> Harvard considers roughly 4 in 5 applicants to be academically capable of doing the work at Harvard
I have no doubt that this is true of Harvard. I mean, after all, you can pick your own classes! That said, I think there is a difference between admitting just those capable of doing the work vs. a set of some of the best of the best, in that that second group will be the one filling the advanced physics classes for first years or whatever.
Best of the best is very subjective. Once you're over the academic bar of being able to do the work, other factors are far more important for success in college and life.
Essentially, there's a bar for intellectual horsepower – which 4 in 5 Harvard applicants are above. And this is the same for all highly-selective institutions.
Then, other factors become far more important. Specifically, colleges look for people who are unusual even in a pool of extremely higher-performers (essentially the top 1% of all high school graduates). Students who are unusually driven, unusually intellectually curious, unusual contributors, unusual experiences, unusual at taking the initiative.
These personality traits are very similar to what YC looks for in founders. Raw intellectual horsepower is important – but only to a point. Given the choice between a student far above the academic bar without any other distinguishing features and a student just above the academic bar but is unusually driven – we'd pick the unusually driven person pretty much every time.
No, not here. 100% of MIT admissions should go to pupils who are the most capable of succeeding and who are already the best prepared to succeed before they arrive. Utopia aside, as a society we require elite science and engineering ability. If we don't have it we lose out to another society that doesn't do this incessant navel gazing, simple as that. To whatever extent "starting point" is a problem it should be remediated entirely upstream from admission into the world's most prestigious technical university.
If someone has "elite science and engineering" ability and came from a background where they were raised by a family with a household wealth of $5, and someone has a slightly more "elite science and engineering" ability and was raised by a family with a household wealth of $1,000,000, I am not confident that long term the second person will be the greater innovator.
I agree with you completely, and a lot of talent surely goes to waste. I'm not sure what difference you think that makes. If the kid from the poor family isn't well prepared by the time he gets to MIT on day one, all of the natural talent in the world isn't going to change that.
One of two things will happen: He'll fail out; this is common for diversity admits. Or, he may require a remedial curriculum to develop these natural talents he is believed to have, but may not, nobody's really sure yet because he can't demonstrate them as well as the other students from richer households. Either way, a prestigious university is not the proper forum for that.
I've never seen somebody who opposes meritocracy actual suggest taking starting points into consideration - instead, they demand that easily observable, intrinsic physical characteristics be used as a proxy for "starting point".
But there are a number of studies demonstrating how race & class impact things (when controlled for other factors) like teacher perception, grading, letters of recommendation, not to mention just the fact that if you are growing up in a black (or white) household that has $5 in wealth, you'll have less access to educational opportunity than the white (or black, albeit far more rarely) household with $200,000 in wealth.
No. That only tells you to fix those factors but the outcome is what they are. By the time of the ACT/SAT test it's too late to fix those things. Fix those upstream.
Based on this MIT press release stating that controlling for socio-economic factors test score was still significant in predicting outcome in college. You want to challenge that you need to come up with data.
18 years of growth differences cannot be made up by "exposure to things" from age 18-22. It helps, but it does not resolve it. If someone is truly smart they will score well on the not-very-difficult ACT/SAT without any test prep in the first place. These are stupidly easy tests by international standards. Just suck it up and recognize that at the high level that these schools operate at, if you are below a certain score range, you are not ready, regardless of how many "opportunities" you are given.
That's not to say that some people aren't capable in other ways and will do just fine in life, but these schools are not for them.
> I'd expect that most students who will be able to survive at MIT can make the SAT threshold with no gaming of the test and no test prep other than maybe doing one or two free sample tests.
Eh, not so sure. The "threshold", if we really trust that they do threshold and don't consider overperformance beyond that threshold (something I am skeptical of), is likely quite high.
The MIT threshold is 800 minus noise. So MIT can't consider overperformance on the SAT (math section) because the test is designed to make students indistinguishable at the top. All it does is help them weed out the chaff who won't be able to handle the mandatory math and physics classes that all students have to pass.
You're comparing a quote from an article clearly being written in the context of this Australian law to the actual quote from Google's implementation of DMCa law. There is nothing in your quote indicating they are "protesting" DMCA law.
Here is the full quote.
> Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online Safety (Restricted Access Systems) Declaration, which requires platforms to take reasonable steps to confirm users are adults in order to access content that is potentially inappropriate for viewers under 18.
> This is in line with the actions we took in the European Union in response to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
> As part of this process some Australian users may be asked to provide additional proof of age when attempting to watch mature content on YouTube or downloading content on Google Play. If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age. We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Pulling out a quote and then saying "they don't mention the law", when they actually do mention the law a few lines above is frankly... a bad objection.
They aren't required to disclose any DMCA removals, but choose to anyway, citing the law by name. Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements. The omission of such a statement is sufficient evidence to conclude they are willing collaborators. A tech corporation like Google does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.
Are you still not following that this "omission" is something you've entirely made up in your own mind by selectively copying one quote from an entire article?
The text you quoted does not seem to convey any displeasure at the law. Think what you like.
> This added step is informed by
Why so passive? Why not "required by"?
> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Why not omit this apologia?
Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.
Elsewhere on the thread you pointed out that fair housing laws mean that you don't get to control who lives next to you even if you're renting out those properties. So your only option would be to leave them empty.
Yes, and by voting the way that you do, you are creating a housing crisis.
I'd like for people expressing these political preferences to not be allowed to live in my neighbourhood either, but unlike you, I also recognize that you have as much right to live there as those 8 college students.
Actually if you live in the bay area, you live in an oligarchy. A great part of the renters in the area cannot vote and thus are not represented in this matter.
If foreigners could vote in San Francisco, the majority of which are renters, it would overwhelmingly crush this position.
> Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?
Well, for one, the government should enforce contract neutrally - so if you sign a contract leasing your property, you can't unilaterally break this without cause.
Second, we as a society have an interest in giving people time to move their stuff out and find a new place to live.
Thanks for the response! Honestly, I was going to delete my comment, I felt like I was asking in bad faith, but can't since it had a reply.
I guess I see your point. I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.
> I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.
I expect that that hardly ever happens. Landlords aren't in the business to make life unnecessarily bad for renters, they're there to make money.
A tenant who stayed in the same place for 3 years, always pays on time and never damages the property is preferably to an unknown. Landlords know that starting an eviction can cost them up to a year of income, plus there is always the risk that the new tenant is going to be even costlier.
Why on earth would a landlord roll the dice on someone new? My guess is that many of those sob stories you are hearing from tenants are their side of the story.
They aren't going to tell you that the miss rent sometimes (and they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process).
They aren't going to tell you that the landlord had to make substantial repairs to damages that they caused.
They aren't going to tell you that they sublet to "their cousins", and have 4 people to a room in a 3 room house.
When you listen to a landlord's side of the eviction story, it always comes down to money: "that house is my income and I wasn't getting it anymore".
No landlord is cutting off their income stream for several months just because they want to throw tenants onto the street.
Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice. These laws exist for a reason, they weren't created to address a problem that didn't exist at the time.
Landlords rarely kick people out without notice because society has made it illegal for them to do so.
Your take is naive. Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.
> Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.
Yeah, but that's not under discussion.
The point I made was that because evictions are so expensive (wiping out years of profit) and long for landlords, they are only ever a last resort.
When you hear right now, as in today, under current laws, sob stories from people who've been evicted successfully, it's highly probable that they're leaving out the actual reason that the landlord just wiped out up to a year of profit just to get them out the door.
No one is wiping out years of income and going into the red just because they want to be mean.
The poster upthread called registeredcorn questioned why we have any tenant protection laws at all.
I guess you wrote something intended to have nothing to do with that. While I see that wasn't your intent in context I read you as saying tenant protections don't matter.
That's just a lease. Leases have fixed terms. When the lease is up either side can give 30 days notice that they will not be renewing. That is true even in places with minimal to no tenant protection laws.
In a tenant protection environment, the tenant has the option to cancel when the lease ends, but the landlord does not. Regardless of where you are in the contract cycle, the landlord's only way to end the contract is through an eviction, and he will have to prove in court that the situation meets one of the lawful bases for eviction.
For example, the entire state of California, including municipalities that don't have rent control and properties that aren't covered by existing rent controls.
What are the bounds of that though? No place that I have lived in California gives me the option of continuing my lease under the current terms (never once did they not increase my rent)
AB1482 is statewide and covers most rental stock. Units built in the last 15 years are exempt. Single family homes are exempt, but only if explicitly included in the lease (plenty of landlords got bit by this in 2020 - no notice to tenant, automatically covered by rent control/eviction control).
This is both rent control and eviction protection. You cant be evicted without “just cause” - all leases automatically roll over to "month to month".
Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units.
When it comes to single family homes, you are correct that they are eligible to be exempt if they aren't owned by a corporation. However, landlords had to give notice back in 2020 to current tenants for that property to be exempt. Notice can't be retro-active, so a wide swath of single family homes that were rented at the time are under rent and eviction control now.
Of course if the tenant leaves, there is an opportunity for the property to be exempt again.
That said, if you don't think the screws will slowly be tightened on AB1482, you're out of your mind. Just like in the major cities they'll be a bunch of "updates" to the law to the point San Francisco style rent control is state wide.
> Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units.
Nope, only if it is owned by a corporation. AB1482 exemption is standard in leases.
> It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason".
No place in the US actually has the latter unless you've been letting them squat for half a decade or something, the issue is court delays and landlord's wanting to make their lot out to be worse than it is.
> > "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason".
> No place in the US actually has the latter
Not technically, no. But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be.
AFAIK that's not actually true. There are some crazy edge cases but for the most part if a tenant stops paying rent you can absolutely evict them in SF. Most of the horror stories from landlords are attempts to evict for reasons besides non-payment - which SF does make somewhat difficult.
You'd be surprised. SF Rent Board will always seek the solution that keeps the tenant in their home.
So a tenant might stop paying rent, a few months later you get an eviction hearing, but then the tenant pays the rent this month and promises to pay the back rent. Your eviction has just been denied.
Tenant falls back on rent again, but made a good faith effort to pay some of the back rent. Eviction denied.
Finally, tenant stops paying entirely and doesn't respond to you. You stand a pretty good chance of getting an eviction then.
Meanwhile, over the past 12 months the tenant made 2 full rent payments and a couple thousand on the $18,000 in back rent owed. They get evicted and you get to clean up the mess.
So yes, it's not impossible to evict a tenant, but it's really damn hard (unless it's for something like violence or failure to pay and no response when rent is demanded).
Honestly, that sounds great. The risk of being a rentier should be higher than the risk of an index tracker. A lot of our problems can be traced to the fact that bricks and mortar are seen as a better RoI than stocks and shares, and one way to fix that is to change the risk profile of being a landlord by increasing tenants' rights.
You're saying that it's totally fine for a renter to pay like one month out of every six months and keep doing that forever, just enough to defer evictions each time?
> The risk of being a rentier should be higher than the risk of an index tracker.
Risk and return should roughly correlate, or people will not do it. There is already very little return in renting out a house, so the risk needs to be fairly low, if society cares to have rental properties available.
> change the risk profile of being a landlord by increasing tenants' rights
What would you expect to happen as a result?
If the risk is too high to compared to the return, these rental units are simply removed from the market. Are you convinced that less available units make renters better off?
> If the risk is too high to compared to the return, these rental units are simply removed from the market. Are you convinced that less available units make renters better off?
Yes. We'll need an LVT too. Adjust the market so selling is the rational choice, not hoarding.
Markets are just tools, and right now the market for property isn't serving the needs of society. So we stick our collective thumb on the scales until it does.
It’s very difficult to evict folks in Colorado, according to someone I know who buys and rents homes for a living.
I think most landlords are pro tenant until they find someone who knows how to work the system. It costs them so much that they are skiddish to all renters.
Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their personal pains here, but I don't believe "pro tenant" has a useful meaning except in a context where you need to support them in opposition to some force or entity. And that entity is landlords.
> Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party.
There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial.
It is supposed to be a win-win scenario. Some people prefer to rent instead of buying, so they need a supply of rentals and the owner needs someone to live there so it doesn't sit empty costing them money.
Fortunately I've never had one of the adversarial landlords. I paid them on time and took good care of the property and in exchange they have been super flexible and let me do whatever I want. That's a win-win.
> > Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party.
> There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial.
Landlords compete with their potential tenants for houses to buy. When landlord driven price increase, it prices out people from buying a home/flat, but they still need a roof over their heads. So they rent. This gives landlords cash needed to buy more houses/flats. This also keep rents up as landlords pay more for buildings. So tenants are less likely to accumulate cash for loans/something else. From small owners to big corporations it is a vicious cycle.
So you're saying that in a capitalistic society, people with capital do better? Colour me shocked.
The landlord also takes on risk and responsibility here. Like any business, if they do a shitty job they go broke. If they do a good job, they make bank and expand their business.
No because you can't really decline to have a home if none of the options are good for you. If there are only shitty landlords then you'll be forced to choose a shitty landlord.
As a widget maker, I'm pro widget-users even though I technically have an adversarial relationship with them. In particular, I'm pro widget-users because without them I would be without money and without me they would be without widgets, so we're both supporting each other against the harsh forces of nature that would leave us all destitute if we didn't work together.
It seems like it'd be obvious, but landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing. They roll in and take housing using their superior resources, then charge rent to access it.
In an ideal market, every renter would have the option of being a landlord just like every car lessor has the option of being a car owner. We just need enough housing supply to make investing in housing a risky venture instead of a government-guaranteed winner
> landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing
of course they do - they provide it by being part of the capital flow, which starts at construction. It might not be the same person, but it's a chain of financing that lead to the landlord purchasing the property.
Superior resources is just another name for capital. And you need capital to fund the construction. The landlord is just the last chain on this funding, and without them, the builders would not build (for who would be buying?).
Shelter is a cost. Everybody pays it, whether you own your own building or renting.
> every renter would have the option of being a landlord
they do if they had the capital. No one is stopping anyone from making a bid for a property - unlike back in the old days where people who were slaves were not entitled to own property as a right. The fact that some people have more capital and is willing to bid higher is how the current free market system works to allocate capital.
Only things that are absolute needs. You can walk away from a profitable transaction, you can't walk away from one you'll die without.
People are willing to take much more extreme action around housing (and food, medicine, ) than they are most other goods. They're also less likely to agree there is moral justification in profiting from these things. So even when entering these transactions (they must, after all), they may not respect the other party's profit goals.
Yes they absolutely do. Sometimes quite a lot, and often invisibly to tenants.
But other landlords suck, yes definitely. Just like some business owners neglect their customers, and some parents neglect their children.
The problem is that the RE market is so distorted right now that it's difficult to select a new equivalent housing provider at a reasonable price. This is also what enables the bad landlords in the first place.
The blame for that situation is very well-distributed. The best response as a buyer might be to seek out other markets.
As someone who's moved around a lot (to London, then to Zürich) I definitely appreciate being able to rent, and hence landowners. Without them, I'd have to live 2-3 year homeless until I saved enough for a downpayment, then be saddled with 30 year monthly commitment (i.e. mortgage) and unable to move anywhere else.
This comment made me see red, seriously the maddest I've been in weeks. You couldn't have known that and I'm not upset at you.
_I_ take care of the house in this situation. The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do.
They do carry some of the burden specifically in taxes and liability, yes I know. I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine, and so I can be blamed for entering a contract that requires me to do this.
Anyway though it even more shows that landlords don't inherently do anything. If they stopped maintaining it, the tenant is the one who has to live in the shitty house and will wind up fixing it.
What the landlord does is control access to housing. I don't respect or value that and you're not going to change my mind about it today.
> I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine
Yes, that's right, they are legally the landlord's. And if they stopped maintaining it, they are breaking the law, and you can sue them. If, instead, you choose to live with it, or deal with it yourself and pay for everything, then that's a horrible mistake.
It's fine for that comment to make you see red, but it should be the slumlord you are angry at, not the guy who pointed out that you're being a doormat.
Landlords are one option for people who cannot afford to buy a home. Some of them are bad, some are good. They offer a service for a price, and if the price is too high or the service is too poor, then they are taking advantage. Plenty of them aren't like that. Your anger seems a little irrational.
If you honestly believe being a landlord is such a slam dunk you should take out a mortgage, buy a property somewhere in United States (there are places as cheap as $50K) and rake in the cash.
There are landlords who absolutely take care of all of the maintenance - and of course there are landlords who are absentee landlords as well.
To say a landlord inherently doesn't do anything is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Thanks for the laugh. As for your situation, stop doing work the landlord should be doing.
> If you honestly believe being a landlord is such a slam dunk you should take out a mortgage, buy a property somewhere in United States (there are places as cheap as $50K) and rake in the cash.
I'm sorry, but I am not sociopathic enough to profit from other people misfortune (not being able to to buy a roof over their heads). Not everything is about making as much money as you can squeeze from other people.
You don’t personally need to be. If it’s free money why hasn’t someone done it? Why are there houses sitting there vacant?
I also disagree with the silly assertion that landlords are sociopaths would you rather people be homeless? If someone is unable to afford to buy a house what should they do?
Also - are business owners sociopaths? Doctors? Farmers? Medical device makers?
> You don’t personally need to be. If it’s free money why hasn’t someone done it? Why are there houses sitting there vacant?
I have seen some articles that it starts happening there too. For example buying houses in Detroit, through web of shell firms and sitting on them like some kind of slumlord dragon.
>I also disagree with the silly assertion that landlords are sociopaths would you rather people be homeless? If someone is unable to afford to buy a house what should they do?
I'm sorry, if you are using your economical advantage to outbid people in house market and then propose this people a rent that is higher than mortage on same house? With bonus points for squeezing them on rent so they can't save money to buy their own house(with or without mortage). Then use all that money to buy even more houses? So even more people can't afford them? Yes that a sociopathic behavior. Also word slumlord exists for a reason.
>Also - are business owners sociopaths? Doctors? Farmers? Medical device makers?
Are you trying to make argument for me?
Because under capitalism only function of business is to make money for shareholders(aka. owners, this include companies not publicly traded). It's as sociopathic as it can be. If your only goal is to make more money, you are not a good person. There are owners that don't do that, but in the end they will have more disadvantages when competing with ones that do. It involves breaking the law/shady behavior if you think you can get away with that. Leaving money on the table is a sure way to get yourself a competitor that will take it and use it against you.
Farmers: there are decent ones, but if they want to squeez as much money they can from animals/crops they have, they will do some horrific stuff. Just ask yourself why there are laws popping all over the US that make it illegal to film whats going on farms(including factory ones)
Doctors: there are decent ones, as always. But there are doctors that will just come by during medical procedures in, in-network hospitals as out of the network doctor and then slam patient with horrendous bill, just for being there(or helping in some small way). Shilling to pharma companies by prescribing/overprescribing their drugs? To have a fun trip to Hawaii/other perks? Dr. Wakefield, crooks that sell bleach as cure all drug, other scam artist in white gowns? Selling dewormer as a cure for anything but worms? As I said before there are decent doctors, but also a bad ones. It's only a problem if we allow them to do this stuff and don't take any actions to stop them.
Medical device makers: Have you read anything about EpiPen? P-value hacking? Pushing your do nothing failed drug as hope for sick people through FDA/etc.? This entities are businesses, their goal is to make money. Accidentally they can save some people, but it's not their goal. It's money. I have wrote some words about it earlier.
So sociopathy isn't who you are, it's what you do.
I'm not saying I'm a good person, I'm definitely not, but even I sometimes raise an eyebrow seeing things some people do.
> The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do.
I've rented places where that was my responsibility, enumerated in the lease. Also taking out the trash, keeping porches and exterior areas clean, etc.
These are common expectations when you're renting a full single-family house. I've also seen arrangements where a single tenant of a multi-unit property will accept grass & snow responsibilities in exchange for reduced rent.
I understand that you don't want those jobs though. If they are not in your lease, you are not required to perform them. (Don't take legal advice from me, but that's true everywhere I've lived). You might have trouble finding a SFH lease that doesn't include them, but multi-unit buildings will be easier.
The law will require that grass mowing and snow removal happens. The property owner will be fined if they do not happen. These services cost money, so if the tenant is unable or unwilling to do them as part of the lease contract, the owner will purchase these services and increase the rent correspondingly.
Yeah I don't really disagree with that. I don't believe housing should be a "market" in the sense I think is meant here. But if it is to be, I agree that landlords need to accept the risk of their tenants not paying and not leaving either.
Not paying sure. Not leaving no. That never should be the case. They own the property the should be able to get it vacated in reasonable time let's say 3 to 6 month. For any reason. There could also be a fixed time contract binding both sides.
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.
If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit, the rules are different (at least here in Seattle), you can discriminate a lot more legally than you could otherwise. So someone who rents room in their home only to Chinese international students is completely ok (as long as they share living space with the landlord). Not sure what the laws are in California, but federally it’s kosher.
You are right, here are the seattle FAQ on first qualified applications:
> Yes. The first-in-time requirement applies to duplexes and triplexes even if the owner resides in one of the units. The non-owner occupied units are considered separate dwellings, and therefore are subject to the Seattle Open Housing Ordinance, which includes the first-in-time
provisions.
Now if the lady in question was renting out the basement, that might count as an accessory dwelling unit, and she would be exempt under Seattle rules (but this is in SF, so the rules would be different).
My guess is that as long as she doesn't advertise the unit (in the sense that she put it up for application), she can simply mention its availability to a small network that conveys it by word of mouth. It is impossible to legislate that kind of discrimination, there are tons of units that don't officially go on the market (via advertising on zillow, for example) but still get rented out.
The Fair Housing Act (the part of the 1968 Civil Rights Act you are referring to) exempts owner-occupied buildings with less than five units, so it wouldn't apply to the other unit in an owner-occupied duplex.
Citizenship and national origin are, as is immigration status (under different laws.) Also source of income.
Renting only to international university affiliates on particular kinds of visas is directly discrimination on the basis of all of citizenship, national origin, immigration status, and source of income, and might also constitute disparate impact discrimination (which California FEHA also covers as well as direct discrimination) on other protected grounds if the direct discrimination wasn't enough.
Yes it is, but it's impossible to enforce because landlords can ask for your drivers license/ID with the application and if you are on a visa your ID says "LIMITED TERM" on it. So they can always say yes or no based on that but pretend it was something else that made them make the choice.
Looks like immigration status is protected. I wonder if a plaintiff could win a case on the grounds that they were discriminated against because they weren't on a temporary visa.
As a former lawyer, I realize it's possible to make the argument, but it's probably clear from the legislative history of the law that it's meant to protect people who are on visas, not people who aren't.
Also, she would probably say that her rule is that she only rents to people who have an extremely compelling reason to leave after 1-2 years. Compelling reasons include time-limited positions (postdocs) or visa restrictions.
>Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre.
Thats just the scam the corporate left likes to play. They love to be super "progressive" while actually performing nothing progressive other than performance art.
It costs nothing to call yourself "progressive". Hell I bet Trump has probably called himself "progressive" ha ha.
Like you said, its actions that matter. If you look at that, essentially the elected progressives in this country trend towards 0.
I read this more as an indication that "liberal" philosophy is at best hypocritical (liberals "want things" (e.g. free education/housing) as long as they don't have to pay/work for it themselves) and at best contradictory (e.g. "open borders" while at the same time "social security").
I have no doubt that this is true of Harvard. I mean, after all, you can pick your own classes! That said, I think there is a difference between admitting just those capable of doing the work vs. a set of some of the best of the best, in that that second group will be the one filling the advanced physics classes for first years or whatever.