Hacker News Reader

Comment by chuckee | Hacker News Reader

I found the language used the most interesting part. This article, and the WSJ's [1], both write "did not discriminate against White and Asian-American applicants". Which is later contradicted by "U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs found UNC had narrowly tailored its use of race as a factor" - i.e. they did discriminate, but not "unduly" (as the related case for Harvard puts it [2]).

It's telling how much they try to avoid accurately describing it as "discrimination". "It is not bad discrimination" is so much more palatable than "it is good discrimination".

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-north-carolina-at...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...

View on HN

In Switzerland "good discrimination" against men isn't even considered discrimination:

> Appropriate measures aimed at achieving true equality are not regarded as discriminatory [0]

I looked this up when a prospective employer told me that they hadn't yet reached their gender quota and that if any even remotely qualified woman asked for the job I was basically out. Needless to say, I didn't bother applying for the job.

[0] https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/...

I wouldn't want to work for a company like that either, but if that was my best option and assuming this is a thing in whatever country, I would trying playing their game and say "I identify as a woman." Any resistance to that notion would be "discrimination".

I get the sense some places really want to go above and beyond their quota so they just say this to spook good enough candidates away. You could have accepted then made a stand not to resign, and in the process become the modern day Rosa Parks.

It's hilarious they think they can change the meaning of words by legislation.

Or it would be, if people didn't play along.

That is absurd: there is no acceptable bias.

Discrimination is the fundamental goal of college admissions, unless it is a school that accepts everyone who applies.

There are multiple existing bases for such discrimination that don’t make headlines because we’re used to them: grades, test scores, geography, hobbies, interests, national origin, etc. Basically, all the stuff that goes into each kid’s application.

In that context it seems kind of silly to hold up one basis—self-expressed racial identity—as absolutely off-limits for any consideration at all.

If you're willing to call the civil rights movement silly, sure.

But in any case, the university and courts and media should phrase it honestly and directly. "This court finds the university's racial discrimination is legal" and not "the university did not do the wrong kind of racial discrimination". Maybe the brochures for new students should inform them that, in addition to having "high academic standards" they also "prefer student applicants of race X, Y, and Z".

It is after all silly to hold racial discrimination off-limits, so the university should have no problems being open about it, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com