I will start off by saying that AA, is an incredibly flawed system but not for the reasons some of you may think. It's been harmful to Asian Success but what many don't know doesn't as a whole help blacks/Hispanics get into college. There has always been a narrative used by some Anti AA members of the hardworking Asian scholar having his opportunity thrown away to an underachieving brown delinquent. Factually, this is untrue as white females benefit more from AA than any other group.
If we look at racial sat score Harvard admissions https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/#:~:text=Every section of the SAT,admits an average of 704
The average Sat score for black admitted students for each section is 715 for whites it is 745, Asians have an average if 770. That puts black students at an average of a 1430, Whites at a 1490 and Asians at a 1520. Most college admission workers consider a 1430 and a 1490 test score to be in the same range, meaning you can't really derive that a 1430 student is less capable than a 1490 and therefore must take into account other factors such as personal statements and extra curriculums. Meaning that you can't label one score being chosen over the other as discrimination because they are indisgusiable. In addition a 1430 SAT is still an incredible score. Black Harvard admitted students still have average SAT scores higher than 94% of the population. In addition Black and Hispanic applicants tend to focus more on extracurriculars and have more letters of recommendation which personally I guess is an attempt to make up for their SAT scores. Asians are still discriminated against in terms of SAT but they aren't being denied to allow incompetent students to participate, as most AA applicants are middle to upper class and as a result do well educationally. To add onto this, take into account that the SAT is still heavily flawed and doesn't accurately measure a students potential, as it leaves out many other measures of intelligence/capability such as creativity.https://www.usf.edu/diversity/equal-opportunity/ten-myths-about-affirmative-action.aspxhttp://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/11/white-women-affirmative-action/
The two studies above go more in depth but in the simplest terms, white women are enrolled in higher rates due to AA policies and have some of if not the largest employment gains out of any other racial/gender group in the united states.
In addition, AA primary benefits middle to upper class African Americans. This is not really an unfair opportunity as blacks in higher income brackets have the resources to get tutors, go to better schools, and afford better equipment, putting them on equal standards as their Asian peers who on average, have these resources. Thus it isn't really giving away an opportunity to a brown person who doesn't deserve it but rather taking two equally qualified candidates, with one brown and the other Asian and giving the incentive for the black/Hispanic candidate to get the opening. We can argue about the moral ramifications of this, but the claim that students are having their opportunities being thrown away to people who did not have the qualifications to deserve them is false.https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/debunking-5-myths-affirmative-action/
The source above shows admissions by race and class. Lower income black students still have a harder time getting into universities compared to middle and upper class black students. AA is actually failing black and hispanics as a whole because they overwhelmingly favor the minority who are well off vs the majority who are low income or under the poverty line. Which could explain why black/latin student rates are still low in comparison to the percentage of the population each make.https://www.google.com/search?q=affirmative+action+stats&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=niv&sxsrf=ALeKk02ocDtC4qaIYqaFqrFsK9zlmQUjbQ:1595189078133&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj2-eyjtrqAhXDj3IEHUaqABsQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=560&dpr=2#imgrc=UzPjnHutsSt7KM
As both groups are still underrepresented in universities. Considering the practice has been around for decades you'd think that the rates would be proportional by now. Instead, the policy favors well off minority students who don't need it as much as their peers. https://www.google.com/search?q=average+wealth+of+affirmative+action&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=nisv&sxsrf=ALeKk02odl9pVotAuh-lpiRw7anUYeV6qg:1595189384030&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRkdbEj9rqAhWCgnIEHYnqBvMQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=l82aCpjBh7oTvM
70% of Harvard's admitted applicants came from the richest 20% of families with only 3% coming from the poorest 20% and 5.3% coming from the bottom 40%.
To be apart of the bottom 20% your earnings have to be below 18,000 annually. For the bottom 30%, it must be below an annual earning of 30,000. The average earnings of a black family is about 40 grand. Key word, family. According to the source below the average earnings of a single black female is 25 grand and black male 33 grandhttp://faculty.tamucc.edu/sfriday/wordpress/?p=2875
About 70% of black children grow up in single mother households so most black children are actually in households with an income around the 25,000 figure. Placing them on average, slightly above the bottom 20%.
Yet most of Harvard's admitted students were blackhttps://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+racial+admissions&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=nimv&sxsrf=ALeKk02Rxze0aA6KhyJoWteRj-AW2Yej_A:1595190079197&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz5JOQktrqAhXzlnIEHSBjDk0Q_AUoAnoECAsQAg&biw=360&bih=560&dpr=2#imgrc=6ogcueGCT7tZCM
However about only 8.3% of admissions are in the bottom 40%. So what is the problem? It is evident that a vast majority of brown children being admitted due to AA are those who are already wealthy and thus have the resources to put them on equal footing as asian students and don't need the policies as much. https://www.google.com/search?q=ivy+league+admissions+by+wealth&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=nimv&sxsrf=ALeKk002YATEjjDyEE-UQpHU_lqHO0HW8g:1595190246987&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip85TgktrqAhU3lnIEHde_BRQQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=iPLWGYPcIUD9dM
This isn't exclusive to Harvard as most other IVY leagues favor students in the upper income brackets. We can assume that this is the same for other top US universities such as MIT.
So is AA a problem? Yes. But the notion that AA gives opportunities to children who did not qualify is false as a majority of recipients are those who are already middle class to wealthy. Which explains why black and Hispanic enrollment is still low. As a whole, minority students aren't seeing any benefits from AA so the narrative that they are robbing Asians of opportunities is false. The policies are clearly biased towards those not in the bottom 50% and ironically benefit white women at a higher rate.
We should aim to make AA more focused on class and implement reform to economically disadvantaged neighborhoods so that disenfranchised demographics can actually see benefits.