> I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But

> I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling. I found the arguments on page 44 particularly weak and undermine much of the paper. It destroys a previously more objective definition of "invidious" and "benign" motives [1] made earlier in the paper. Because the author doesn't want to justify preferring whites to Asian students, even though her own earlier analysis on page 12 does view that as a benign motive (reduce race gaps), she constructs this cop-out based on a completely arbitrary definition of "disadvantage". A more confident author would have accepted the implication and moved on OR established objective criteria for disadvantage. [1] The word choice can be disputed, but at least it was objective.