The problem is that there are blacks all over the socio-economic spectrum, just as there are whites. And while it is true that taken as a group, blacks may be more disadvantaged, when you look at individuals, the reality is that there are some whites who are more disadvantaged than some blacks. The law should not penalize those who are disadvantaged because of their race.
Laws shouldn't dictate at all who gets into colleges and who doesn't based on race.
The best candidates should always get in. If minorities or whoever have a more difficult path towards college, then work should be done to fix things at that level.
If laws shouldn't dictate at all who gets into college, then shouldn't colleges, themselves, be able to decide what "best candidate" means and what the complete makeup of their incoming class/student body is?
Not if they accept public funding. If they take our money then we get an input.
How much funding? As of 2010, government funding, per student, in the University of California system is 59.7% of total spending per student.
Link. By 2022, Stanford's School of Public Policy projects that, based on trends in the decline in government spending per UC student, funding for the UC system will run out in 2022.
According to the UC system, "In 1990, the state funded 78 percent of the total cost of education per student.
Today, the state funds 39 percent. As state support has declined, the students’ share of their education costs, net of financial aid, has more than tripled, from 13 percent to 49 percent." Prior to the 1960s, I believe, the state funded 100 percent of the total cost of education per student.
So, in 8 years, do you think you'll be cool with the UC Regents letting the respective UC admissions departments decide what "best candidate" means? Would you be cool with it at some point prior to that? When funding reaches 10%? Or, only at 0, which is where the UCs are headed in less than a decade?