for the end of race discrimination.

Is it time to repeal the Civil Rights Act? That way, Yale can discriminate by race to its heart's content.

 

[KeepTalking]

Is it time to repeal the Civil Rights Act? That way, Yale can discriminate by race to its heart's content.

No. It is time to eject Trump and his corrupt DoJ. What part of "President Donald Trump's administration has been a strong opponent of so-called affirmative action" do you not understand? The fact that they are demanding Yale not to use race of national origin at all in the upcoming admissions cycle in the face of decades of SCOTUS rulings in favor of Affirmative Action tells you all you need to know.

 

[laughing dog]

Under Mr. Barr, the DOJ has become a joke.

 

[ruby sparks]

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that some universities are doing more, in a covert way, to assist certain minorities, both more than they admit and possibly more than is allowed.

If (if) this judgement is fair and accurate, I feel I would agree with it in principle, and I say that as someone who has at least some sympathy with the universities doing the assisting, because there is such a thing as going too far.

However, those who feel the legal limits are wrong (and not enough) may want to contest this. I can see that they have a case and a point of view.

In my case, I have lived in a country where a certain, historically disadvantaged section of the demographic have been given similar sorts of preferential treatment (including quotas for jobs) and all in all, even though it wasn't my 'side', I think it was a good thing, or at least something to be sucked up and accepted, up to a point and for a period of time. Part of me thinks more Americans should not make such a fuss about it. In some ways, it's only fair, overall, given the circumstances of discrimination which have pertained, even only during the last few generations.

I find it very telling that many people complaining about preferential treatment like this rarely if ever raised much of an issue over several other forms of preferential treatment that have been going on for a long time. So I am not at all sure if it is a general sense of fairness which is on display.

 

[ruby sparks]

What part of "President Donald Trump's administration has been a strong opponent of so-called affirmative action" do you not understand? The fact that they are demanding Yale not to use race of national origin at all in the upcoming admissions cycle in the face of decades of SCOTUS rulings in favor of Affirmative Action tells you all you need to know.

Yes, that demand in particular seems as if it going too far the other way, and itself an unreasonable, possibly illegal restriction.

 

[SimpleDon]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole. The community that their graduates will have to work with when they go out into the world.

You are all ignoring that the admission lowering requirements program for legacy students, large donor, faculty children, and athletics deny admission to many Asians than the minority admission programs. How can you ignore these programs based on the results? Do you think that these programs violate the Civil Rights Act too?

 

[KeepTalking]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole. The community that their graduates will have to work with when they go out into the world.

You are all ignoring that the admission lowering requirements program for legacy students, large donor, faculty children, and athletics deny admission to many Asians than the minority admission programs. How can you ignore these programs based on the results? Do you think that these programs violate the Civil Rights Act too?

All of us?

I am pretty sure all I did was note that anything criminal Trump and his corrupt DoJ have to say on this should not be trusted to reflect reality in any way, shape, or form.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole. The community that their graduates will have to work with when they go out into the world.

You are all ignoring that the admission lowering requirements program for legacy students, large donor, faculty children, and athletics deny admission to many Asians than the minority admission programs. How can you ignore these programs based on the results? Do you think that these programs violate the Civil Rights Act too?

I very much agree. But two wrongs don't make a right. If a university goes beyond what has been ruled to be the acceptable limit, they should stop doing it. If they feel that the limit is too restrictive, they should seek to have it raised, via further rulings, rather than covertly circumventing it (temporarily assuming there is some truth in saying that this has happened, which would not surprise me). Imo, the rulings which allow them to consider race (and diversity) as one relevant factor among several, and up to a reasonable point and in certain ways, should be adhered to, unless there are rulings which alter the situation.

Though I guess that if they reject this, it may be one way to effectively test what the reasonable limits actually are, if it ends up in court.

 

[Metaphor]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole. The community that their graduates will have to work with when they go out into the world.

The DoJ acknowledged that narrowly-tailored uses of race are permitted.

Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes.

You are all ignoring that the admission lowering requirements program for legacy students, large donor, faculty children, and athletics deny admission to many Asians than the minority admission programs. How can you ignore these programs based on the results? Do you think that these programs violate the Civil Rights Act too?

I don't know: do they?

 

[Metaphor]

Is it time to repeal the Civil Rights Act? That way, Yale can discriminate by race to its heart's content.

No. It is time to eject Trump and his corrupt DoJ. What part of "President Donald Trump's administration has been a strong opponent of so-called affirmative action" do you not understand? The fact that they are demanding Yale not to use race of national origin at all in the upcoming admissions cycle in the face of decades of SCOTUS rulings in favor of Affirmative Action tells you all you need to know.

Because the DoJ considers Yale's use of race goes beyond what has been permitted by previous rulings, and it does not trust Yale to use race at all until it shows its plan for using it, and that those plans fit the narrowly tailored, permitted use.

 

[KeepTalking]

Is it time to repeal the Civil Rights Act? That way, Yale can discriminate by race to its heart's content.

No. It is time to eject Trump and his corrupt DoJ. What part of "President Donald Trump's administration has been a strong opponent of so-called affirmative action" do you not understand? The fact that they are demanding Yale not to use race of national origin at all in the upcoming admissions cycle in the face of decades of SCOTUS rulings in favor of Affirmative Action tells you all you need to know.

Because the DoJ considers Yale's use of race goes beyond what has been permitted by previous rulings, and it does not trust Yale to use race at all until it shows its plan for using it, and that those plans fit the narrowly tailored, permitted use.

There is considerable reason not to trust Trump's DoJ on this. Barr has corrupted the DoJ to do the bidding of the executive, and Trump dislikes affirmative action. Anything the DoJ says on this matter, I trust to be the exact opposite of the truth.

 

[ruby sparks]

Because the DoJ considers Yale's use of race goes beyond what has been permitted by previous rulings, and it does not trust Yale to use race at all until it shows its plan for using it, and that those plans fit the narrowly tailored, permitted use.

There is considerable reason not to trust Trump's DoJ on this. Barr has corrupted the DoJ to do the bidding of the executive, and Trump dislikes affirmative action. Anything the DoJ says on this matter, I trust to be the exact opposite of the truth.

To demand that they don't use it at all, if that's what is being demanded, because they have been using it too much, does not make sense and seems unreasonable. Demanding they stop using it too much (assuming that they have been) would make sense and be a reasonable demand. If they are allowed to use it up to a certain limit, then they should be allowed that.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole.

And? The basic principle of the Bakke ruling was "Race yes, quotas no.". Harvard is known to have been running an illegal quota system; Yale is under the same pressures as Harvard is so it's entirely credible that Yale's been running one too. Of course whether the DoJ can prove it remains to be seen.

You are all ignoring that the admission lowering requirements program for legacy students, large donor, faculty children, and athletics deny admission to many Asians than the minority admission programs. How can you ignore these programs based on the results? Do you think that these programs violate the Civil Rights Act too?

Um, because they don't? The Civil Rights Act doesn't ban discrimination on those factors. They may be unfair but they aren't illegal.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole.

And? The basic principle of the Bakke ruling was "Race yes, quotas no.". Harvard is known to have been running an illegal quota system; Yale is under the same pressures as Harvard is so it's entirely credible that Yale's been running one too.

Who knows Harvard is running an illegal quota system? I thought it was still under dispute.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole.

And? The basic principle of the Bakke ruling was "Race yes, quotas no.". Harvard is known to have been running an illegal quota system; Yale is under the same pressures as Harvard is so it's entirely credible that Yale's been running one too.

Who knows Harvard is running an illegal quota system? I thought it was still under dispute.

In fact, I believe thus far Harvard has prevailed, though the ruling is being appealed.

 

[Toni]

Because the DoJ considers Yale's use of race goes beyond what has been permitted by previous rulings, and it does not trust Yale to use race at all until it shows its plan for using it, and that those plans fit the narrowly tailored, permitted use.

There is considerable reason not to trust Trump's DoJ on this. Barr has corrupted the DoJ to do the bidding of the executive, and Trump dislikes affirmative action. Anything the DoJ says on this matter, I trust to be the exact opposite of the truth.

Sadly this is all too true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I wouldn't trust the current DOJ as far as I could throw their buildings it's pretty obvious they are discriminating. If they're behaving properly why do they try to hide the data?

 

[Bomb#20]

And? The basic principle of the Bakke ruling was "Race yes, quotas no.". Harvard is known to have been running an illegal quota system; Yale is under the same pressures as Harvard is so it's entirely credible that Yale's been running one too.

Who knows Harvard is running an illegal quota system? I thought it was still under dispute.

It is; but as creationists have amply demonstrated, things can be known and still be under dispute. One of the details that came out in the Harvard lawsuit is that their admissions officers have been systematically lying about the reasons individual Asian applicants were rejected. They wouldn't have felt the need to do that if the school were following the rules.

 

[laughing dog]

And? The basic principle of the Bakke ruling was "Race yes, quotas no.". Harvard is known to have been running an illegal quota system; Yale is under the same pressures as Harvard is so it's entirely credible that Yale's been running one too.

Who knows Harvard is running an illegal quota system? I thought it was still under dispute.

It is; but as creationists have amply demonstrated, things can be known and still be under dispute. One of the details that came out in the Harvard lawsuit is that their admissions officers have been systematically lying about the reasons individual Asian applicants were rejected. They wouldn't have felt the need to do that if the school were following the rules.

Accepting your conjecture as accurate, that does not mean there was an illegal (or legal) quota system.

As an aside, I am under the impression that if something is "known" then it is accepted as fact in a court of law.

 

[Bomb#20]

In my case, I have lived in a country where a certain, historically disadvantaged section of the demographic have been given similar sorts of preferential treatment (including quotas for jobs) and all in all, even though it wasn't my 'side', I think it was a good thing, or at least something to be sucked up and accepted, up to a point and for a period of time. Part of me thinks more Americans should not make such a fuss about it. In some ways, it's only fair, overall, given the circumstances of discrimination which have pertained, even only during the last few generations.

It's one thing to say legally imposed discrimination against Protestants is something to be sucked up and accepted, because your government spent centuries treating Catholics as second-class citizens. It's entirely another to say that in some ways it's only fair, overall. Um, in exactly what ways is it "only fair"? Whom is it "only fair" to? When a Protestant is now treated as a second-class citizen, has she done something to deserve that status? Is her Protestantism proof of her anti-Catholic bigotry, since so many Protestants looked down on Catholics? Or has she been marked with the taint of the collective guilt of the Protestant people, a guilt she must now expiate through suffering for the benefit of her countless Catholic victims? Or is it "only fair" to the millions of Protestants of earlier generations, who are now being punished by proxy for their bigoted mistreatment of millions of Catholics of earlier generations? Perhaps they will bear witness from the afterlife and feel vicarious pain from their coreligionist having to pay for their sins?

In the words of another Irish Protestant who supported Catholic emancipation, "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people."