> All persons who apply for admission to colleges and universities should expect and know that they will be judged by their character, talents, and achievements and not the color of their skin.
If I achieve better grades and have broader extracurriculars versus somebody who was in a substantially less advantaged position than me, how much of that comes down to my 'talent' and 'character', and how much comes down to my wealthy parents?
Yale could attempt to make an argument that a proper comparison of character, talent and achievement across a diverse, heterogenous population requires interpreting these elements in their context (the bar should be higher for those with more opportunity). Then they just need to establish that their equity programs are well substantiated by educational barriers which are inescapably racialized.
Basically the argument is that since race in America is unavoidably intertwined with educational opportunity, it is not possible to have an admissions procedure which is 'neutral' with respect to race; that in fact equity programs aim to strike the best balance in this conundrum, and are therefore the least discriminatory policy available in the overall context of the program.
Sure. You could argue that judging someone on the basis of extracurriculars is discrimination in favor of people with wealthy parents.
But, there is no current law, on the books, that explicitly says that discrimination in favor of wealthy people is illegal.
Instead, the law prevents discrimination "on the ground of race, color, or national origin".
And furthermore, I do not believe that that there has been significant court ruling saying that discrimination in favor of wealthy people, would be equivalent to discrimination on the grounds of "Race, color, or nation origin", if you are going to make that argument.
You're correct that this is essentially the argument I'm proposing (although you could broaden 'wealth' to a wider range of racially influenced factors of educational success/access). It might not have been made before - Yale may try to make it.
1. When students borrow money from the federal government, whoever they pay that money to is "receiving federal financial assistance". This makes absolutely no sense.
2. When a government program intended to produce research does so by funding researchers, those researchers' employers are "receiving federal financial assistance".
The second one doesn't make sense either; it appears to be exactly analogous to saying that if the federal government engages private contractors to repair damage to the White House, those contractors are receiving federal financial assistance.
It could be considered the same. So lets consider that hypothetical.
Would people have a problem with a law that said that the government is not allowed to hire a private contractor repair company, that discriminates in hiring, based on race?
On its face, I would not find such a law to be unusual or outlandish, to say that the government can't hire a repair company that refuses to employ people of a certain race group, for example.
Would you find it unusual or outlandish for a law to place contractors employed by the government in the category of "entities receiving financial assistance from the government"?
The category isn't really the important part here. I don't care about definitions. Instead, I care about the actual real world effect. Th semantics is not important here.
So, no, I would not find it unusual for a law to have the real world effect of preventing the government from hiring a repair company that discriminates on the basis of race.
And whether or not those laws reflect the definitions of words, as defined by some webster dictionary here, is not the important part of the debate about whether we ought or ought not have certain laws.
Instead what matters is the actual effect of those laws.
It is not the wrong category though, because this is a well established definition within the law that everyone in that community understands.
Instead, the problem is that your intuition is different than the well established definition of these categories, as according to what the court system has established.
> to shoehorn them
It is not shoehorning though. It is an established and understood concept that courts understand. Instead, it is your personal intuition that is wrong regarding a law that is well understood by the court system.
And I am surprised that the current behavior of most colleges regarding this issue is so pervasive, has gone on for so long, and so far out of line with a simple reading of the law.
I would think either the law would have changed, or the behavior of colleges would have been brought in line with the law a long time ago.
Here is the law, for reference, as quoted from the article. It feels pretty clear to me.
"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, … be subjected to discrimination under any program … receiving Federal financial assistance."