MIT's first freshman class since affirmative-action ban is less diverse | Hacker News Reader

MIT's first freshman class since affirmative-action ban is less diverse

bbc.com

25 pointsdonsupreme16 comments

There's a couple observations about these numbers.

The first is that the numbers don't add up to 100%, because students can select more than one race. For the class of 2028 they add up to close to 100%, but they add up to over 120% for the prior year. This suggests that there's been significant changes in how many students select more than one race. It's possible that without an incentive to select an under-represented race, that many fewer students did so.

Secondly, the percentage of white students didn't change much. The portion of students identifying as Asian-descent went up quite a bit, while black/hispanic declined; the rest of the difference appears to be due to the change in multi-race selection.

Overall, this does seem to suggest that the systems previously in place did not really affect white students much, but served to suppress Asian student representation in favor of other minority students.

Such a good observation! Even as a very left-leaning person, this is the problem I see with the current implementation of "DEI": the white majority, including so-called progressives, never intend to give up their hold on all forms of influence, in every sphere of life.

But they come up with a variety of schemes designed to take away representation from Asians, especially those Asians deemed "over-represented."

And don't even get me started on Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Hoover, etc.

Discrimination based on race has lowered, they mean?

They mean they've stopped turning away incredibly talented Asian students just because they're Asian

It might be easier to discriminate against Asians via immigration status, if that's the goal.

good luck to the people who want it back, it's an uphill battle from here. next up on the chopping block: hiring

Civil rights act as imposed on private entities is blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment IMO. I think current SCOTUS may have the cajones to actually nix it.

this scotus has the political orientation needed to do something like that

OTOH, it flies in the face of the classic conservative "letting corporations do whatever they want" attitude, so it might be a mixed bag

That is blatantly asinine. Are you saying that a hotel should be able to discriminate against someone based on their race?

In intrastate commerce I see no reason how the feds can constitutionally stop them.

Banking. Money crosses state lines which makes it fair game under the commerce clause. There's only 50+ years of court cases on the subject.

Yes under the commerce clause in recent history has been interpreted to mean interstate commerce is something as simple as growing a weed plant on your own land and smoking it.

The precious CRA is an oft cited law as to why we need expansive interpretation of that clause (as without it CRA as we know it would be finished), the sooner SCOTUS crushes the CRA the sooner we can finally crush the rest of the civil rights violating overreaches of the prior commerce clause interpretations.

By that logic is there anything that the Federal government can't regulate? If that's the case why is the commerce clause in the Constitution at all?

Discrimination based on race has been strictly prohibited since 1964 and the United States based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Allegedly.

The CRA explicitly allows discrimination of say off res private businesses in favor of employing Indians, but not say in favor of blacks near historically black neighborhoods. The CRA itself is quite racist, and not only that is used to hold the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause hostage.

So what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com