New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[RavenSky]

...

What I am doing is arguing against those who are lambasting her for a)applying and expecting to get in and b) asserting discrimination when she wasn't. She may or may not have been discriminated in. I personally think that her case is probably pretty weak, given her lower than average SAT scores. But I certainly don't know the whole story and neither does any of us.

...

All good points, but this here is the one I have an issue with. Accusations of racial discrimination are serious matters. When you get fatuous accusations made, they undermine any legitimate accusations which may also exist. While she had a chance of getting in, she didn't have a good chance as she was at the lower end of potential admission. She then starts screaming racism without any evidence to back that up. All that sort of thing does is give fuel to the actual racists who want to undermine legitimate cases of discrimination by muddying the waters of the conversation about them with fake ones.

I've already forgotten this woman's name, but you know damn well that various other people haven't and she is going to be brought up in every future marginally related conversation to demonstrate how that case is as baseless as this one. Her baseless accusation harms everything that you're arguing in favour of.

As evidenced by the title if this very thread

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...

What I am doing is arguing against those who are lambasting her for a)applying and expecting to get in and b) asserting discrimination when she wasn't. She may or may not have been discriminated in. I personally think that her case is probably pretty weak, given her lower than average SAT scores. But I certainly don't know the whole story and neither does any of us.

...

All good points, but this here is the one I have an issue with. Accusations of racial discrimination are serious matters. When you get fatuous accusations made, they undermine any legitimate accusations which may also exist. While she had a chance of getting in, she didn't have a good chance as she was at the lower end of potential admission. She then starts screaming racism without any evidence to back that up. All that sort of thing does is give fuel to the actual racists who want to undermine legitimate cases of discrimination by muddying the waters of the conversation about them with fake ones.

I've already forgotten this woman's name, but you know damn well that various other people haven't and she is going to be brought up in every future marginally related conversation to demonstrate how that case is as baseless as this one. Her baseless accusation harms everything that you're arguing in favour of.

You have no idea whether she has any evidence that racism played a part and neither do I, but we both know that U MI has a pretty small portion of the student body which is black, while MI has a more significant black population.

I think that her school record is reason enough why she wasn't accepted. Plenty of whites get rejected there too! Michigan, like Ohio State, is extremely competitive these days. There is absolutely no evidence that anything but qualifications lead to her non-acceptance.

Keep in mind that this is an 18 year old who has grown up in a city plagued by very serious racism. She has very little other real world experience.

As a girl who was born in 1996, I ponder just what levels of racism she has actually been exposed to.

Because she's 18. I don't know about you, but I remember pretty well how easy it was for adults who seemed to 'know' a lot to convince me of things. As long as they weren't my parents or my teachers. And she was scooped up by an organization which is looking to make noise. It's pretty easy at any age to get caught up in events, much less at 18.

I ponder, at a distance, that she has performed the best of those in her family to date. I think that she is on a pedestal of sorts because of her accomplishments. Because of this, she doesn't realize that there is very large competition at big schools like Michigan and you need to be very very good to get in these days. She is like an athlete who was great in high school, only to find out that college is much more competitive and gets angry when she doesn't make the team, just because she did well enough to be on the team in high school.

 

[doubtingt]

...

What I am doing is arguing against those who are lambasting her for a)applying and expecting to get in and b) asserting discrimination when she wasn't. She may or may not have been discriminated in. I personally think that her case is probably pretty weak, given her lower than average SAT scores. But I certainly don't know the whole story and neither does any of us.

...

All good points, but this here is the one I have an issue with. Accusations of racial discrimination are serious matters. When you get fatuous accusations made, they undermine any legitimate accusations which may also exist. While she had a chance of getting in, she didn't have a good chance as she was at the lower end of potential admission. She then starts screaming racism without any evidence to back that up. All that sort of thing does is give fuel to the actual racists who want to undermine legitimate cases of discrimination by muddying the waters of the conversation about them with fake ones.

I've already forgotten this woman's name, but you know damn well that various other people haven't and she is going to be brought up in every future marginally related conversation to demonstrate how that case is as baseless as this one. Her baseless accusation harms everything that you're arguing in favour of.

I don't think you know what 'fatuous' means. HINT: It is not the same thing as a POV with which you disagree. You have no idea whether she has any evidence that racism played a part and neither do I, but we both know that U MI has a pretty small portion of the student body which is black, while MI has a more significant black population.

Keep in mind that this is an 18 year old who has grown up in a city plagued by very serious racism. She has very little other real world experience. Because she's 18. I don't know about you, but I remember pretty well how easy it was for adults who seemed to 'know' a lot to convince me of things. As long as they weren't my parents or my teachers. And she was scooped up by an organization which is looking to make noise. It's pretty easy at any age to get caught up in events, much less at 18.

I agree that there is no basis to lambaste her for complaining. She is an 18 year old complaining that she didn't get what she wanted and what she feels untitled to. That sounds like most 18 year olds in America, of all ethnicities. However, it is extremely unlikely that she has any legit complaint. It is well known that ACT and HSGPA are the first things looked at in applications and are used to eliminate most of the applications. The data show that nearly every applicant of every race with her ACT and HSGPA were rejected. The data also show that using ACT and HSGPA is perfectly legit basis for rejection since it greatly reduces the % of students who fail to graduate which is harmful to everyone including the applying student (far more harmful than getting rejected and forced to go elsewhere where they will graduate), and harmful to the school, and to the minority communities, and to the taxpayers.

I disagree with the bolded part. We have a rather good idea about the whether she is likely to have a basis for her claim. First, we know that most selective schools make the 1st cuts based upon scores and GPA and that hers would have been well below such an initial cutoff. So, even if the decision makers were racist, they would not have needed to base her rejection on anything else. Second, her ability to have access to anything about the decision process in her case in extremely unlikely, and access to information related to someone using race against her even more implausible. Third, there is empirical evidence that University faculty and staff making the decisions skew strongly to the political left and in support of AA. Thus, we have good reason to think that any applicant of any race would have been rejected based on her scores alone, and that any racial influence that did exist would very likely be in her favor, and on the low probability that is was against her, the odds of her having any access to anything that would count as "evidence" of this is extremely small. In contrast, the odds of an 18 that didn't get what they wanted making up bullshit about the process being unfair is extremely plausible. In sum, the prior Bayesian probability that she has any evidence that supports her claim is extremely low to the point where it is reasonable to presume she has none until shown otherwise.

 

[Derec]

I think you are misunderstanding and it's probably my fault. I am not arguing that this particular applicant should have been accepted. I honestly do not know the contents of her application package, beyond the metrics given in the linked article, and also some of the fairly prestigious honors she achieved, also from the articles.

Ok. But the point is that under AA she most likely would have been accepted. Jennifer Gratz had a lot better grades and somewhat better ACT and the basis of her lawsuit was that 2/3 of white applicants with her metrics were rejected while 100% of blacks were accepted. Kimbrough wants back to these bad old days of black privilege.

I am arguing that she has every right to apply, and I can see why she would have thought she would be accepted: others with similar scores have been in the past and at least one very prominent case involved someone with very, very similar GPA/SAT scores.

Of course she has every right to apply, but only under AA would she have had a very good chance of being accepted.

What I am doing is arguing against those who are lambasting her for a)applying and expecting to get in and b) asserting discrimination when she wasn't.

No, that would led to disagreement. Lambast came from the way she behaved - comparing herself to Harriett Tubman, saying that every black applicant's rejection letter was a "noose" and many more gems. See here.

She may or may not have been discriminated in. I personally think that her case is probably pretty weak, given her lower than average SAT scores. But I certainly don't know the whole story and neither does any of us.

I do not think even she believes she was discriminated against in any real sense. Instead she in rather Orwellian fashion redefines lack of discrimination in her favor as discrimination against her. She is in lofty company though - Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion and rant against Roberts makes pretty much the same ridiculous case.

I used to live in MI, for a number of years, just outside of Detroit, as a matter of fact. Oh, don't get me wrong: we lived in a very snooty very white suburb with all the right criteria: excellent schools, well educated, high achieving parents, etc.

By all accounts Kimbrough went to a very good school too. So let's scratch that excuse of the table shall we.

I would agree that affirmative action is a bad policy except that without affirmative action, our most prestigious institutions would be little else but echo chambers with admission only open to those who already belonged, by virtue of their great grandparents' accomplishments, to exclusive clubs and studied at exclusive preps schools where privilege was a given and was a necessity.

No they won't. Plenty of immigrants make it into these schools on merit, despite a language barrier. As do many Americans of modest background of all races. The way to increase black/hispanic enrollment at schools like UM or Berkeley is not to privilege them but by honestly examining reasons why they underperform in K-12. Role of black culture should be included in that as much as funding of inner city schools.

In Michigan, it's been nearly 50 years since the University of Michigan--a state funded university-- stated a GOAL--not a QUOTA but a GOAL of enrolling students to more closely reflect the actual demographics of the state. Fifty years. And virtually nothing has changed, except that there are more hispanic and many more Asian students attending, although each of those groups makes up a very small percentage of the population of Michigan.

And since admissions are now race neutral by law, meaning blacks are neither discriminated for nor against, whose responsibility is it first and foremost? That's right - that of applicants themselves.

The truth is that those in power make the rules and they tend to make the rules in such a way as their power remains in their hands. Not always deliberately to exclude others from power, from a good life. Sometimes, it is simply myopia, or just plain lack of understanding that there are other points of view.

There is no rule that discriminates against black applicants here. If they get good grades and scores they can get into UM with the same chance and whites or Asians.

It's been 60 years since Brown V Topeka Board of Education. Not nearly enough progress has been made to ensure that all have equal access to education. Some are still much more equal than others.

Or at least they were before AA was struck down.

It has been argued that students who come from disadvantaged circumstances will not be able to compete well in prestigious universities, yet there are many prominent examples of students from very disadvantaged circumstances who not only compete, but thrive, excel, even, at the most prestigious universities. And some students, with the very best, most privileged backgrounds who struggle. And fail.

Exactly. Individual merit is the key to achievement and should be the key to admissions as well.

As those few who first broke the barriers to higher education and to the best, most prestigious universities start careers and raise families, yes, their children will also benefit from the privilege earned by their parents before them. But meantime, there are thousands and thousands who lack such legs up. Starting before kindergarten.

So work on giving equal opportunities to everyone regardless of race, socioeconomic status etc. in K-12 education. Don't say that because there is racial disparity in achievement after high school all blacks (whether they are from disadvantaged circumstances or not) need to be treated preferentially to all whites and Asians, (whether they are from disadvantaged circumstances or not).

How many years, how many generations, are children supposed to wait?

For what exactly? Having UM admission being handed to them on silver platter even with sub-par grades and scores?

 

[Toni]

Ok. But the point is that under AA she most likely would have been accepted. Jennifer Gratz had a lot better grades and somewhat better ACT and the basis of her lawsuit was that 2/3 of white applicants with her metrics were rejected while 100% of blacks were accepted. Kimbrough wants back to these bad old days of black privilege.

I am arguing that she has every right to apply, and I can see why she would have thought she would be accepted: others with similar scores have been in the past and at least one very prominent case involved someone with very, very similar GPA/SAT scores.

Of course she has every right to apply, but only under AA would she have had a very good chance of being accepted.

What I am doing is arguing against those who are lambasting her for a)applying and expecting to get in and b) asserting discrimination when she wasn't.

No, that would led to disagreement. Lambast came from the way she behaved - comparing herself to Harriett Tubman, saying that every black applicant's rejection letter was a "noose" and many more gems. See here.

She may or may not have been discriminated in. I personally think that her case is probably pretty weak, given her lower than average SAT scores. But I certainly don't know the whole story and neither does any of us.

I do not think even she believes she was discriminated against in any real sense. Instead she in rather Orwellian fashion redefines lack of discrimination in her favor as discrimination against her. She is in lofty company though - Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion and rant against Roberts makes pretty much the same ridiculous case.

I used to live in MI, for a number of years, just outside of Detroit, as a matter of fact. Oh, don't get me wrong: we lived in a very snooty very white suburb with all the right criteria: excellent schools, well educated, high achieving parents, etc.

By all accounts Kimbrough went to a very good school too. So let's scratch that excuse of the table shall we.

I would agree that affirmative action is a bad policy except that without affirmative action, our most prestigious institutions would be little else but echo chambers with admission only open to those who already belonged, by virtue of their great grandparents' accomplishments, to exclusive clubs and studied at exclusive preps schools where privilege was a given and was a necessity.

No they won't. Plenty of immigrants make it into these schools on merit, despite a language barrier. As do many Americans of modest background of all races. The way to increase black/hispanic enrollment at schools like UM or Berkeley is not to privilege them but by honestly examining reasons why they underperform in K-12. Role of black culture should be included in that as much as funding of inner city schools.

In Michigan, it's been nearly 50 years since the University of Michigan--a state funded university-- stated a GOAL--not a QUOTA but a GOAL of enrolling students to more closely reflect the actual demographics of the state. Fifty years. And virtually nothing has changed, except that there are more hispanic and many more Asian students attending, although each of those groups makes up a very small percentage of the population of Michigan.

And since admissions are now race neutral by law, meaning blacks are neither discriminated for nor against, whose responsibility is it first and foremost? That's right - that of applicants themselves.

The truth is that those in power make the rules and they tend to make the rules in such a way as their power remains in their hands. Not always deliberately to exclude others from power, from a good life. Sometimes, it is simply myopia, or just plain lack of understanding that there are other points of view.

There is no rule that discriminates against black applicants here. If they get good grades and scores they can get into UM with the same chance and whites or Asians.

It's been 60 years since Brown V Topeka Board of Education. Not nearly enough progress has been made to ensure that all have equal access to education. Some are still much more equal than others.

Or at least they were before AA was struck down.

It has been argued that students who come from disadvantaged circumstances will not be able to compete well in prestigious universities, yet there are many prominent examples of students from very disadvantaged circumstances who not only compete, but thrive, excel, even, at the most prestigious universities. And some students, with the very best, most privileged backgrounds who struggle. And fail.

Exactly. Individual merit is the key to achievement and should be the key to admissions as well.

As those few who first broke the barriers to higher education and to the best, most prestigious universities start careers and raise families, yes, their children will also benefit from the privilege earned by their parents before them. But meantime, there are thousands and thousands who lack such legs up. Starting before kindergarten.

So work on giving equal opportunities to everyone regardless of race, socioeconomic status etc. in K-12 education. Don't say that because there is racial disparity in achievement after high school all blacks (whether they are from disadvantaged circumstances or not) need to be treated preferentially to all whites and Asians, (whether they are from disadvantaged circumstances or not).

How many years, how many generations, are children supposed to wait?

For what exactly? Having UM admission being handed to them on silver platter even with sub-par grades and scores?

Jennifer gratz's metrics were slightly better and Patrick Hammacher's GPA worse. They won their case.

The rest of your post demonstrates how little you actually know or understand about the actual facts of the case.

 

[Derec]

Jennifer gratz's metrics were slightly better and Patrick Hammacher's GPA worse. They won their case.

They won the case that race should not give someone extra 20 points on the admissions scorecard, while leaving a different program by the law school standing (moot now due to constitutional amendment which was upheld by SCOTUS).
The court did not find that they necessarily should have been admitted though.

The rest of your post demonstrates how little you actually know or understand about the actual facts of the case.

Argument by vague assertion. What do I allegedly not understand and why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would agree that affirmative action is a bad policy except that without affirmative action, our most prestigious institutions would be little else but echo chambers with admission only open to those who already belonged, by virtue of their great grandparents' accomplishments, to exclusive clubs and studied at exclusive preps schools where privilege was a given and was a necessity.

Wrong. Lots of Asians have made it into higher education despite coming from poor ancestors--so many, in fact, that they're now discriminated against far more than whites are.

In Michigan, it's been nearly 50 years since the University of Michigan--a state funded university-- stated a GOAL--not a QUOTA but a GOAL of enrolling students to more closely reflect the actual demographics of the state. Fifty years. And virtually nothing has changed, except that there are more hispanic and many more Asian students attending, although each of those groups makes up a very small percentage of the population of Michigan.

It waddles and quacks. They simply set the preferences to get the distribution they want. While "quota" isn't used it has the same effect.

The question is why has the low representation of blacks as students remained virtually unchanged? It certainly is not because intelligence is distributed more heavily in one race over another.

You're just assuming discrimination because you don't see the other factors involved.

It damn well wasn't because their parents didn't love them as much or care as much.

All too often it is.

How many years, how many generations, are children supposed to wait?

Look at two other groups that were discriminated against: Asians and women. In both cases there weren't other factors and thus when the boot was removed they very rapidly shot up. That says that discrimination does *NOT* have multi-generational effects.

Furthermore, when you look at how the next generation turns out you find that race is not a factor. It's the parents, not what race they are.

- - - Updated - - -

I've already forgotten this woman's name, but you know damn well that various other people haven't and she is going to be brought up in every future marginally related conversation to demonstrate how that case is as baseless as this one. Her baseless accusation harms everything that you're arguing in favour of.

Exactly. The more push for AA the more backlash there will be against blacks.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I've already forgotten this woman's name, but you know damn well that various other people haven't and she is going to be brought up in every future marginally related conversation to demonstrate how that case is as baseless as this one. Her baseless accusation harms everything that you're arguing in favour of.

Exactly. The more push for AA the more backlash there will be against blacks.

I don't know where you got the "exactly", since that's not related to what I was saying. My point was about fake accusations of racism making it more difficult to get people to accept legitimate accusations of racism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They won the case that race should not give someone extra 20 points on the admissions scorecard,

What extra points are received if there is a legacy candidate?

Exactly. The more push for AA the more backlash there will be against blacks.

Darn uppity blacks?

 

[Derec]

What extra points are received if there is a legacy candidate?

Who exactly is arguing in favor of legacy admissions here?

Darn uppity blacks?

Throwing around "uppity" has become one of those nonsense objections that means nothing. Please rephrase.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who exactly is arguing in favor of legacy admissions here?

You, and many others seem to only give a fuck about one of those. The constitutional amendment targeted no other form of discrimination in the collegiate method of accepting students. The justices have said it is alright to arbitrarily discriminate based on indirect historical issues of a candidate (IE blacks get a small bonus because of societal efforts to keep them from advancing in society for over 100 years post-slavery verses your mom or dad went to the same school). Both are forms of discrimination.

Darn uppity blacks?

Throwing around "uppity" has become one of those nonsense objections that means nothing. Please rephrase.

Not in my context it wasn't. LP said that trying to fix past wrongs will only hurt African Americans more. That sure reads like, if these people would just be quite, things will get better for them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Some seem to see this as a matter of evening up numbers between groups instead of having fair criteria for individuals. Anything that evens up the numbers, even if it increases unfair treatment to individuals of both groups seems to be recommended by such people.

But that actually fixes nothing, strengthens pre-existing prejudice, angers those being discriminated against in favour of the special group, and justifies new prejudice. It stops being irrational to suspect incompetence of people of X if people of X are given lower entrance standards. And yes, that applies to legacy and athletic scholarships as well as racial double standards.

And apparently if you mention this, you get told you think black people are uppity. That's a passive aggressive way of calling you racist.

 

[Trausti]

Some seem to see this as a matter of evening up numbers between groups instead of having fair criteria for individuals. Anything that evens up the numbers, even if it increases unfair treatment to individuals of both groups seems to be recommended by such people.

But that actually fixes nothing, strengthens pre-existing prejudice, angers those being discriminated against in favour of the special group, and justifies new prejudice. It stops being irrational to suspect incompetence of people of X if people of X are given lower entrance standards. And yes, that applies to legacy and athletic scholarships as well as racial double standards.

And apparently if you mention this, you get told you think black people are uppity. That's a passive aggressive way of calling you racist.

 

[Trausti]

You, and many others seem to only give a fuck about one of those. The constitutional amendment targeted no other form of discrimination in the collegiate method of accepting students. The justices have said it is alright to arbitrarily discriminate based on indirect historical issues of a candidate (IE blacks get a small bonus because of societal efforts to keep them from advancing in society for over 100 years post-slavery verses your mom or dad went to the same school). Both are forms of discrimination.

The constitutional amendment stated that the Michigan public universities "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." If people really feel that legacy admissions at public universities are a problem (for those schools that still have this anyway), then go get petitions signed putting a further amendment of the state constitution to a public vote.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Just to note that a minimum required GPA does not necessarily mean being competitive enough against other applicants with a higher GPA. Same applies to the entry exam (GMAT) into the College of Business of FSU where what prevails is a comparison between the highest GMAT scores combined with undergrad GPA and the minimum required score of 550 with undergrad GPA of 3.0. Technically, the applicant with 550 will pass the exam. However, against several other applicants with a 700 score and undergrad GPA of 3.8 , the 550 and lower undergrad GPA applicant will be rejected. I do not suppose that racial discrimination has anything to do with it. Rather a matter of retaining the best performing post grad to be students.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some seem to see this as a matter of evening up numbers between groups instead of having fair criteria for individuals.

Who says it isn't fair? Somehow Michigan has managed to accept a vast majority of white students. There is no indication, that I am aware of that the blacks who got in, partly due to AA have failed to meet expectations at the school and that the whites not accepted went on to live in poverty.

But that actually fixes nothing, strengthens pre-existing prejudice, angers those being discriminated against in favour of the special group, and justifies new prejudice.

Strengthens preexisting prejudice? That is the racist's problem. Should we have no desegregated schools because it would have upset racists?

Angers those being discriminated against? Does anyone know who was discriminated against because of AA instead of merely not making the cut? And why is this a "special" group. Makes it seem like there is no historical context to why there is AA in the first place. This isn't about giving a free ride. It is about offering an opportunity to someone who should have likely been there in the first place, if it wasn't for the generation after generation of discrimination.

Justifies new prejudice? It is prejudice if blacks are accepted over whites because the staff think blacks are smarter or better than whites. AA is about extending opportunities to those who wouldn't have otherwise been able to have such opportunities due to significant historical obstruction.

It stops being irrational to suspect incompetence of people of X if people of X are given lower entrance standards. And yes, that applies to legacy and athletic scholarships as well as racial double standards.

And as long as you take context out of it, then that is fine.

And apparently if you mention this, you get told you think black people are uppity. That's a passive aggressive way of calling you racist.

Part of your argument is the uppity type (don't want to anger those racists) and part of it isn't (what standards should and shouldn't be used based on any particular set of context).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What extra points are received if there is a legacy candidate?

Exactly. The more push for AA the more backlash there will be against blacks.

Darn uppity blacks?

It's not a matter of uppity, it's a matter of people getting things they don't qualify for. Of course the victims of discrimination resent the winners--and these days the victims are whites and Asians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You, and many others seem to only give a fuck about one of those. The constitutional amendment targeted no other form of discrimination in the collegiate method of accepting students. The justices have said it is alright to arbitrarily discriminate based on indirect historical issues of a candidate (IE blacks get a small bonus because of societal efforts to keep them from advancing in society for over 100 years post-slavery verses your mom or dad went to the same school). Both are forms of discrimination.

Darn uppity blacks?

Throwing around "uppity" has become one of those nonsense objections that means nothing. Please rephrase.

Not in my context it wasn't. LP said that trying to fix past wrongs will only hurt African Americans more. That sure reads like, if these people would just be quite, things will get better for them.

Fixing past wrongs is impossible. Discriminating against whites and Asians now does nothing to fix past discrimination against blacks.

What we have now is basically the notion that two wrongs make a right--something we all know is false.

We should not be discriminating against anyone. We should be trying to help those trapped in poverty but that's not a matter of discrimination and thus can't be fixed by antidiscrimination measures. It's also not a matter of money and thus can't be fixed by throwing money at it.

AA makes life easy for blacks that would have made it anyway, it does nothing for those who wouldn't have made it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What extra points are received if there is a legacy candidate?

Exactly. The more push for AA the more backlash there will be against blacks.

Darn uppity blacks?

It's not a matter of uppity, it's a matter of people getting things they don't qualify for.

What "thing" are they getting? It is merely an opportunity. And in general, those being lifted a bit higher because of AA should have likely been able to have been in this position if it wasn't for the policies of several generations that kept their families from advancing, like many other families have each passing generation.

Of course the victims of discrimination resent the winners--and these days the victims are whites and Asians.

Discrimination? Victims? Are schools attempting to segregate colleges to keep Whites and Asians out?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who says it isn't fair? Somehow Michigan has managed to accept a vast majority of white students. There is no indication, that I am aware of that the blacks who got in, partly due to AA have failed to meet expectations at the school and that the whites not accepted went on to live in poverty.

I don't know about their school in particular but the bigger the gap between black and white SAT scores at admission the bigger the gap between black and white dropout rates.

But that actually fixes nothing, strengthens pre-existing prejudice, angers those being discriminated against in favour of the special group, and justifies new prejudice.

Strengthens preexisting prejudice? That is the racist's problem. Should we have no desegregated schools because it would have upset racists?

You misunderstand. The majority of Americans reject discrimination these days. The prejudices will fade with time--unless you go throwing gas on the fire by giving a very real basis for the prejudice.

These days one is leery of the AA hire (or anyone that seems to be an AA hire) just like one is leery of the boss's relative or mistress.

Angers those being discriminated against? Does anyone know who was discriminated against because of AA instead of merely not making the cut?

When you adjust the cut to discriminate there will be people who don't make the cut because of discrimination.

Justifies new prejudice? It is prejudice if blacks are accepted over whites because the staff think blacks are smarter or better than whites. AA is about extending opportunities to those who wouldn't have otherwise been able to have such opportunities due to significant historical obstruction.

And for every opportunity extended an opportunity is taken away.