You could try but I don’t think it’s the best argument since you’ll find equal or more research saying the opposite and courts don’t arbitrate business decision

You could try but I don’t think it’s the best argument since you’ll find equal or more research saying the opposite and courts don’t arbitrate business decisions in that way. There’s the lawsuit against Harvard that’s unfolding now to try to strike down such policies, they’re using Asian Americans as the minority that is being harmed by the admittance process. When this has been brought before the Supreme Court before they’ve sided with business and colleges by arguing the process is a holistic review rather than being a decision made on one criteria. The most recent Supreme Court decision is here. Affirmative action may allude to a critical mass of diversity but this cannot be defined in quantities or percentage. Applications cannot be scored on race, it can only be part of a holistic review. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_(2013) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texa... For Harvard, they use a personality scoring metric, but the Asian Americans have argued that this metric disproportionately disadvantaged Asians. Personally - my thinking is that meritocracy is a flawed model that leads to stratification of society. Knowing that life is largely a deterministic process, I can’t say that the best way to run things is to let those with the luckiest genetics, inherited wealth, or connections continue to be rewarded over those that are less fortunate. The underlying factors do need to be dealt with somehow. We’re focused on race, but that’s one of many things out of your control that affect your future.