It’s bizarre that universities are banning caste discrimination while at the same time actively discriminating based on race. See recent Harvard lawsuit over Asian student admissions.
This is one justification for racial admissions quotas. It ignores how black students admitted to Harvard often come not from the descendants of enslaved Americans but high-income first generation African immigrant families, or how many white students such as the children of coal miners and steelworkers have also suffered historical disadvantages. It also ignores how economically-disadvantaged Asian families have successfully used merit-based admissions as a ladder out of poverty, and how racial admissions quotas pull that ladder out of reach for many.
Universities throughout the US had to be repeatedly sued over their varying attempts to remain segregated. In the absence of any forcing function they would miraculously end up excluding black students.
As far as the quotes: people who continue to believe that racism both current and historical has no impact call any form of affirmative action a quota. This is despite multiple rulings, and implementations that require race be considered, only if everything else is equal.
For another form of affirmative action we can look at legacy admissions. They make 10-15% of the annual enrollments in schools that have them, and are overwhelmingly white due to the practice of of banning non-white students that only became illegal in the 60s, and that southern states tried to continue well into the 80s. Interestingly you can argue that legacy admissions in public universities inherently violate the Constitution.
In the absence of any forcing function they would miraculously end up excluding black students.
Probably true, but it still does not mean that any given forcing function is necessary (or even on balance helpful, considering side effects). Each has to be evaluated on its own merits.
Just saying "We gotta do something!" does not mean that something has to quotas - or evaluation systems functionally equivalent to quotas, as Harvard has been accused of doing.
People who continue to believe that racism both current and historical has no impact call any form of affirmative action a quota.
We're getting off topic, here - which refers to the (soft) quota system alleged to be in use at Harvard.
Whether plaintiffs ultimately prevail or not - which of course can hinge on a myriad of technical factors - theirs is on the surface a plausible argument, based specific criteria (and hard data).
And not, as you describe, an instance of "calling any form of affirmative action a quota".
But even more to the point: If you're going to advocate a forcing function that is either explicitly, or functionally equivalent to quota system - then just call it what it is, please.
There was a long legal battle arguing that there were no race-based admission quotas, but that race was a factor taken into account in order to achieve desired levels of diversity. Or something equally nonsensical.
One problem is that a quota system penalizes Asians more than whites. This would imply that Asians have historically benefitted more than whites from a biased university enrollment system. What could possibly cause the (mainly white) college administrators to give Asians preferential treatment over whites?
regardless of what you guys think, Harvard seems to have a pretty good system in place to benefit themselves, until that stops working, i don't think they will stop using their own admission policies.
Not really, considering they're both different types of discrimination. Acceptance quotas, while controversial, is different from racial discrimination.