[presentation]

I don't think the purpose of these policies are to produce a "better" student population, but are more that a) there are too many qualified applicants for the number of seats and they need a good alibi to justify cutting people basically randomly, and b) the racial aspects are more of an advocacy choice to try to make up for past racial injustices by ironically biasing the system racially.

The latter issue, I don't see a clean cut way to rectify - as an Asian American I get the feeling of being discriminated against, but I also see the power of giving the most discriminated minorities more opportunity to exploit the power that elite degrees bestow.

Personally I end up being OK with affirmative action policies - as much as I'd like a fair system, an unfair system built on past injustices make that impossible, and I'd rather exclusive universities adopt these unfair policies to shift the balance back.

[perpetualpatzer]

If this is a topic that interests you, I'd encourage you to listen to the oral arguments/ opinion announcements from the landmark supreme court cases: Bakke [0] and Grutter [1], the latter of which parent references.

The legal underpinning, at least, of considering race in admissions actually IS to make a better class and in turn, a better experience for students.

I also find it a more compelling moral argument than the past injustices or tilting the scales arguments. If the goal is reparations for past injustices, surely japanese internment should count for something. If the goal is to balance the economic scales, we should penalize underrepresented students from wealthy families (and frankly, the preference should be along economic, not racial lines). If the goal is to ensure students don't graduate thinking black (or non-asian, or athletic, or poor, ...) people are dumb because I didn't meet any in my prestigious college class, that seems to me a worthwhile goal that is legitimately furthered by trying to create a diverse class. To GP's point, I don't have data, but also think that outcome is hard to measure.

[0]https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811 [1]https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241

[supernova87a]

The problem with your stated goal is that it can justify any length or extent of remedy. That is where a big problem lies. How are we (or the courts) to decide that your chosen remedy is right, reasonable, or effective? Or that it's not merely symbolic and will go on forever? Or that you will say later it's not enough, and choose a different action, and that gets added to the pile?

Is there a concrete actionable principle you can state, to be applied by everyone who needs to apply it?