<p>Tom, Where did I say it was fair? You’re mixing up responses here. I didn’t say it was fair. It’s anything but fair. But this isn’t really about my opinion. I just said many colleges discriminate, regularly and openly, on a bunch of factors.</p>
<p>I’m not “ignoring the elephant;” I’m telling you why it’s in the room.</p>
<p>You’re right that U-M admits a number of students on items that look like “pure merit” via the metrics you describe. However, the reality is that those are NOT the only metrics. They use a lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with grades + SATs. I can’t speak for Florida. </p>
<p>I think you might want to revisit your claim that U-M removed ANY competition for URMs. It might be less competitive, but not competitive at ALL? </p>
<p>As for “proving” that the school is better off, that’s a tough one for universities. If it were easier, I don’t think the U-M case would have gone all the way to SCOTUS. I know what the proponents of AA believe, however. They believe that having a diverse learning environment, including (in particular) racial and ethnic diversity, improves the learning environment. They believe it turns out graduates that are better prepared for the wider world. A lot of employers do, too, which was the primary reason behind their amicus briefs. I think some empirical research supports these notions, but not so much that everyone is convinced, obviously. And yes, there has been research that challenges those ideas, as well as a lot of opinions that it’s just bad, or harmful, or too unfair to be justified.</p>
<p>I’m just telling you what key policymakers U-M seem to believe about it. Some readers might find it useful or interesting to know why a college might do something that others find so “disgusting.” I think one of higher ed’s major failings is doing a crap job explaining why they do some of the things they do (AA being just one prime example).</p>