Just posted this to the other thread, but here it is again with some changes brought on by further reflection and editing.

DougR, I really don't think the system is anything like people imagine it to be when they argue that "equally qualified people" have "the same right" to be at a given institution. People just don't understand how admissions work in colleges. Admission is not, and never has been, only about "scholastic merit." If it were, you would not need admissions officers or interviews. All the work could be done by a computer. Every high school in the country would have a rank that ramified your GPA, then your SAT score would be plugged in, and an algorithim would decide who got in.

In fact, admissions officers in good schools work very hard not to pick the people with the highest scores on everything, but to create an interesting community of smart, creative people who can learn from their differences. A certain number of people more gifted in sciences will be admitted, and a certain number more gifted in arts. A certain number of women and a certain number of men. If you play an instrument, or play a sport, you have an advantage, and if you have a certain hobby that can contribute to the campus (say, acting), or a certain perspective (say, you're a well-spoken proponent of vegetarianism, or a political activist of any persuasion) this can all count in your favor. Ethnic background is another element in this mix. It benefits both white and black students to have both communities represented, even if the black students scored lower averages.

Putting together a first year class is an art, not a science. To argue that this process is unfair is silly. It never, ever has been fair, but the government doesn't step in until they see a way to promote right-wing values through political positioning. It's unfair that Johnny's hobby of stamp collecting doesn't count for as much as Jimmy's hobby of football. But you won't see Bush filing a brief hostile to sports recruiting. In a country where science education is facing increasing challenges, kids who excel in sciences are advantaged over kids who excel in arts, because there are other kinds of "quotas" too (an imprecise and misleading way to characterize this point system). A person with a GPA of 3.3 whose strongest subject is Chemistry will likely be chosen over a person with a GPA of 3.5 whose strongest subject is English. Is this fair?

I think if anyone sat and thought about it for more than a second, they would realize that a peer group chosen only because they scored highest on tests and schoolwork would not necessarily provide the best environment to learn in. So other factors need to be taken into account, not only to "help out" disadvantaged people, but also to make a vibrant, intellectually challenging environment. Having white privileged kids actually meet and interact with less privileged black kids can have a major effect on the lives of both groups--sparks can fly in both good and bad senses, but it's always eye-opening! So Affirmative action does much more than help minority students, it brings the issue of racial discrimination and racial privilege to the attention of kids at an impressionable time. You can't get more educational than that!