False choice. The article is about racial diversity, as is my comment.
Economic diversity is important as well. You don't have to have one or the other, you can have both. Unless the school is only admitting one person per year, as in your scenario. Please don't try to distort the issue.
First, schools have a limited number of admissions so they may very well have to choose in a situation like this.
This is not strictly about racial diversity. The article also mentions ethnic diversity so it is clearly more than just race.
They explicitly mentioned socioeconomic situations as well.
> In their amicus brief, Yale and the other schools said that during their admissions processes, they obtain and review extensive information regarding each applicant’s life experiences, accomplishments, talents, interests, and goals. That information includes an applicant’s socioeconomic background, parental education level, whether languages other than English are spoken in the home, educational experiences, military service, leadership skills, “and all the other intangible characteristics that are crucial to ascertaining how an applicant will contribute to the university community.”
They are clearly also looking at socioeconomic situations along with race.
Maybe you should take your own advice: "Please don't try to distort the issue."
My argument is if you want to help disadvantaged people you can't look at race. The race of a person does not determine how good their life is and doesn't tell you anything about their privilege.
A black person with a large amount of wealth is almost certainly in a more privileged situation than a poor white who is addicted to fentanyl. Why should the white person be put at a partial disadvantage because of his skin color? Looking at his skin color will do nothing to tell you about their situation.
I believe you may have missed the term "all else equal" (or ceterus paribus) somewhere along the way.
Your point is "well, duh" because your comparison is not valid. The way you are proposing, it compares apples and oranges.
To my understanding, the folks that study these kinds of things would split the situations you are describing into two groups, then compare group outcome statistics outcomes by race. Racism exists when the partial correlations are significant even when controlling for the other factors for a specific group.
So here, the poor person addicted to fentanyl has it worse when they are black. The wealthy person has worse outcomes when they are black. When that is consistent, then there is evidence of systemic racism.
There really is no value add comparing apples and oranges, which is what is happening when you make the comparison here. I recommend you reconsider your argument approach if you feel strongly that this comparison has merit as you've written it.
I don't believe there are any situations that are equal, except perhaps twins. No other situation can have "all else equal". This may be the crux of our disagreement.
Black people may have worse outcomes as a whole, but an individual black person may not be worse off. You cannot assume an individual is identical to the group. Black people commit more crimes. Does that mean if you see a black person you can assume they are a criminal? I don't think you can, but it sounds like following your reasoning you can.
You're mixing correct things (individual outcomes aren't representative of a group) with incorrect things (therefore we can say nothing about average outcomes for a group).
I am not saying we cannot say anything about group averages. I am saying if you take a random black person you cannot determine if they are well off or not based on race alone. You can say they are more likely to be worse off than if you took a random white person.
I am fundamentally opposed to giving benefits to people just because they are in a group that typically does worse.
> Mind explaining why the black boy is more diverse?
Because of the US History of subjugation of African Americans that includes the horrors of slavery.
> Is race the only thing that makes somebody diverse?
Nope, but is this context of elite US university, race is the only factor for diversity to undo past crimes on black people and their exclusion form only only these elite universities but all universities.
It seems to me that a rich black person is less diverse. They grew up in a good area, had two parents and are wealthy. Isn't that a huge chunk of the existing Yale demographic? The only difference is race.
In 100 years after more and more whites and Asians are denied positions they rightfully earned, should we reverse the races that get rejected due to their race? Blacks can then be rejected or do blacks get preferential treatment forever?
1. Admiting a black boy who is living with both parents and who have a net worth of over $100 million
2. Admitting a white boy who grew up in poverty in Appalachia and lived in a single parent household