43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[alexf.1990]

Again, your narrative is simply incoherent. Arcidiacono was an expert witness in SFFA v. Harvard trying to prove that Harvard racially discriminates against Asians. If a full non-ALDC simulation would show an increase in Asian admits, why wouldn't they run it? Perhaps his desire to protect the white supremacist ALDC scheme is stronger than his desire to assist SFFA?

I'm also rather amused at your unwillingness to address the underlying narrative of the reporting. Why is it a problem that white admits disproportionately benefit from ALDC. Clearly their motivation isn't to bolster the number of white admits. The same adcom expressly disadvantages white admits on the sole basis of their race. Again, why does all the reporting on this study  use the same "43% of white kids are admitted only because they're ALDC" narrative? Why don't any of the stories mention that 60% of African American, and 50% of hispanic, students are admitted only because of their race? At least with ALDC admits, there is some plausible primary benefit. With racial preference, it comes down to "we like how much melanin you have."

SFFA is not an Asian organization. It was started by a White man. He failed with a case using White plaintiffs, so now he's using Asian plaintiffs because they're minorities. Pitting minorities against minorities is a better legal strategy. Whether or not you agree with Harvard's reasoning or methods, they're not practicing Affirmative Action because they like melanin. Many Asians have more melanin than White Latinos. Remember that Latino and Hispanic are not races, and most Latinos in the U.S. are mixed with Spanish and Native American usually being more Spanish than Native American. Harvard's reasoning is that they believe they are correcting for racial and ethnic inequities and historical injustices. Ultimately, it's just good marketing to appear to be a socially-conscious organization. If these Ivy Plus schools truly had a preference for Black and Latino students, they wouldn't be underrepresented at almost all of these schools. 

Your narrative is incoherent. If SFFA truly wanted to win on behalf of Asians regardless of the impact on White applicants, they would have targeted all admissions preferences that negatively impact Asian applicants who are trying to gain admission based on merit. They probably would have won this case in the lower courts years ago if they didn't have a hidden agenda.

The race of the founder is irrelevant when that organization is representing 20,000 Asian plaintiffs. They're clearly not a white supremacist organization in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you're just using it as a lazy pejorative against any person or organization that criticizes lefitsts.

Using race-based discrimination to correct previous race-based discrimination is infantile and sloppy. Black and LatinX students aren't underrepresented at these schools, they're dramatically over-represented if you assess their qualifications by any objective measure.

What other admissions preferences could SFFA have targeted? Harvard's racial preferences appear to be the only preference that is clearly unconstitutional. They are a private university, afterall. They should only be restricted from discriminating based on protected classes: race, gender, national origin, and disability; just as every other private business.