[lettergram]

Harvard doesn’t have an admissions problem. It’s a highly successful institution, that has lasted for hundreds of years and is not public.

Meaning - they clearly are doing something correct and are not beholden to what we feel is “fair”. They aren’t doing anything illegal, so there is no problem.

Perhaps it doesn’t jive with some sensibilities, but it’s not their responsibility to cater to anyone’s sensibilities. The institutions purpose is to grow and support its pupils. Then it’s pupils pay dividends back to the institution. Anything counter to that, really doesn’t make sense.

[flexie]

In its hundred of years history, its admission system has been discriminating against minorities, going far beyond what only those with "sensibilities" would care about.

Recently it has been well documented how Asians have a tougher admission than white Americans. Until the 1930s, and possibly longer, they had a Jewish quota. While Jim Crow laws were being dismantled, there was 1 (one) black student in the 1958-class. Then there was the gender quotas.

Harvard - as other private universities - are benefiting from favorable tax treatment, and from society acknowledging their education for a number of different professions (law and medicine are obvious examples). But even without that, society has a legitimate interest in regulating against discrimination in private universities.

[grumdan]

> Perhaps it doesn’t jive with some sensibilities, but it’s not their responsibility to cater to anyone’s sensibilities.

Whether or not someone or some organization is successful, for some definition of success, is a very different question of whether they are behaving morally. And yes, the public certainly can and should point out immoral actions by such institutions. There are countless examples of companies and governments that were successful with some policy that was widely regarded as immoral.

[criddell]

> They aren’t doing anything illegal

Isn't there an active lawsuit claiming their use of race in the admissions process crosses the line?

[rconti]

Yes, a conservative activist has recruited test-case students as plaintiffs in lawsuits designed to strike down affirmative action.

[honestinquiry]

If the merits of the case are justified, what does it matter whether an "activist" is involved or what his politics might be?

[stronglikedan]

I personally don't know if such a lawsuit exists. However, if it hasn't been settled in favor of the plaintiff, and no other such lawsuits have been settled in favor of the plaintiff, then they aren't doing anything illegal.

[wolfgang42]

> if it hasn't been settled in favor of the plaintiff...then they aren't doing anything illegal.

Wouldn't that mean that they haven't yet been determined to be doing anything illegal? If you do things against the law they're still illegal even if you haven't been caught.

[stronglikedan]

Semantics aside, I subscribe to the innocent until proven guilty school of thought.

[isolli]

I'm pretty sure Harvard benefits from tax breaks on the donations it receives. The tax breaks are on the donor's side, but the economic effect is the same as channeling public money to the institution (it simply takes the form of foregone tax revenue).

[reallydude]

》 Meaning - they clearly are doing something correct

Good/Correct as in a self subsidized oligarchy?