>"Diversity" is a legal dodge they use to keep out Asians and whites and accept less qualified people of other races.

The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that GPA + test scores is the definition of merit. These schools say this isn't the case. They want the stand-outs. If you are a part of a group that all has perfect GPA/SATs, then that simply isn't enough anymore. Cluster analysis is a valid technique to identify outliers.

> The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that GPA + test scores is the definition of merit.

So let me get this straight: GPA + test scores don't show merit, but race does?

> These schools say this isn't the case. They want the stand-outs.

So let's accept less qualified people just because they're doing better than even the lesser-qualfied people of the same race, even though there are perfect candidates we could be choosing instead?

I think you (like many Americans) are completely misunderstanding the point of affirmative action.

It has nothing to do with "encouraging diversity" or anything like that. It's trying to right a historical wrong, discrimination against certain groups based on race. "Diversity" is just a nice word to use to appeal to emotion so they just use that, but it's irrelevant to the purpose of affirmative action.

Race is a proxy for all sorts of cultural differences, hardships, experiences, etc. Being an outlier of your group with similar cultural disadvantages is an indication of leadership. I read an article recently about the origin of extracurriculars in the college admissions process. Basically they turned from defining the system on a GPA/SAT basis to one that tried to predict future leaders. The college that lead in this change, Harvard, is now the most prestigious university in the world. It was precisely because they stopped defining "merit" based on just test scores that it is what it is today.

The point is, it has been a long time since merit was GPA/SAT scores for top-tier college admissions. The criteria changes frequently as kids pattern their lives after what they assume the current criteria is. If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense.

> If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense.

You're owed exactly as much of a spot as anyone with the same qualifications as you, which is exactly equal to that of a Black or White kid with the same qualifications.

You're still defining "qualifications" and GPA and SAT scores. This is a bias on your part that is no longer appropriate at the elite universities. These schools are not selecting for the smartest or the most studious. They are selecting future leaders. GPA and SAT scores are not in and of themselves good correlations to what they are looking for. You really need to accept this, or at least formulate an argument as to why this is inherently unfair. But your assumption is plainly wrong.

You can define qualification to be leadership skills or whatever else you want, I'm not claiming they're just looking for good test scores. I'm just saying that race isn't a qualification.

But race combined with other factors can be a predictor of leadership skills, which is the only thing that really matters. Talk of qualifications and merit are muddying the issue. The question is about probability that this person will obtain significant power in the future, and thus increase the brand of the university they came from. Race is a legitimate factor in such a discussion. It's up to those who don't like it to prove that its inherently wrong to consider race in their calculation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill.

Even if that's a goal, it doesn't seem to be the main one. Frankly, I've never heard a college admissions official say they look at race to determine leadership skills, even if they really do do that.

If they do that, then it's fine for them to do so, but that just doesn't seem to be the issue here. And to the best of my knowledge, it didn't seem to be the issue in the Bakke case either, which nevertheless got the Supreme Court's nod toward promoting "diversity".

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill.

It can certainly be read this way, but it's not obvious that this is so. Diversity creates an atmosphere that will most likely mirror the world in which these future leaders will be required to navigate. That in itself is enough of a justification for diversity, assuming their goal is to educate future leaders. Also, there is the fact that leaders of ethnic groups tend to be of that ethnic group, so maximizing some proportion of diversity is increasing that schools chance of educating a future leader.

> educate future leaders

Er, you changed the subject from determining which future leaders are accepted into college to educating future leaders after they've been accepted.

That's a whole another discussion which I wasn't intending to get into. All I will say is that the status quo seems to point toward the use of race as a way to fulfill affirmative action requirements, not as a means for determining aptitude.

"Educating future leaders" and "determining who are future leaders so that we can be the ones to educate them" are expressing the same exact sentiment. To be fair, I understand how it can be read in the way you implied.

>> The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that GPA + test scores is the definition of merit. >So let me get this straight: GPA + test scores don't show merit, but race does?

I think he's implying that cultural differences could be coming into play that skew the curve while looking like racial discrimination. Just like Academic scores differ between races, I'm sure Athletic honors differ between races as well, as well as Club honors, and Arts (band/choir/etc) Honors, and so on.

If you want to argue that Academic merit is all students should be judged on when colleges are considering applications, that is a separate argument, but GP is probably just saying that GPA + test scores doesn't singlehandedly define "merit" to a college because things like community service and athletics and student council and... and... and... all altogether factor into the cumultive merit of any given applicant in addition to GPA and whatnot.

> It's trying to right a historical wrong, discrimination against certain groups based on race.

It's been almost sixty years since discrimination based on race (or sex) was legal. It's time to let affirmative action die.

I wasn't taking a stance toward affirmative action, so... okay, I guess.

I think you just confirmed my point.