[_hilro]

> word such as segregation, which has connotations of 'by design'

My entire comment does not rest on a false premise.

1) My comment commented on the use of the word segregation and it's implications. *

and

2) the fact that the program is not racially segregated using any dictionary definition of the word.

> Segregation is defined by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as "the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds without an objective and reasonable justification, in conformity with the proposed definition of discrimination

This program is not that, no matter how hard you try and squint to make it seem so.

[endisneigh]

Webster, Dictionary.com, Oxford and others define segregation as:

> separated or divided along racial, sexual, or religious lines.

Perhaps the NYC editor was using that definition. If you use any of those definitions, then yes your comment is objectively incorrect.

[detaro]

And several of those also provide definitions that include explicit policy of doing so, further reinforcing the point that the connotation exists.

[endisneigh]

Sure, but words have different definitions. My point is that a charitable read of the article is using the definition that applies in this scenario per the article, and therefore the original comment is incorrect.

Obviously an uncharitable read can lead one to dismiss the intentions of everyone involved.

[_hilro]

For the program to be racially segregated using your above definition(ignoring common usage), then the program itself would have to have separated the races in the program.

The NYTimes article isn't an 8 year old writing their first newspaper article using the dictionary to form sentences.

Their usage of the word is inflammatory and incorrect on multiple levels including your definition.