<p>You know, throughout the first half of the 20th century, "scientific evidence" was used as a justification for racism and racist policies, and I am sure that the proponents of segregation probably claimed benevolent reasons to support their policies, just as proponents of slavery did in the 18th & 19th centuries. </p>
<p>The end result is the same: exclusion. Fund's is arguing for a tiered education system, and you know that the end result would be to widen the economic divide among races, since graduates of UC Berkeley are already viewed much more favorably in the eyes of prospective employers than graduates of the lesser campuses. </p>
<p>The higher GPA's at some campuses simply reflect grade inflation -- Fund's argument is based on the implicit assumption that URM's are intellectually inferior and therefore should be relegated to easier colleges for their own good.</p>
<p>If that doesn't get you angry, how would you feel if Fund argued that women should be discouraged from pursuing graduate or professional education, because experience has shown that many end up abandoning or restricting their work in order to have more time with their children? I'm sure the conservatives could come up with plenty of "studies" to support their argument -- it's not too difficult to play around with statistics to get them to make whatever case you want to make.</p>