I am not arguing race. I am asking why from sheer 'ability to steer process in direction I want' would an institution not fight against any changes to the status quo just when they figured out a sweet spot for themselves? I guess what I am saying that it explains a lot behind the link provided.
Well this thread is about about "racism in academia". This is the elephant in the room. Racist policies in college admissions. You're trying to argue that it's somehow off topic when it's blatant and the so called anti-racist activists defend racism when it's targeted at groups they don't care about.
Hmm. Interesting point. Can you define racism for me as it relates to "Racist policies in college admissions."? I am trying to determine if you are looking at disparate impact or something else ( and if so, what that something else is ).
I don't really disagree with you, but I am trying to understand your perspective.
<< You're trying to argue that it's somehow off topic
Not at all. I am sure racism part will be covered in detail, while I go after less obvious, but likely more accurate 'people maintaining status quo, because it benefits them'.
