As I understand it, most colleges have been using some form of linear regression model on many factors to filter admissions in a way that maximize returns (i.e. alumni donations) for decades now. Surely there is other evidence which shows that if SAT scores were actually a poor heuristic of potential success, schools would have stopped relying on them by now. (without having to bring race into the conversation)

Affirmative action is precisely an adjustment of admissions criteria such that ceterus paribus a candidate is more likely to be admitted. Yes, it's based on race, but if it was based on lottery, it would have the same effect: students with lower SAT scores are admitted to schools which otherwise require a certain threshold.

That they don't do as well, shows that the SAT is measuring something relevant to success in education.

Note that affirmative action would have this effect even if average IQ were the same across races, because schools vary in the SAT thresholds they set, and this would have the effect of propelling students into settings they aren't prepared to flourish in.

Also, I don't know if you're ignorant as to what a dog whistle is, or you're being purposefully obtuse, but "affirmative action" is extremely common talking point among actual racists, because it's a politically acceptable way to disparage racial minorities without directly using the word race; a dog whistle is a term that racists use to make racist commentary that's intended to make it clear to other racists that they're talking about race while still providing plausible deniability (i.e. accusing the other person of being the one to bring up race, when that was the topic from the beginning). "Affirmative action" is an extremely common dog whistle.

So, are you unaware of what a dog whistle is, or are you blowing the whistle?

It's particularly interesting in this case because the youtube link is Thomas Sowell speaking about the negative effects of Affirmative Action and he is a black American, would you say that he is dog whistling for racists?

Now onto the law itself, Affirmative Action is a racist policy as it advantages certain races over others, full stop. Recently asian students have brought a suit against Harvard (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/02/660734399/harvard-discriminat...), for their policies negatively effecting asian Americans. As a society we need to decide if we want to advantage some races over others. In my opinion it makes more sense to advantage people from poor backgrounds then it does based on race, as the black son or daughter of rich parents will have had more opportunities than the poor asian American. If you disagree with that I would love to understand why.

In addition, I fully agree that legacy admissions should be removed.

I want to be clear that I never accused the parent of being racist (and I don't have reason to believe he was being so). I just expressed that the specific choice of argument felt similar to rhetoric that racists do use, and that supporting it with non-racial evidence instead might better serve the argument. (I admit to also wanting to encourage readers to think critically about a topic so rife with racial tension on both sides)

>As a society we need to decide if we want to advantage some races over others. In my opinion it makes more sense to advantage people from poor backgrounds then it does based on race...

The justification for making it based on race is that it is a form of reparation to the collective racial communities, especially the black community, that have been negatively impacted by a deliberate effort by the government to keep them in a cycle of poverty (black codes, redlining, etc). The other goal is to have a broader ethnic representation in careers requiring a college-education, which is required to effectively remove the inherent internal prejudices in those circles (see also the push for getting women into STEM, and the backlash that they face upon entering due to the lack of women already there to set in-cultural norms).

An unfortunate side effects is that, taking only AA and diversity initiatives into account, a rich black person will have fewer opportunities than a poor Asian American, due to the already high proportion of East Asians in the relevant areas. That's more an issue of the extremely strong disparity of wealth and power in this country than an actual criticism of AA, however. Controlling for wealth, non-Asian POC will still often have fewer opportunities due the the strong influence of networking and in-group prejudice/bias on your career opportunities (which is one of the reasons that AA and diversity initiatives are required)

That being said, I don't know enough about the actual effects of said policies to judge their effectiveness, since I'm not a sociologist and assessing the real results of a policy with such complicated interactions is difficult. I can only speak confidently to the a priori justifications.

How is that not just a rhetorical trick for calling someone a racist without having to own up to it?

And your point about opportunity is demonstrably false; groups such as Nigerians do better than even Asians in educational and work achievement. There is also a historical african american upper class that consistently achieve in a similar manner across generations [2]. That should be celebrated, not ignored.

Statistically the african american family has fallen apart since the 60s, with 72% of kids growing up without a father up from 16%. The adverse outcomes of fatherless homes on kids is well known [1], and we should ask ourselves why this has become the normal case if we want the outcome of these groups to improve.

[1] https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/larry-elder-social-c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_upper_class

My comment brought up a data set that could be used to evaluate the claim of the article that iq tests are meaningless for what they claim to measure. This data contradicts this claim.

The inclination of social justice believers to treat all people that look the same as a unit is too simplistic, because there is more variance within such groups than between them. It also fits the definition of racism unlike my comment, and saying someone is defined by their skin color is way beyond dog whistle territory.

If you have a rationale supporting your claim use that, because otherwise we can’t engage in productive discourse. I find it unethical when claims of racism like what you use here is used as a bludgeon tool to force others to accept actions or beliefs that are dogma in social justice while evidence shows it hurts those it claims this helps. Especially when those groups are unchosen, and applied by largely upper middle class and above white social justice activists for their political utility.