I do think that the SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action has helped level the playing field to *some* extent... but there’s still a long way to go. The admissions offices are likely still very left-leaning, and there’s not a doubt in my mind that at most selective college the process is still highly politicized and a lot of social engineering is still happening.
I say all this based on the experiences of a family member who’s battling the college admissions racket now and has classmates that being admitted places and not admitted other places. A lot of top-tier colleges have started summer programs aimed at recruiting “under privileged” (and in most cases non-white) kids. So maybe that kid gets in to Big Shot U. while a white male kid with better grades and test scores doesn’t get in. But if questioned about by the Justice Dept or in any future ligitation, the admissions department can say, “Well, it’s NOT on account of race that we admitted under qualified minority kid; no, no, not at all. Rather we we admitted her because she did our summer program and proved to be a good fit at our school.”
The distribution of goods and services in the Soviet Union was corrupt in its conception and thoroughly corrupt in practice. Indeed, a black market actually served as a way of rationalizing and rendering more democratic a system that unfairly mismanaged assets. In other words, the corruption was institutionalized by the Soviet government itself, and the black market mitigated the harm.
For years now, we have seen the institutionalization of discrimination done by the universities themselves. In other words, the corrupt distribution of valuable places was systematized.
A few years ago, we saw high-profile Hollywood parents being prosecuted for subverting the admission systems on behalf of their children.
I think we have to be careful when we attempt to justify one wrong deed by pointing to other wrongful actions. However, it might be appropriate to ask, were these Hollywood parents morally justified in beating a corrupt system by corrupt means? If they were not justified, may we not at least ask whether it was the duty of government to support that corrupt admissions system by prosecuting parents who beat the system corruptly?
When we institutionalize corruption, we will inevitably spawn mavericks who devise a black market to beat that system. Isn't the more dangerous corruption in the institution?
Do we always prosecute the right wrongdoers?
