If you think it makes no difference, why would you insist on saying it the one way? Meanwhile though, back to legacy admissions... so acknowledging it's a zero

If you think it makes no difference, why would you insist on saying it the one way? Meanwhile though, back to legacy admissions... so acknowledging it's a zero sum game, increasing "legacy" admissions means saying you want fewer students who aren't children of alumni. This means fewer first-generation college, fewer people from working class backgrounds (including white working class backgrounds, of course), and fewer Black and latino people. If you also want to increase the number of students who are children of donors (which happens) -- it means decreasing most of those categories even more so. How about if you restrict the number of admitted students who will need financial aid to attend so many total dollars of aid -- this is done completely openly and admitted, most colleges do not practice "need-blind admissions", meaning it's easier to get in if you can pay the full cost, which, as you say, acknowleding the zero sum nature of it, means they want fewer people who they believe will need financial aid (by not offering admission to those who they think do, they don't get the opportunity to figure out how to pay for it) Are people upset about "affirmative action" equally upset about these things, which, as you say, are telling us that colleges and universities want, and are acting upon that desire, fewer first-generation students and fewer students from working-class and poor backgrounds, as well as fewer Black and latinx students? Why or why not?