Readit NewsCivil engineer kills someone with a bad building, jail. Surgeon removes the wrong lung, jail. Computer programmer kills someone, “oh well it’s your own fault”.
I endured 75+% male and didn’t particularly enjoy it, but that’s not why I attended my similarly-sized engineering college. I went for the education and rigor.
Caltech is and has always been about hardcore study. It’s not a cotillion. At least it didn’t used to be.
It's not like they're taking women that can't hack the coursework. They could replace the entire incoming class with select people amongst the rejected and the class would still be successful. College admissions is partly a crap shoot. If they tilt the crap shoot part in a way that makes the community better, who cares?
I can guarantee you that way more men applied to Caltech than women did. That means the most talented and impressive young man who applied and didn’t get in is objectively more talented and impressive than the least talented and impressive (though still extremely talented and impressive) woman who applied and got in.
This also means that on average, a man on campus is more qualified to be there than a woman on campus (the top 100 of say 20000 is going to be more qualified than the top 100 of say 7000). In pursuing equality, the admissions group has achieved the greatest inequality in school history from a different perspective.
I submit this also is unfair to women. Imagine yourself with a case of impostor syndrome and having the mathematical understanding to back it up. I’d want to know I earned it and deserve to be there just as much as anybody else there. Some do and have, and there’s no way to know who those some are.
Is it worth sacrificing merit for optics? Maybe it is, but we ignore this double-edged sword (even and especially one of its edges) at our peril.
Until equal numbers of men and women apply, deviating from the application gender percentages will disadvantage everybody.
I also suspect it won’t be upheld, with Disney’s ever growing footprint, some of these mega companies become harder and harder to ignore.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_...
Though in the case of Disney Springs they actually don't own the restaurant, just the property, so I'm not sure what liability they have regardless of this motion. If Disney technically owns the property but independent operators are involved, Disney isn't really the right party to bring a suit against anyway (though obviously they are large and people tend to file broad lawsuits).
To be clear I don't agree with this motion to dismiss, I just feel that's hyperbolic. If Disney were to win they only "have you over the barrel" as it pertains to your use of Disney products. Which if you're only using Disney+/going to the movies I'm not sure how severe of a dispute you can have against them. And if you're going to the parks it would be unavoidable regardless of subscribing to D+. Though I'm guessing this won't be upheld.
Well, while the website definitely puts a lot of distance on allergen-free; if you can't offer a food allergen-free then you shouldn't. Same as if you can't take the bones out of a chicken wing; don't offer boneless wings.
However, if you go to the restaurant in-person and you ask the server who asks the chef and they both say it can be done allergen-free on multiple requests I think it's safe to safe that the website's disclaimer is overriden. Which is what the lawsuit claims [1] (I wish I could get a courtlistener link but I had no success [2]).
[1]: https://www.scribd.com/document/708687171/Raglan-Road-Lawsui...
[2]: https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Disney&type=o&order_by=scor...
But that would still make Disney less liable, because the in person conversation with staff/chef has nothing to do with Disney here.
Although it is interesting that the restaurants operated by others still use the "cast member" language. I do think Disney tries to have a bit of an illusion that everything on property including Disney springs is them. I still wouldn't consider it enough legally here but there is at least an argument about assumption of oversight.