It's actually not at all clear if it's legal hence the court battle. In fact AA is literally legalized discrimination that benefits Minorities so you really don't know what you are talking about.
Indeed. Harvard's legal argument isn't that they are racially discriminating and that it's legal. They know it's not.
Their argument is what you'd expect from an institution that is racially discriminating, but trying to weasel out of its culpability: they try to hide their systematic bias in the most subjective and ambiguous candidate score - the "personality" ratings.
> The report by the plaintiff’s expert witness, the Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono, revealed that Harvard evaluated applicants on the extent to which they possessed the following traits: likability, helpfulness, courage, kindness, positive personality, people like to be around them, the person is widely respected. Asian-Americans, who had the highest scores in both the academic and extracurricular ratings, lagged far behind all other racial groups in the degree to which they received high ratings on the personality score.
> “Asian-American applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time only in the top academic index decile. By contrast, white applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time in the top six deciles,” wrote Mr. Arcidiacono. “Hispanics receive such personal scores more than 20% of the time in the top seven deciles, and African Americans receive such scores more than 20% of the time in the top eight deciles.”
> Even if the very worst stereotypes about Asians were true on average, it beggars belief that one could arrive at divergences as dramatic as the ones Mr. Arcidiacono documents by means of unbiased evaluation.
>Harvard's legal argument isn't that they are racially discriminating and that it's legal. They know it's not.
Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Sorry but that doesn't really have bearing on the Harvard case, the decision upheld that scoring systems and quotas are unconstitutional.
Of course you seem to be ignoring Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978 that ruled that race could be used as a factor in admissions but struck down quotas.
In fact Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Hmm sounds like Harvard's argument. So the law is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be.
This and other recent comments you've made have broken the site guidelines. We ban accounts that do that, so would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here?