Harvard Does Not Discriminate Against Asian-Americans in Admissions, Judge Rules
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
How in the world are other much more nebulous and tenuous cases being won and this one is not?
Crazy world.
"Harvard Admissions Process Does Not Discriminate Against Asian-Americans, Judge Rules"
I'm not sure what "the right reasons" are - my understanding was discrimination was prohibited based on race and ethnicity.
"Judge Determines Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Policy Is Constitutional (wsj.com)"
On the other side of the Atlantic these things are also beginning to happen. In the name of positive discrimination there are collectives, larger or smaller, that are effectively discriminated against, and in a very tangible way.
In Spain the cases that have been most discussed are about selection processes for public officials, where women have easier physical tests, and in some cases the simple fact of being a woman already gives you points.
As far as I know, we have not yet reached the point of favouring certain nationalities or ethical groups, but as all these trends from the USA end up arriving in Spain, I have no doubt that sooner or later it will be on the table.
One thing that worries me a lot is seeing how being against these measures seems to be interpreted as a conservative position. I am honestly quite surprised that we have reached this point with so little opposition from the institutions.
Over here, institutions (primarily academic, though also some government administrations) have been the ones leading the charge.
2004 at a university was the first time I'd heard that you can't be racist against a white person in America, and at the time, it was reasonable to debate that position. Now, if you don't agree with it, you stay quiet unless you want to be labelled a conservative bigot who is too simple to understand these things, both in universities and often in public as well.
Just recently, the city of Portland decided to remove urinals from and make all bathrooms on several floors of a remodelled government building any-gendered. I suspect that people will end up avoiding those and going to other floors for now, but by the sound of it, they want to eventually remove all gendered bathrooms. My favorite quote from the Chief Administrative Officer was "I am convinced that this is the right way to ensure success as your employer"
There's a big difference between "does not" and "is allowed to".
EDIT: I was a bit curious so I took a look at the author of this article and her NYT bio says she graduated from Harvard: https://www.nytimes.com/by/anemona-hartocollis. Now it's generally editors, not the writers, that come up with the final title. But still that's one hell of a conflict of interest.
This article seems pretty biased. Also it seems like the ruling will be appealed.