Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

It’s a question of how consistently you’ll follow through on your position. So, to be clear, you’ll cap Jewish students at Harvard and elsewhere at 2%, to make room for Blacks, Hispanics, and others, correct?

That's an entirely different question, which has nothing to do with your earlier one.

"Should there be racial quotas?" is not the same thing at all as "given equally qualified applicants, does diversity add value?" Do you really think these are the same questions?

That’s the question we are dealing with in this thread. We are not dealing with various applicants, ceteris paribus. You changed that to “all else being equal” to provide your own answer to a hypothetical question that is not part of the thread. Try to pay attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Who said “all else being equal?” The H lawsuit presupposes Asians with superior stats.

Stats aren’t everything. That’s the thing. And where the Tiger mommies go wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s so sad that an Asian kid feels the need to hide identity because of discrimination. I’m white and I’m very empathetic to this. I’m sorry OP.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. When you choose a salad as your side, you discriminate against the French fries. That isn’t the issue.

I have no problem with colleges that desire a diverse student body effectively putting a cap on how many students of a similar background they will accept.

Big difference between choosing french fries and making a race-based decision that will impact a human being, no?

No, not at all. You are using the word discrimination incorrectly. Maybe English isn’t your first language?

Most discrimination is perfectly fine. We do it every day.

This thread makes me sad. I'm reminded of light complexioned AA who would move from their home town
and "pass" as white in a new town.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s so sad that an Asian kid feels the need to hide identity because of discrimination. I’m white and I’m very empathetic to this. I’m sorry OP.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. When you choose a salad as your side, you discriminate against the French fries. That isn’t the issue.

I have no problem with colleges that desire a diverse student body effectively putting a cap on how many students of a similar background they will accept.

Big difference between choosing french fries and making a race-based decision that will impact a human being, no?

This thread reads like the old sitcom, “All In The Family” starring Archie Bunker. Those were the days!

Tricky times for Asian applicants insofar as whites are (finally) seeing power and privilege taken away from them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

It’s a question of how consistently you’ll follow through on your position. So, to be clear, you’ll cap Jewish students at Harvard and elsewhere at 2%, to make room for Blacks, Hispanics, and others, correct?

That's an entirely different question, which has nothing to do with your earlier one.

"Should there be racial quotas?" is not the same thing at all as "given equally qualified applicants, does diversity add value?" Do you really think these are the same questions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Who said “all else being equal?” The H lawsuit presupposes Asians with superior stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

It’s a question of how consistently you’ll follow through on your position. So, to be clear, you’ll cap Jewish students at Harvard and elsewhere at 2%, to make room for Blacks, Hispanics, and others, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

Good, so existing employees (middle aged whites?) should step aside too, to free up spaces for those who bring diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s so sad that an Asian kid feels the need to hide identity because of discrimination. I’m white and I’m very empathetic to this. I’m sorry OP.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. When you choose a salad as your side, you discriminate against the French fries. That isn’t the issue.

I have no problem with colleges that desire a diverse student body effectively putting a cap on how many students of a similar background they will accept.

Big difference between choosing french fries and making a race-based decision that will impact a human being, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s so sad that an Asian kid feels the need to hide identity because of discrimination. I’m white and I’m very empathetic to this. I’m sorry OP.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. When you choose a salad as your side, you discriminate against the French fries. That isn’t the issue.

I have no problem with colleges that desire a diverse student body effectively putting a cap on how many students of a similar background they will accept.

So you see nothing wrong with Harvard in the old days capping Jewish students to 2%

Nope. That’s about the proportion to society, right?

Right.

Tell me, oh Wise. How about the NFL and NBA? We need 2% Jewish players proportional to society?

And I’m 5’2” white women. I’m discriminated against in NBA.

You're not discriminated against in the WNBA, you will simply fail to meet the requirements. Asian American students do not fail to meet the requirements, they overwhelmingly exceed them.

Most people applying to top institutions are qualified. The act of admissions is inherently discriminatory. That doesn’t make it wrong or illegal.

If there is a basketball tryout where a white kid is ripping up the court while an Asian kid is barely making the the minimum, and the coach ends up picking the Asian kid because there are already too many white kids on the team, that's discriminatory.

Terrible analogy. Everyone applying to Harvard has the stats. To make this analogy, everyone at basketball tryouts is equally good.

And yes, the final selection is at the coach’s discretion. Which is inherently discriminatory. So what. It doesn’t mean anything wrong happened. It means the coach made a choice.

Ha not everyone. Most but not all.

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

NP. I wouldn’t say that the person of a different race/identity necessarily brings a new perspective, but representation is itself valuable. Representation helps you attract other top-flight candidates who belong to that group. I suspect that one of the reasons that went into a terrific Black candidate accepting our offer is that she saw other Black faces on the hiring committee. Nobody wants to be the token or sole member of the group. So yes, diversity is a concrete advantage when all else is equal. The more diverse you are, the better chance you have of attracting the very best candidates.