The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[PointOfViewGun]

It's the law.
The DoJ is alleging that Yale's systemic preferential treatment policies (which the university openly endorses) are discriminatory. The excessively disproportionate acceptance rates for applicants who are also the beneficiaries of codified affirmative action policies form part of the preliminary evidence; an analysis of the race-conscious affirmative action policies themselves (which the DoJ states are unnecessarily used at "multiple steps of [the] admissions process") forms another. Presumably the department has elaborated on these findings in their full report.
In any case, what the DOJ "knows" or claims to know is largely irrelevant; what matters is the view of the court vis-a-vis the strict scrutiny standard I mentioned above.

What you said had law in it but it, in its entirety, wasn't the law, not law was used relevantly. What the DoJ knows or claims is all thats relevant. Its idiotic to suggest its not. You point at Yale's systematic preferential treatment policies that you deem to be openly endorsed by the university. Can you cite these policies?

[Cope]

What you said had law in it but it, in its entirety, wasn't the law, not law was used relevantly.

This is gainsaying, not a rebuttal.

What the DoJ knows or claims is all thats relevant. Its idiotic to suggest its not.

The DoJ doesn't determine whether the university violated the law; that is for the courts.

You point at Yale's systematic preferential treatment policies that you deem to be openly endorsed by the university. Can you cite these policies?

The university openly endorses affirmative action and claims that its "policy is committed to affirmative action under law". At the same time, it does not publicly state what these policies are. If the DoJ takes the case to court (which it likely will given Yale's response) the findings of its investigation will become public knowledge.

The University is committed to basing judgments concerning the admission, education, and employment of individuals upon their qualifications and abilities and affirmatively seeks to attract to its faculty, staff, and student body qualified persons of diverse backgrounds. In accordance with this policy and as delineated by federal and Connecticut law, Yale does not discriminate in admissions, educational programs, or employment against any individual on account of that individual’s sex, race, color, religion, age, disability, status as a veteran, or national or ethnic origin; nor does Yale discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.


University policy is committed to affirmative action under law in employment of women, minority group members, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans.
Inquiries concerning these policies may be referred to Valarie Stanley, Senior Director of the Office of Institutional Equity and Access, 221 Whitney Avenue; 4th Floor, 203-432-0849.

Office of Institutional Equity and Access, Yale University

[PointOfViewGun]

This is gainsaying, not a rebuttal.

I'm sure thats what you'd say if you think someone didn't fall for it.

The DoJ doesn't determine whether the university violated the law; that is for the courts.

Nobody talked about DoJ being the judge. You're deflecting.

The university openly endorses affirmative action and claims that its "policy is committed to affirmative action under law". At the same time, it does not publicly state what these policies are. If the DoJ takes the case to court (which it likely will given Yale's response) the findings of its investigation will become public knowledge.

You earlier said that Yales endorses these policies publicly. Now you say that they do not publicly state what those policies are.

DoJ clearly has no ground to base its accusation. Otherwise, it wouldn't wait for the response from Yale. Yale saying that they will abide by the rules doesn't change if they violated the law or not. Affirmative action in itself is not illegal. They need to provide actually substance. Based on the substance they have provided I can tell that their claims are bogus.

[Infidel144]

Nice distortion. Keep it up.

Quoting you in response to your denials is a distortion...

The article claims discrimination based on national origin and only mentions proportionality. I can only assume they have some kind of proportionality when it comes to foreign and domestic students. It's not a matter of accepting foreign students but at which perception they do.

So the article does not say accepting accepting foreign students violates the law.
DoJ says "Yale discriminates based on race and national origin".
And that:
"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."

[alhoon]

Ehmmm... did you guys notice this is the rant thread? All those arguments are nice and all and an interesting discussion is developing.
I am not saying this discussion doesn't belong here. However, I think you have presented some things worthy of a serious discussion so you may decide to move that discussion to a dedicated thread for the admissions and quotas etc.

[PointOfViewGun]

Quoting you in response to your denials is a distortion...

It is when you selectively quote given that you have failed to respond to the posts as a whole.

So the article does not say accepting accepting foreign students violates the law.
DoJ says "Yale discriminates based on race and national origin".
And that:
"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."

Good luck with the windmills...

Ehmmm... did you guys notice this is the rant thread? All those arguments are nice and all and an interesting discussion is developing.
I am not saying this discussion doesn't belong here. However, I think you have presented some things worthy of a serious discussion so you may decide to move that discussion to a dedicated thread for the admissions and quotas etc.

Why you have a problem with your rant scrutinized?

[alhoon]

Why you have a problem with your rant scrutinized?

Ahh... this kind of rubbish post is of the quality I expected in a rant thread.

Anyway, I just thought that the nice discussion would be interesting to people that don't check rant threads or come here just to blow up steam.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ahh... this kind of rubbish post is of the quality I expected in a rant thread.

Anyway, I just thought that the nice discussion would be interesting to people that don't check rant threads or come here just to blow up steam.

This not a thread where your ranting can go free from from scrutinization.

[alhoon]

This not a thread where your ranting can go free from from scrutinization.

Of course not! I never said otherwise. And in a serious thread I would make more serious answers to scrutiny.
But of course, I have a vague memory of what you guys were saying about Yale being racist towards white people and I have no intention to go back and read what you said. IIRC the "Yale did nothing wrong!" group mostly says "hey! They have less admittance of whites and higher standards of whites because more whites apply!" or something.
Well, IMO skin color shouldn't come to it at all. You go with academic credentials despite skin color.

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course not! I never said otherwise. And in a serious thread I would make more serious answers to scrutiny.
But of course, I have a vague memory of what you guys were saying about Yale being racist towards white people and I have no intention to go back and read what you said. IIRC the "Yale did nothing wrong!" group mostly says "hey! They have less admittance of whites and higher standards of whites because more whites apply!" or something.
Well, IMO skin color shouldn't come to it at all. You go with academic credentials despite skin color.

Nobody argued that part. I merely asked for what the DoJ based its accusations on. Their article expressed a lack of understanding on how college admission process goes. No one really admits an applicant just because he or she is black. They choose based on background based on what kind of experience the student can bring to the university. That's not really discrimination.

[Cope]

The DoJ alleges that excessively disproportionate rejection rates for applicants of certain racial backgrounds is evidence of discrimination. This is in the context of an application process which systemically preferences candidates with racial characteristics other than those belonging to the applicants who are being disproportionately rejected. It is also after academic attainment is taken into account.

Notwithstanding, since you are convinced that the DoJ has no evidence (even though we have not seen their full case) then it follows that you should be convinced that the case will fail in court.

[PointOfViewGun]

The DoJ's claimed evidence of discrimination is the excessively disproportionate rejection rates for applicants of certain racial backgrounds in the context of an application process which systemically preferences candidates with racial characteristics other than those belonging to the applicants who are being disproportionately rejected.

Notwithstanding, since you are convinced that the DoJ has no evidence (even though we have not seen their full case) then it follows that you should be convinced that the case will fail in court.

Based on what DoJ points at, yes, I believe they have no concrete evidence. The fact that they're asking Yale to comply with the law in the future cases is a testament to that. If they had evidence they would go to court directly and fine the hell out of the university. They're not doing that. They first wanna see if Yale will change course. If they really have concrete evidence and they're not punishing Yale, since it means a lot of kids were not able to go to Yale unjustly, they're screwing things up as well.

[Cope]

Based on what DoJ points at, yes, I believe they have no concrete evidence. The fact that they're asking Yale to comply with the law in the future cases is a testament to that. If they had evidence they would go to court directly and fine the hell out of the university. They're not doing that. They first wanna see if Yale will change course.If they really have concrete evidence and they're not punishing Yale, since it means a lot of kids were not able to go to Yale unjustly, they're screwing things up as well.

The DoJ's attempt to resolve the matter out of court before filing a suit is not evidence that there is no case against the university. It is typical for parties to seek alternative resolutions prior to litigation.

[PointOfViewGun]

The DoJ's attempt to resolve the matter out of court before filing a suit is not evidence that there is no case against the university. It is typical for parties to seek alternative resolutions prior to litigation.

Yuo'd have a point if DoJ is also demanding that Yale compensate those individuals that should have been accepted but were not due to discrimination. The least they could do would be to pay back the application fee. One could argue a portion of the SAT cost could be demanded as well. If any of those applicants that were rejected in discriminatory circumstances visited Yale university they can be compensated for that cost as well. College tour is not a free endeavor. That's not what the DoJ doing. They're merely asking for a statement from Yale for the show.

[Cope]

Yuo'd have a point if DoJ is also demanding that Yale compensate those individuals that should have been accepted but were not due to discrimination. The least they could do would be to pay back the application fee. One could argue a portion of the SAT cost could be demanded as well. If any of those applicants that were rejected in discriminatory circumstances visited Yale university they can be compensated for that cost as well. College tour is not a free endeavor. That's not what the DoJ doing. They're merely asking for a statement from Yale for the show.

In exchange for avoiding litigation, the DoJ has made two demands:

1. The university must suspend it's affirmative action admission policies for 20/21.
2. Any similar future policies must be approved in advance by the DoJ.

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.

Justice Department Finds Yale Illegally Discriminates Against Asians and Whites in Undergraduate Admissions in Violation of Federal Civil-Rights Laws, Aug 13th.

If the case goes to trial (which will be contingent on the outcome of the election) and the university loses, it will be compelled to reform its admissions policies and be exposed to potentially thousands of suits from rejected students seeking punitive damages.

[PointOfViewGun]

In exchange for avoiding litigation, the DoJ has made two demands:

1. The university must suspend it's affirmative action admission policies for 20/21.
2. Any similar future policies must be approved in advance by the DoJ.

If the case goes to trial (which will be contingent on the outcome of the election) and the university loses, it will be compelled to reform its admissions policies and be exposed to potentially thousands of suits from rejected students seeking punitive damages.

None of that addresses anything I said...

[Cope]

None of that addresses anything I said...

You falsely claimed that the DoJ only wanted "a statement from Yale for the show"; on the contrary, they demanded substantive changes to the university's application process.

Yuo'd have a point if DoJ is also demanding that Yale compensate those individuals that should have been accepted but were not due to discrimination. The least they could do would be to pay back the application fee. One could argue a portion of the SAT cost could be demanded as well. If any of those applicants that were rejected in discriminatory circumstances visited Yale university they can be compensated for that cost as well. College tour is not a free endeavor. That's not what the DoJ doing. They're merely asking for a statement from Yale for the show.

[PointOfViewGun]

You falsely claimed that the DoJ only wanted "a statement from Yale for the show"; on the contrary, they demanded substantive changes to the university's application process.

Does that include compensating for those that have already been discriminated?

[Cope]

Does that include compensating for those that have already been discriminated?

No.

When parties attempt to settle out of court, the plaintiff(s) don't demand everything they would expect to receive with a favourable judgement otherwise there is no incentive for the defendant(s) to accept the offer. In any case, while the university might be fined and/or defunded for violating anti-discrimination laws, individual students would likely have to seek their own damages.

[PointOfViewGun]

No.

When parties attempt to settle out of court, the plaintiff(s) don't demand everything they would expect to receive with a favourable judgement otherwise there is no incentive for the defendant(s) to accept the offer. In any case, while the university might be fined and/or defunded for violating anti-discrimination laws, individual students would likely have to seek their own damages.

We're talking about the DoJ. Your arguments have no sense in relation to that.