Except that this was specifically what private universities (and private everything else’s) were required by law to stop doing 50 year ago, when their preferred race was white. There’s a LONG precedent against private institutions discriminating based on race in the United States - it just hasn’t been enforced evenly.

I hate to be this guy, but...how is this different from affirmative action? I'm not saying it's wrong, but affirmative action is discriminating based on race. Surely it hasn't been illegal this whole time?

It looks like it's complicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_Unit...

The rule in the US is that a university that wants to discriminate based on race doesn't just lose its grants, it loses its tax exempt status.

That's the actual issue here. Harvard receives around $600 million in federal funds a year [1].

1. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/1/22/federal-funding...

Thats a lot of money, what do they do with it?

It’s money for research.

>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.

So your position is that they are free to racially discriminate against candidates because they are a private university?

Once you take federal money, you have public obligations spelled out in multiple laws. Harvard takes a lot of federal money.

I agree, people and private (non-government) businesses should be able to discriminate however they want on whatever factors they want.

However, that is not what the law says.

Although I'd support this, cutting subsidies is going to be incredibly painful. A lot of University income is tied up as overhead on top of research grants.

"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?"

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.

Edit: misunderstood

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

Ah, sorry. Edited.

CRA-III?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.