[dwaltrip]

> People with different hair colors, or heights, last names, pet types, and sibling orders on average don't have identical outcomes.

There aren't massive systematic factors working to negatively affect specific slices of those population groupings. It's not a good comparison.

That's not to say that Harvard's approach is necessarily the best way to tackle this issue. But it's very difficult to argue that there isn't an issue at all.

[bruthafez]

>There aren't massive systematic factors working to negatively affect specific slices of those population groupings. It's not a good comparison.

Yes there are massive systemic factors working against people disadvantaged in those factors, and yes it is a good comparison. Look up the average height of CEOs sometime and then tell me height discrimination isn't a thing.

[dwaltrip]

Ah, good catch. I missed the height one. However, I think it's not even close in terms of magnitude. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember hearing something like that tall individuals earn, on average, something like $1000 more per year. That's pretty small compared to differences in the usual groups that people tend to focus on.

[bruthafez]

What differences?

Just saying that height, facial attractiveness/symmetry, weight etc all could (unquantifiably but obviously) easily outweigh race in terms of societal privilege and it's just absurd to cherry pick the issue of race as the determining factor of privilege rather than something even more basic such as height or facial symmetry.

And that's not even accounting for the fact that (according to many academics at schools that ironically factor race into admission) race doesn't even exist while height and facial symmetry inarguably do exist.

[tptacek]

That is a ridiculous over-reading of the notion --- not well supported in mainstream science --- that "race doesn't exist". Scientists who make that claim aren't suggesting that it's therefore impossible for someone to be discriminated against based on race. That would be a self-evidently ludicrous proposition, given observable reality.

[bruthafez]

I never said it was impossible to be discriminated against based on race. Obviously it is. And obviously race exists. I was pointing out the absurdity of colleges factoring race into admissions while simultaneously employing professors who claim race doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist then how can you justify factoring it into admissions? You can't -- because it exists.

TLDR I agree w u dude.

EDIT: HN won't let me reply to ur reply so let me say -- no my argument is very coherent. If you want to say that "it's not settled if race exists or not" then I agree. And I agree with your assertion that discrimination based on perceived racial characteristics is also obviously possible. I also never said that ppl who argue that race is only a social construct also are arguing that racism doesn't even exist, I don't even know where you got that from tbqh dude. This comment thread is weird to me because you're disagreeing with a ton of things I didn't even say and that I disagree with as well. I don't know why you're so hell-bent on disagreeing with straw man arguments you project onto me because all your points are solid bro and I agree with them all, except for your nonsensical assertion that I don't agree with u. Uhhh trust me bro, yes I do lmao. :)

[tptacek]

No, you don't. Your argument is incoherent. It's not settled that race "exists" or what it means. People arguing that race isn't meaningful, or meaningful only as a social construct, aren't saying that there's no such thing as racial discrimination, nor can their arguments be reduced to such a claim.