My moral judgement was against those who have the power to actually change something, so I don't see why you said "The same could be said about you". As you noted, none of us have the power to influence Yale's admissions process.
You said (my emphasis): "That's a proposed solution to the problem.
If you don't like that solution, fine, come up with another one." I assumed that was rhetorical and responded in like, which is why I am suprised you are treating it as not rhetorical. If is not rhetorical, you need to apply that criticism to yourself because you made a unreasonable demand of me.
I did not do this for childishness. I did it to point out that affirmative action does not exist in isolation, but to theoretically ameliorate another problem. Scrapping it worsens that problem.
Me too! Too bad the institutions in power don't want to release any data! Wow, gee, I wonder why that is? I wonder why there are people so invested in Affirmative Action that they're willing to prevent study into its effectiveness. I wonder what Sander's critics and these institutions have in common? Really gets the ol' noggin joggin'.
Institutions may not want to release data for lots of reasons.
That said, your accusation is reasonable. They certainly will dislike releasing information to researchers who may use it to embarrass them and their policies, particularly if they doubt the neutrality of the researcher. And that neutrality is a big issue: again, one of the criticisms of Sander is that he selects criteria and methodology in such a way to manufacture or exaggerate his claims (this is a more general problem in sciences and social sciences). A read through just how toxic this debate has got, even in the acedmic literature, strongly suggests to me that Sander and at least some of his critics have surrendered to ego and become so over-invested in their position that it is dubious whether we can trust them to do their research fairly and open-mindedly.
A similar concept exists in climate change research, where some people aggressively demand data from researchers purely for the single-minded purpose of fucking with them. Climate change scientists are obviously unhappy handing out their data to trolls, but have no right to refuse to due to conditions on publicly funded research.
Even more reason to be more careful with admissions. If they clearly can't afford it, then why is the school bleeding them dry? Either way, if you can't afford it, or if you aren't academically prepared for it, then maybe you shouldn't be going to that school.
Universities set and clearly advertise fees, and it is the responsibility of a student to arrange their finances accordingly. Personal circumstances can change (e.g. loss or diminution of parental support, inability to work and study), or maybe the student does not manage their budget properly, and this may lead to withdrawal. This is beyond the responsibility of the university, although universities often do have forms of financial support systems.
Nobody is jumping to the conclusion that the policy should be removed. Everybody agrees that the information is uncertain. Everybody except certain people that don't want the matter to be studied at all, that is...
I find it really hard to credit that you have spent so long firmly criticising affirmative action policy as harmful, and criticising those supporting affirmative action policy as doing harm to students, and then here are back away from a conclusion that affirmative action should be ended. But if you wish to amend this to "do more research", I'm fine with that.
First off, this just seems like an immature "oh yeah? Well let's see YOU do better!" attempt at deflecting or belittling criticism.
I refer you to the first section of this reply.
