Based on this Whites are the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action (by numbers), even if blacks are by ratio. There just aren’t enough blacks at these schools to make that much of a difference of scale.
I still believe the only explanation for eliminating clear, measurable and quantifiable metrics for university admissions is because universities are looking for discrete ways to continue discriminatory tactics against Asians and to a lesser extent, whites. This is not about legacy admissions practices.
"Berkeley diversity statistics show that the enrolled student population at the University of California, Berkeley is composed of individuals who identify as Asian (30.6%), White (25.4%), Hispanic or Latino (16.3%), Two or More Races (5.5%), Black or African American (2.42%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.139%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders (0.132%), and Other Pacific Islanders (0.132%)."
It does make me wonder about the marketing of anti-affirmative action. For example you see on social media the kids who posts about their great grades and scores and not getting into the Ivies. The common refrain is that some black kid got their spot due to affirmative action. Although it’s actually more likely, if the applicant is Asian, that it is a white kind who got that spot due to affirmative action. I wonder how public perception changes if they knew that reality?
Any effective equity based admissions system will have a similar effect as UC’s old (edit: offensively racist) Asian quotas.
Because you are looking at it through the lens of total student makeup of certain top universities.
If Whites need 100 points higher on SAT than some others, then Whites are being discriminated against. That is, if you remove only the discrimination against Whites then they do better in the current system. If Asians need 200 points higher on SAT and you remove all discrimination then Whites do worse at some top universities than currently. So Whites would be both being discriminated against and for at those certain universities.
If you look at the overall college system, there's something like 35% of undergrads that are Black/Hispanic and 5% for Asian so in the overall system Whites net benefit more from no discrimination than Asians do.
So you've picked a particular point of view between principled and subjective, global and local, to conclude Whites aren't being discriminated against. Maybe it's worth exploring why.
Berkeley reports here: https://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data-ne...
Asians are 43%-53% depending on how many who identify as 'International' are Asian. Whites are 19.7% and Blacks are 3.4%
You are right, however, about why schools want to eliminate the SAT. SAT optional admissions is a way for schools to admit students whom would have previously been considered unqualified. By increasing the pool of eligible applicants, the school is discriminating against the previous population of qualified, top tier students, which has been historically an Asian majority. Additionally, Asian students with low or no SAT scores will not benefit from these changes because the best Asian students will continue to submit high SAT scores. How many Asian students are going to be accepted without an SAT score when they're being compared to other Asian students with 1500+ SAT scores?
Cal is in Bay Area. Bay Area is like 35% Asian.
I agree that certain people are racist / jealous towards Asians because we are smart and can get ahead in a generation even when we start far behind some other people, but UCB is a state school located in a area that has a lot of Asian population.
