I assume both of those points to be true. That the external system is negatively biased toward certain groups, and that the point of affirmative action is to counteract that harmful bias. I'll even grant that affirmative action has been somewhat successful in achieving that aim.

It's still disingenuous to argue that there is only benefit and no harm when re-balancing the scale here. Nothing irritates me more than intellectual dishonesty, and I perceive it here.

I can see an argument that correcting for bias isn't "hurting" someone that comes with a preexisting positive bias.

But if that's the argument, then you're not "helping" anyone either.

You can look at it either as removing bias so nobody is helped or hurt, or you can view it in comparison to a 'race-blind' process where it helps some and hurts others.

You can't cherry-pick half of each.

Harvard attracts people worldwide. Shouldn't it be a combination of race + country of origin?

Hispanics are not discriminated against in mexico, for instance.

In Mexico the discrimination is based on skin color, and is far more extreme than in the US. At the end of the day the US is one of the least racist racially heterogeneous countries.

I think the issue of affirmative action really comes down to whether people think this is OK or not. The real question is, "is it more right to give privileges to the underprivileged than it is wrong to take away privileges from the privileged?". It'd be nice to just have the former without the latter, but with a limited number of "privileges" available, there just hasn't been a good solution yet (and there may not be one).

> "is it more right to give privileges to the underprivileged, or take away privileges from the privileged?"

In a world with finite resources (admission spots at Harvard) that are already utilized at their full capacity, it is not possible to have one without the other.