I just read the piece Roger refers to, by Rice professor Richard Tapia.

He acknowledges that “underrepresented minority” students (why do so many academics succumb to groupthink, lumping individuals into such categories?) can earn their degrees at non-elite schools where they need no preferential treatment, but then argues that they “will not become faculty members at top-tier research universities, which choose their professors from those educated at other top-tier research universities.” Therefore, preferences for weaker students (not too weak, mind you, but Tapia is convinced that the difference between a 1500 student and a 1300 student isn’t important) are justified because otherwise very few will have a chance at making tenure at the elite schools.

Why is that so important? Suppose that one of those “underrepresented minority” students gets his Ph.D. from a non-elite institution and has to “settle” for a faculty position at, say, North Carolina State as opposed to Duke. What’s the harm in that? Tapia says that it’s “not healthful” to have a “two-tiered society,” but just how does having racial preferences at elite universities so there will be a few more “underrepresented minority” faculty members avoid that? And how is it having a “two-tiered” society to give no one any preference?