> So you're saying the only reason they were admitted is the color of their skin and no other criteria were considered? What are the criteria that are normally

> So you're saying the only reason they were admitted is the color of their skin and no other criteria were considered? What are the criteria that are normally used to evaluate a white student that were thrown out for these black students? No, he's saying that they were selected over people who performed better in the interviews and other selection criteria because of the color of their skin/gender/religion/... Now in some way that's equivalent, in the sense that they would not have been selected if not for their skin color (they would have been third or fifth on the list where the top spot gets hired), but in other ways it's not. It does not mean they don't have any ability at all, for instance. Just less than would be required if they were white males. And I'm sure if executive compensation is tied to this, that there will in fact be cases of no ability at all, but I doubt it will be the common case. And we all know the methods executives will use to hit their targets while lying about this, for instance to make sure it looks fair, when it isn't. Going in and changing interview reports and scores after the fact to make sure they "didn't select based on skin color", except it'll be blatantly obvious for their colleagues that's exactly what happened. And in fact I bet those other team members will have to work more, harder and ... to compensate for the lower abilities.