This article assumes that “holistic” admissions is by definition race-based:
“But the scope and purpose of this “holistic” approach to evaluating students has evolved since then, and today in its most genuine form evaluates each applicant through the lens of her context—her interests and personality, yes, but also her race and parents’ educational background, for example, and the ways in which that identity may have hindered her opportunities.”
I think the University of California would take issue with that characterization, especially as it’s an institution that does far better than the schools mentioned in the article in realizing what are claimed to be the resulting benefits of holistic evaluation:
“Holistic admissions can be very effective at achieving those goals: A recent study by Bastedo and several co-researchers published in the Journal of Higher Education that analyzed higher-education institutions across the U.S. found that those that use holistic admissions are far more likely than those that don’t to enroll low-income students.”