Are you still responding to my objection to your objection to Steve's post? Steve said that Harvard's black students mostly weren't economically disadvantaged, with a specific definition of what "disadvantaged" means in that context, and provided a source to back up his claim.

You contradicted him: "In terms of being Black, I'd argue that the students most certainly do come from underprivileged backgrounds". But Harvard's threshold is high enough so that even if the black students are somewhat less privileged, you can't use this general observation to argue against Steve's claim that these students are, in fact, mostly "privileged kids with darker skin".

Though it is true that on average black kids in with parents in high income brackets don't have the same ability to stay in that bracket when they grow up as do white kids, you can't conclude that they are genuinely "underprivileged" in the context being referred to here. It requires some evidence. In a lot of the country, $80k/year income is, while perhaps not wealthy, at least enough so you're not routinely suffering from food insecurity (for instance). (Aside: in a few super-expensive metropolitan areas, like San Francisco and Manhattan, $80k a year can leave you vulnerable to food insecurity and/or homelessness. A cleverer system would adjust for cost-of-living at the student's home address.)

So at this point I'm not even sure if you're arguing with what I wrote, or just arguing for affirmative action because you think it is an effective way to counteract racial discrimination (which does still exist). If so--well, it's a complicated issue. Steve's story covers some of the complications, and as your reply didn't really get into those details, I don't really want to try to revisit them here.

All I had intended to address was whether your criticism of Steve's point was pertinent; it doesn't seem like it is .