> invalidating the rather unkind suggestion that it's only one side that's all about the money.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that, so I'm sorry if my comment was unclear to you. Indeed, I was actually replying to GP which seemed to be making the insinuation that only one side was about the money, so perhaps your comment would function better as a reply to that one?

I think it's pretty transparent that advocates of affirmative action are interested in promoting the economic interests of under-represented minorities, so I didn't think it needed to be explicitly said. Further, many of the advocates of affirmative action are not of the group being benefited directly, whereas most of those with a stake in dismantling diversity policies seem to stand to benefit from it.

I tend to agree with much of what you've posted in this comment section, but I want to point out that economic incentives are not what is truly at the heart of the moral underpinnings of affirmative action. If that was the point, then wouldn't cash or capital transfers be better? Instead, affirmative action, in its least cynical ideal, must be about the social value of higher education, which precludes consideration of income in lieu of race. Unless, of course, everything is ultimately about money. That's the last topic affirmative action naysayers want to breach, though, if they know what's good for them.

> "Indeed, I was actually replying to GP which seemed to be making the insinuation that only one side was about the money, so perhaps your comment would function better as a reply to that one?"

Oh, if that's the case, my apologies for the misunderstanding .