well, ok. the problem is the suit that was brought was brought by Asian Americans who were less likely to get into the school of their choice because they are overachieving statistically.I don't think most of you understand the "affirmative action" in this context (college admissions). Colleges whittle down all applicants into a pool of meritorious candidates from which they offer admissions. The emphasis on diversity means that non-white students from this pool are sometimes given priority in order to achieve a diverse class that reflects the racial diversity of society. If you can't see that is a good and fair policy, especially when "legacies" are still allowed, don't know what else to say.
the problem you introduce is what level of racism is allowed? Who gets to say who can be racist, against what race and by how much? There are clearly groups that don't get a chance that has nothing to do with race. What about a white kid, born to a single parent, living in a trailer court in downtown Aliquippa? The fact is, starting positions are in different places based on where and to whom you are born. There is no way to stop this. Harvard, in particular, is replete with accepting kids from Harvard grads (with the appropriate donation). So instead of deciding what level of racism is OK, how about they stop with attendance based on money and/or connections?
Clearly, the 14th Amendment wasn't passed to allow limited or targeted racism in any way shape, or form. Anything else is clearly racism and is part of the equal application of the laws. Once you decide to circumvent the 14th amendment and its associated laws because it makes you feel better, you've destroyed equal application of law which is fundamental to society.