<p>The one screwup in my posts is this–not making clear the distinction between pre-2003, when the SI was in effect, and the period before Prop 2, when UM no longer used a formula but was legally allowed to use holistic admissions to impart an advantage to some candidates, including URMs. </p>
<p>The SI example I gave is factual for pre-2003, and still useful because it demonstrates how affirmative action helps some URM candidates but not all. But it isn’t directly applicable to 2005. In 2005 there were not SI points, but the same principles remained, with the same effects: very strong URM candidates weren’t helped by affirmative action (it wasn’t necessary) and very weak candidates weren’t either (extra consideration was not enough). </p>
<p>It helped those in the middle. How MANY that involved, and how MUCH it helped, or whether this is a good idea at all, may be worth wondering about or disputing. But the facts that (a) affirmative action was practiced here at the University and (b) it helped some but not all URMs? Those are facts.</p>