Note the use of language here. “Black and Hispanic applicants” are supposedly “harmed” unless elite colleges and universities continue the practice of granting strong racial preferences.
Of course, it isn’t really the case that ALL black and hispanic college applicants are affected. Only those who apply to elite institutions and wouldn’t make it without the use of preferences. In the groupthink that dominates the Left, policies that have an impact on any members of a group are considered to have an impact ON THE GROUP. That’s untrue, but in the world of politics (to leftists, everything is political), it’s thought important to maintain group solidarity in order to maintain the maximum leverage.
Then look at the word “harmed.” The hidden assumption is that not being admitted to one of the elite schools will be a harm to a black or hispanic student who wants to go to college. As Jon points out, not going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. does not mean that the kid doesn’t get a college education at all. It means that he goes to some less selective school. Nor is that harmful. In 2003, Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte showed that graduating from an elite college is neither necessary nor sufficient for success later in life.
So once again, we have a phony appeal to group solidarity in order to maintain a policy that has no benefit other than to make liberals who want desperately to be seen as dedicated to “inclusiveness” feel good.
