> I just think the AA narrative that it is Blacks that took that Asian kid/s seat is misplaced -- it was more likely the White kid who took their seat.

And at the schools that are very good the Asians that couldn't get into the best ones are taking those spots from others. But you've excluded those colleges from your calculus for some reason.

People generally apply to several schools and may not get accepted to all of them, majors have limited number of spots, scholarship are limited, and so on. If the College Board subtracts 100 from every White person's score they'll apply to or get accepted to lower choice colleges, and this is effectively what race-based affirmative action is doing.

When you have systemic discrimination like affirmative action the whole system is affected. It seems like you don't believe race-based affirmative action causing White kids to get accepted to their 3rd choice instead of their 2nd is fine since you're pretending it doesn't happen.

I'm not following your logic at all. If our logic is that merit evenly falls between every racial group and the enrolment of schools should match demographics, then Asians are still over-represented and both blacks and whites are under-represented. So Blacks and whites took both era spots.

If the idea is that current test scores without affirmative action represent true ability, then nobody took eachothers spot, what you describe is true fairness, only 22.2% of whites and 4.5% of blacks deserve to be in school.

Is the idea that blacks deserve affirmative action, and Asians do, and Hispanics do, but whites don't, so any instance of them benefiting from AA is whites stealing from blacks? I just don't quite follow.