In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

Key summary:

> "Today Yale joined peer institutions in stating emphatically that student diversity is essential to the missions of American universities and promotes educational excellence for all students,” President Peter Salovey said. “Our amicus curiae brief makes clear that the way we consider race and ethnicity as part of individualized applicant review is crucial to achieving a richly diverse academic environment that enhances students’ educational experiences and maximizes their future success. Yale stands firm in supporting universities’ established right to compose incoming classes that are diverse along many dimensions and in its commitment to enrolling students from all walks of life."

I wish I had more understanding of the topic. Diversity seems to have two dimensions to it: (1) diversity of thought, (2) diversity of background. Diversity of background would seem to encourage more diversity of thought, which I think is typically desirable, but has this been proven out/quantified? Conversely, governance seems to be a lot harder (i.e. require more authoritarian approaches to get goals accomplished) where there is diversity of thought. Please note I'm not making a normative statement here.

The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind.

Asian immigrants are not struggling to escape the clutches of centuries old intergenerational poverty. It's not even remotely the same thing.