I’m surprised at the slightly mendacious position taken by the author, a lawyer. (I write that without sarcasm but take it as you will.) Here he characterizes

I’m surprised at the slightly mendacious position taken by the author, a lawyer. (I write that without sarcasm but take it as you will.) Here he characterizes the pro-argument as being in favor of diverse aesthetics instead diverse experience, when, if pressed, I would assume he’d admit that the objective of affirmative action is in fact to admit a student body with more diverse backgrounds. He also acknowledges that the narrow point of the anti- argument focuses on race _qua race_ as a criterion for admission, but then ascribes the characterization of an acquaintance’s grade school admissions consultant of a Manhattan grade school admissions program’s inclination towards ‘visual diversity’ as being, without evidence, the same one at work at the universities in question. I don’t think you can make that leap with solely the hearsay opinion of one third party from another context. I think he drives by the real argument he should make here, which is that the objectives of affirmative action are laudable but the technique currently used to further its goals is deeply flawed to the point of being useless.