dump hears dei and automatically assumes racism.....because they want to make sure mediocre white men still get positions...
Diversity is one stated goal, sure. But you're reducing a multi-faceted policy to a single motivation, ignoring economic barriers, access to prep resources, and systemic inequalities that standardized tests don't account for. If you're confident in your take, why not engage with the full picture?
Offspring of middle and upper class blacks get the same preferences as poor blacks. 'Diversity' is the goal, regardless of other factors.
You're approaching this as if it's purely a racial engineering project because that fits your ideological framing. But holistic admissions weigh multiple factors, economic background, school quality, personal hardships and not just race. The fact that you reduce it all to 'diversity at any cost' suggests you're more interested in confirming your worldview than in grappling with the nuances of how these policies actually work? So which is it? Are you trying to understand and critique the actual mechanics of the system, like a trained engineer, perhaps arguing that some factors are weighted too heavily or too little? Or are you just playing lawyer, twisting rhetoric to score, regardless of reality?
It is. Sure, the reasons include past discrimination and some of the factors you list. But on the ground, it's just a numbers game.
OK you're conceding that race-conscious admissions have justifications but insist that in practice, it's just about hitting diversity quotas. If it were purely a numbers game, why do holistic admissions consider first-generation status, rural background, economic disadvantage, or overcoming hardships, even for white and Asian students? Why have courts ruled that race-conscious admissions can be legal if done in a nuanced way rather than through quotas? The legal rulings on race-conscious admissions make it clear that quotas are not allowed, but nuanced consideration of race can be. So if you're arguing that the system is flawed, that’s one thing. If you're arguing that it's pure racial engineering with no other considerations, that’s just ideological tunnel vision.
No, I'm not. Socioeconomic-conscious admissions do, though. These gems in rough are identified mostly by standardized tests. That's how Charles Murray got into Harvard despite coming from a high school in rural Iowa. Asian students are discriminated against regardless. Again, a numbers game. Life experiences, not race.
i see your reply, I had just written below. I need to go for a swim but back later. Pondering a fresh viewpoint here @ipatent Handicaps in amateur golf help talented players develop their skills on a fairer playing field before they compete at the highest levels. If golf just threw every beginner onto the pro circuit with no adjustments, would we really be identifying the best players, or just the ones who had the best early opportunities? Similarly, in education isn’t about guaranteeing success in the workforce, but about making sure we’re not excluding potential talent before it even has a chance to compete on equal footing.