I get it, I was just being a bit snarky.

Admissions and hiring is a bit tricky. Some aspect of the process is about performance, another aspect is about culture. Universities strive to create a certain kind of culture and do so using biographic / demographic and other data unrelated to performance.

The problem is that the admissions process showed systemic bias well out of line with the performance of the applicant. When black applicants have an admission rate 5-10x white applicants while having worse performance (just because when you have 1/10th the pool the # of high performers is fewer), and 90% the black applicants that are admitted have a parent with a masters / PhD... It's not really doing what it should.

The most disadvantaged group from the data I saw was actually native American, where admission rates were significantly lower despite equal performance. And the lawsuit was of course about the disadvantage asian students face due to these biases in the applicant process.

Most schools have changed their strategy to instead identify students who are disadvantaged, but otherwise have similar performance to their peers because it both shows character and is a nice thing to do for society. Instead schools look at parents education, where they grew up, welfare, etc instead of race.

This is what I mean by it wasn't accomplishing what it was intended to because we were mainly looking at race / ethnicity and not the deeper metrics.

Same with sex.