“race-neutral measurement of disadvantage” was not meant to convey mere “study” (although while we’re talking about studies, I defy you to show me one study that shows preference “helps” those it intends to help, and I do not believe it is our duty to prove it doesn’t). It was meant to convey the idea that universities should measure K-12 performance, and help underperforming institutions (regardless of race) perform better. There are many different models to choose from, but one example of one program is the program that the UC system implemented following the CCRI in 1996. UC sent student mentors and guidance counselors to the 150 schools it measured as lowest performing in California. The long-term result of this was to increase overall minority applications system-wide, but, of course, it took time (and will take more), but overall minority admissions are now greater than they were in 1996, despite initial short-term declines.

86%, according to preference-supporters, of preferences go to wealthier minorities. They are not designed to repair social problems. They are designed to hide a social problem. Without preferences, universities and policymakers will have to look to longer-term, and better, programs.

“Congratulations”, I say in politeness about MCRI getting on to the ballot; though I oppose it as much as ever. But we all have our moment etc.
…What is “race-neutral measurement of disadvantage”? In any case, some mere study does not qualify as real affirmative action; but I still wonder what your term means.

Where has “nobamn.com” gone? And do you have the content archived somewhere?

Chet

(PS – MCRI ends preferential treatment and discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, and would not “ban affirmative action” per se, unless you define all affirmative action to be preference-based. Outreach, anti-discrimination enforcement, socio-economic programs, and race-neutral measurement of disadvantage are all unbanned forms of affirmative action that MCRI would not affect.)