You know what? I applied to Harvard even though my high school guidance counselor told me not to bother. I figured, why not? I had a near perfect GPA, a very high SAT score, and a decent track record of extracurricular activities. My record was enough to get me on the waiting list for an elite military academy and to win a full ride ROTC scholarship.

I got accepted to Berkeley and a couple of other top tier schools too, though I couldn't figure out how to afford to attend.

My record was not enough to get me into Harvard.

My guidance counselor knew something important about getting into Harvard: acceptance there is arbitrary, because the university cannot possibly admit all of the highly qualified candidates who apply.

There is no truly meaningful way to differentiate between the high achievers they do accept and the high achievers they don't accept. (Unless you look at legacy applications and so forth.)

So including race as a desirable arbitrary standard for admission shouldn't be any more problematic than other arbitrary standards.

The fallacy that many people hold onto in this discussion is that admission to Harvard or other top tieruniversities is awarded to the most qualified candidates and only the most qualified candidates.

That simply is not true. It cannot be true. The numbers cannot work to make it true.

Admissions officers make subjective, not objective, decisions.

Given that, there's no reason that valuing diversity should not be part of the subjective process.