Why do you believe a black applicant has higher future potential than an equally or more qualified white applicant?
One of the premises of AA is that college admissions shouldn't be about qualifications, at least not entirely. The reasoning goes like this: If different races are not genetically different enough to account for large demographic differences, then college admissions should represent the races proportionally. Qualifications-based admissions do not, and this is because of systematic socio-economic/race/culture problems. To account for these systematic disadvantages, we should factor in racial information to normalize the different groups.
Why couldn't (for example) cultural factors cause blacks to be less likely to perform well in school?
That's part of the premise, too. That it's not genetics but many other reasons. But people should be given opportunities to realize their future potential regardless of their culture or the systematic oppression they might live under.
I'm sorry, but you've still ducked the question. Why does a white/asian guy with a 3.5 GPA have a lower future potential than a black/hispanic guy with a 2.6 (all else held equal)?
Even if you assume that the statistical distribution of black GPAs is lower due to culture, it does not logically follow that the black guy has higher potential.
> Why does a white/asian guy with a 3.5 GPA have a lower future potential than a black/hispanic guy with a 2.6 (all else held equal)
As far as I know, no one is arguing that he does. Additionally (and I could be wrong here as I don't know where to find the data), I suspect that that affirmative action is never responsible for a white/asian guy with a 3.5 GPA getting passed over for a black/hispanic guy with a 2.6 (all else equal). A more fair question would be:
"Why does a white/asian guy with a 1250 SAT have a lower future potential than a black/hispanic guy with a 1225 SAT (all else held equal)?"
...which is easier to answer. There is a marked difference in SAT scores among races, and a lot of debate about the cause amongst people who know a lot more about this stuff then myself (and given the wording of your comment, I expect yourself as well). At the very least, it's reasonable to suspect that there may be some racial bias in the wording of SAT questions.
Obviously, the issue of unequal opportunity amongst races is huge and complex, and I don't pretend to know how affective affirmative action is at addressing it. What I do know, though, is that it's not as cut-and-dry as you seem to be implying.
Scroll up. Joebadmo argued in defense of AA "...that college admissions shouldn't be about past performance but about future potential..."
I suspect that that affirmative action is never responsible for a white/asian guy with a 3.5 GPA getting passed over for a black/hispanic guy with a 2.6 (all else equal).
Your suspicion is wrong. This is exactly what U-Mich did. I'd love to provide more data, but colleges hate transparency, and U-Mich is the only college to reveal this (they were obligated due to a supreme court case).
Further, nationwide, in 2006, there were fewer than 976 black students who scored 700 on the math and verbal SAT. Yet somehow, the population of black students at top schools is considerably higher than 976. Make no mistake - AA is a lot bigger than a 25 point boost on SATs.
One of the premises of AA is that college admissions shouldn't be about qualifications, at least not entirely. The reasoning goes like this: If different races are not genetically different enough to account for large demographic differences, then college admissions should represent the races proportionally. Qualifications-based admissions do not, and this is because of systematic socio-economic/race/culture problems. To account for these systematic disadvantages, we should factor in racial information to normalize the different groups.
Why couldn't (for example) cultural factors cause blacks to be less likely to perform well in school?
That's part of the premise, too. That it's not genetics but many other reasons. But people should be given opportunities to realize their future potential regardless of their culture or the systematic oppression they might live under.