You’re right that omitting context can be deceptive. Here’s some context you omitted.

The number of extremely high test scores in a demographic is likely proportionate to the number of moderate test scores in that demographic.

These scores exist along a smooth distribution - in the population overall and within each demographic. If one demographic has a higher number of students that beat a particular score, it’s usually because their entire population distribution of scores is shifted rightward. Said another way, they have a higher number of students beating any given score.

Even if there is a large number of outstanding performers among every group, there are likely more outstanding performers among the groups that have better performance at any given benchmark. These groups also likely have the highest performers.

If one demographic has a lower ratio of quantity of high performers to quantity of admissions …

… then, that demographic is required to meet a higher standard of performance to be admitted.

There are arguments that academic performance shouldn’t be the only merit considered.

However, if we expect that these non-academic merits are distributed equally throughout the population … shouldn’t a demographic with higher academic performance have just as much as other demographics?

Shouldn’t those demographics still end up being more qualified overall?

Unless we’re suggesting that academic merit is somehow inversely proportional to other forms of merit … when most trends show the opposite to be the case.

So even considering non-academic merits, the demographics with higher academic performance overall should still have admissions rates proportionate to their performance.

There are arguments in favor of having different standards for historically disadvantaged groups to compensate them for that disadvantage. That’s a position that I respect, as it earnestly seeks justice.

However, there’s not much room for argument that there are not different standards being used for different demographics here.

Further, if a demographic that was until very recently historically underrepresented is now being designated as “overrepresented” because they are performing highly compared to other demographics … is this justice?

It seems to me that there a probably other ways of seeking justice here … particularly, by seeking to improve the entire distribution of test scores of underrepresented groups.

This seems preferable to me to our current practice of effectively using the disprivilege of underrepresented groups to effectively launder the privilege of historic wealth via the elite university system.

This laundering of privilege happens at the ultimate expense of hard-working members of “overrepresented” groups, not all of whom are born wealthy but who now must meet higher standards purely because of their ethnicity.