[curious_fella2]

"I don't like what they seem to be doing, but Harvard is a private university - they should be able to recruit who they want to based on their own criteria"

How is this argument different than supporting a private restaurant not serving e.g. Chinese people since they "are a private company that should be able to serve whom they want based on their own criteria?"

[dnautics]

It's not. And as a person of color, I'll tell you that laws preventing discrimination offered me and my family zero protections (specifically with respect to restaurants) in the post CRA-III era.

[curious_fella2]

Edit: misunderstood

[dnautics]

Sorry that was unclear. I should have written "it's not a different argument".

[curious_fella2]

Ah, sorry. Edited.

[k_sh]

CRA-III?

[shkkmo]

I would assume that is Title III of the Civil Rights Act which covers the obligation of the Attorney General to instigate civil suites to enforce the CRA on behalf of complainants who do not have the means to pursue a civil suite on their own.

[dnautics]

Sorry for the ambiguity. It's the third civil rights act (1964) after 57 and 60. I and II dominantly were about racism in voting, but III has substantial portions that were about regulating private behavior in addition to those segments about the state sponsored racism.

[jorblumesea]

How is what Harvard is doing supported by that example? They are giving preferential treatment to certain groups or ethnicities, not actively discriminating against any certain group. If you went to a restaurant and someone that was in line after you got seated before simply because of their ethnicity, that's not the same as not being served at all right?

[lalaland1125]

If there are a limited number of seats it's exactly the same as not being served at all.

[jjeaff]

I'm sorry sir, but you've been bumped from this flight. Because someone from a more favorable race showed up.

You'll have to try and catch the next flight. We have one departing next year.