Meanwhile, the same California government is trying to legalize discriminatory race-based admissions.
There is an argument to be made that the race-based admissions help make up for prior injustices.
It's either to take the top students, bar none, or it is to educate and uplift poorer students (economically and educationally). Mixing these two doesn't work.
That is in fact exactly how admissions at the UC schools work. The first 1/2 of the class is admitted on test scores and grades alone, the second 1/2 is admitted via reading of their essays and considering other factors, such as extracurriculars, economic circumstance, and, until the 90s, race.
Alas, university doesn't work that way: students continue to be measured throughout their tenure, and those measures are an important component of the next phase of their life, be it work or further education.
The evidence is unequivocal: lowering the admissions standards for some section of the student body, results in those students doing poorly relative to students who were subject to the full standards.
This shouldn't be surprising, and no, it doesn't seem to matter why the standards were lowered, affirmative action, legacy preference, or otherwise.
The very definition of what a "top student" is varies a great deal.
so it was legal until then but didn’t make a dent in inequality? but i’m sure it’ll work this time!
It did make a dent in inequality.
It didn't end it, but then it wasn't around nearly as long as the structural disadvantages that entrenched inequality, and it was a much gentler push than those it sought to mitigate the effects of.
Do you have a better plan for dealing with systemic racism[1], that does not have the drawback you cite? Do you believe that systemic racism doesn't exist? Or do you believe that it does exist, but we shouldn't do anything about it?
Which of those three options are you championing?
[1] I understand that the mere mention of this concept is a dogwhistle for negative karma.
Get rid of all the bullshit administrators to lower the cost of college back to what it was 50 years ago so that poor people can go without getting into a lot of debt.
Which of these three options do you propose?
A good "Church of Satan" reaction to these policies in California would be a university that set the bar higher for Black applicants, with the justification that other policies have in fact over-corrected for past injustices, and now the injustice of that over-correction must be righted.
The thing to keep in mind is that the justification for some of the worst racism in history has been injustice or past injustices. We should learn from history and pre-commit as a society to react hyper-negatively to any policy that involves racial discrimination. Get it the hell out of the Overton window.
It was never a "meritocracy". Wealthy people and well-connected people have always had an advantage, and still do.
This seems to me an argument for things like affirmative action. To try to balance the scales a bit. Not sure why you see it as an argument against.
Of course it wasn't meritocracy since it was cronyism and nepotism like what happens at Berkeley. But neither is "affirmative action", a racist policy which isn't going to end nepotism and cronyism, just make things even more arbitrary. No need to be an "athlete" now, just put "latino" or "black" on your registration form and don't forget the bribes. That's the system you are rooting for.
Then you add "and don't forget the bribes" -- you think most bribes come from Black and Latino people, or most people who are Black and Latino also bribe schools to get in? I don't think you actually think this, because it would be insane?
I find it disturbing that when confronted with information about how wealthy and socially connected people have long been able to use their wealth and social connections to get into universities -- you are less concerned about doing something about this, than you are concerned about programs meant to give some advantage to less wealthy and socially-connected people. It's like, you see bribery and special favors from the wealthy and socially-connected, and you somehow still find a way to blame the poor and not socially connected for this problem, to focus the discussion away from the misdeeds of the wealthy and socially-connected!
It really says something that this whole discussion is full of people saying "I don't see the problem with that, it seems fine" for wealthy and socially-connected people (who are mostly but not entirely white) to have advantages, and also comments like yours complaining about perceived advantages they think not white people have.
America really has done a number on us.