> Once AA is overturned, that's it—hands off the scale
Or change it so it is not race based. Instead make it geographical.
Say you want to admit 1000 students from the US. Partition the US into 1000 districts, with 1 student admitted per district.
Gerrymander the district boundaries to make sure that you get the racial demographics you want.
Have fun watching the Supreme Court try to explain why that is not OK but it is OK to gerrymander congressional districts to ensure Black people are underrepresented.
Make it geographical or conscious of class, parental income and geography. That would go so much further in the goal of reducing inequality and increasing fairness than classifying people forcibly on something which we used to say wasn't a scientific classification, race.
High quality college should be available to all who want it and who are actually college material. There are a large fraction of college students who don't belong there and only matriculated to meet parental expectations or because they didn't know what else to do. As a taxpayer I am unwilling to finance this waste.
Why not make the goal "providing the best education possible to the brightest?" Why is reducing inequality the goal of an educational system, while taking as an unstated premise that inequality is somehow unnatural or bad?
sounds like the solution is to mandate that black (and asian and so on) people are required to be evenly distributed rather than congregate in enclaves susceptible to gerrymandering.
Or change it so it is not race based. Instead make it geographical.
Say you want to admit 1000 students from the US. Partition the US into 1000 districts, with 1 student admitted per district.
Gerrymander the district boundaries to make sure that you get the racial demographics you want.
Have fun watching the Supreme Court try to explain why that is not OK but it is OK to gerrymander congressional districts to ensure Black people are underrepresented.