Why? Why does skin color == culture, and why is "mono-culture" abhorrent?

Personally, I find treating people like trading cards and trying to "collect them all" is much more abhorrent.

Sure, it's not ideal. Is the solution to have different standards for different groups based solely on skin color or self-identification?

It reasonably could be, if you are trying to undo systemic disadvantages that different groups have.

You have to make a conscious choice to accept some adjustments higher if the foundation is systematically unfair. It might feel unfair to the folks who benefit from systematic advantages early.

You're arguing that past discrimination justifies present discrimination, and that past discrimination is in fact solely or majorly responsible for present disparities in outcomes. I can't see a world in which these positions are provable in a meaningful manner and not devolve society into a bitter, recriminatory cesspit, especially when it means that some people will in fact be hurt by present discrimination.

Redlining is provable and had a clear outcome on income. It ended only very recently.

And yeah, fixing that is going to cost some folks. Good news, we could figure out who benefitted or even just tax the very wealthy to get it fixed.

Why is that abhorrent to you?

The real world is not a monoculture so why would you want your child to socialize in one?

A lot of the real world is a "monoculture". Just because a majority of people look similar doesn't mean they all share similar ideologies, experiences, and values necessarily. Race is merely a social construct, and the Asian category covers several unique nationalities and cultures. Black and white are similarly ludicrously diverse. And these are young adults who should be bright enough to seek out diverse experiences and places if it suits them. If Harvard really cared about not being a monoculture they would look at their legacy admissions.

"abhorrent" is much much stronger than "suboptimal for socialization skills".

Besides, every other country in the world gets to have its own cultural identity. The "real world" is very much a collection of monocultures. Only in America is it considered bad to have a cultural identity.

IF that is what harvard is doing why do they STRONGLY prefer black immigrants over descendants of slavery.

> The real world is not a monoculture

Here you use the term "monoculture." You appear to be using culture and race interchangeably. Clearly they are not the same. Are you referring to monoculture or monorace?

"Asian" isn't a culture. Hell, even "Chinese" isn't a culture. China recognizes 55 ethnic minority groups, plus the Han majority. I'm sure if you put one person from each group into a classroom, you might say "They're all Chinese. Monoculture!", but it couldn't be further from the truth.