There aren't massive systematic factors working to negatively affect specific slices of those population groupings. It's not a good comparison.
That's not to say that Harvard's approach is necessarily the best way to tackle this issue. But it's very difficult to argue that there isn't an issue at all.
Yes there are massive systemic factors working against people disadvantaged in those factors, and yes it is a good comparison. Look up the average height of CEOs sometime and then tell me height discrimination isn't a thing.
Just saying that height, facial attractiveness/symmetry, weight etc all could (unquantifiably but obviously) easily outweigh race in terms of societal privilege and it's just absurd to cherry pick the issue of race as the determining factor of privilege rather than something even more basic such as height or facial symmetry.
And that's not even accounting for the fact that (according to many academics at schools that ironically factor race into admission) race doesn't even exist while height and facial symmetry inarguably do exist.
TLDR I agree w u dude.
EDIT: HN won't let me reply to ur reply so let me say -- no my argument is very coherent. If you want to say that "it's not settled if race exists or not" then I agree. And I agree with your assertion that discrimination based on perceived racial characteristics is also obviously possible. I also never said that ppl who argue that race is only a social construct also are arguing that racism doesn't even exist, I don't even know where you got that from tbqh dude. This comment thread is weird to me because you're disagreeing with a ton of things I didn't even say and that I disagree with as well. I don't know why you're so hell-bent on disagreeing with straw man arguments you project onto me because all your points are solid bro and I agree with them all, except for your nonsensical assertion that I don't agree with u. Uhhh trust me bro, yes I do lmao. :)