It's not a 100% indicator, but its essentially what the quoteunquote CRT in schools was meant to show.
Many black communities are not poor simply because they're poor, but of on-the-books policies of redlining, discrimination, and overpolicing that enabled a wealth gap to form in the post-war period. Many white families were able to buy houses, build generational wealth, etc while many black communities were prevented from buying homes, getting loans, all the way to their neighborhoods being wholesale demolished for highways, malls, power plants, etc.
Being colorblind has the byproduct of ignoring real material policies and historic events that contribute to modern conditions. It is a fact that generational wealth enables rich students to afford SAT prep classes, have parents that can take them to extra curricular activities, and have the ability to not need a job during their teenage years.
Race-based affirmative action is meant to equal out these factors to an extent. Whether it works as intended is another matter.
Cases of "Working hard" and "picking yourself up by the bootstraps" is statistically negligible in the grand scheme.
Great! So looking at socioeconomic status will also address socioeconomic status caused by racial discrimination. Glad you understand and agree with the parent.
Tax returns? Paystubs? Accounting for wealth generally?
Wealthy folks typically don't make a large wage, they receive a dividend on investments and large loans against collateral.
Note that this is critical to consider if we are to discriminate based on socioeconomic class.
How do you identify race? After all, it's just a social construct. We're not DNA testing and doing the one-drop rule are we? Its' self-reported. At least with socioeconomics we can look at household income and tax returns.
It's definitely a thorny process whichever factor one adopts to benchmark process outcomes against.
Meanwhile, everybody pays taxes so we have the data we need to not use racial discrimination.
Actually, the very wealthy _don't_ pay a ton in taxes, depending on how their wealth is invested and distributed.
What wealthy folks often do is to take lending against their assets, giving them liquidity. This is not taxable income.
This PDF looks like a good start if you want to see how it get measured during research: https://obssr.od.nih.gov/sites/obssr/files/Measuring-Socioec...
In much of the world, really. The US isn't particularly bad compared to most countries that way.
Something about the assertions made by CRT must be incorrect given what we see of the facts.
Many years from now, we will be holding these black people accountable for the generational harm and un-earned benefits they've stolen from our current generation's youth.
This is a pretty extreme assertion.
So you could figure out the financial circumstances of these classmates, but Harvard couldn't? Or are you saying they outright committed fraud?
What if they didn't? What if the Supreme Court decision results in zero (or near zero) black people being admitted into Ivy League schools?
> underrepresented racial groups, including Blacks, Latinos and women
Women are not an underrepresented racial group, and in fact make up the majority of students at the University of California. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-...
So unless you take the perspective that colleges ought to engage in direct racial balancing against local graduating classes, it's very hard to tell a story about diversity or implicit bias here.
You would have to ask black students don't qualify when equally impoverished students of other races do.