Unpopular Opinion- Legacy vs AA

• "I think we can agree people should be judged off what they bring to the firm/school" If this is your starting premise, then I'd generally believe that a large number of people would agree with you (not that large means anything here).

• "A connection or a large donation is a tangible improvement to business- Jeff Bezos son working at GS is going to bring in business, the top universities in the world are the best because they have the largest endowments (alumni donate to get children in)." I'd generally agree with the first sentence, but there are plenty of instances where connections to a business have been "value destoroying" in the future. If we were to write your statement 10 years ago and replace Jeff Bezos with Jeffrey Epstein, then we'd see that things don't always turn out as they might assume to be. Even in your example of Jeff Bezos bringing in business, I think it's easy to think of hypothetical ways that he could bring in business, but it's also pretty easy to see how he could deter future clients from doing business with GS.

• "AA kids often don't bring as much new to the school/workplace.. new perspectives?" I think this is the sentence that deserves the most scrutiny. Have you looked at studies that can confirm this? There are a lot of ways to add value to a firm, and they don't always have to be immeditly tangible for it to be valid. You mentioned the example of future alumni donations being a tangible, easily identifiable value add. Well, if we're creating examples, then what if a AA hire inspired some kid to work at that same firm or apply to the same school, and they later became a billionaire, consequntly donating millions to the firm/school? Additionally, a AA hire might not give "you" inspiration, but it might inspire some kids or event thousands of kids to want to work at that firm. Even in this example: if a AA hire happens to be, say hispanic, and you have a future hispanic client, wouldn't having an employee that shares a background with the client be a clear advnatage to the firm? They could be chatting it away in happy hour while someone with a different background might not be able to connect as well.

• "Tell me why an affluent African American has had a tougher journey than an inner city Asian kid." I can see why you said this, it's a hyperbole to clearly illustrate the worst possible scenario. And I agree with your assessment of the statement. It obviously isn't fair, but I don't think it's a reasonable argument at all, especially since it's the most jarring example that anyone could think of...

• "'Qualified' is not just what you've done-it's what you bring. You don't get hired for being intelligent, you get hired if you are going to make the place better and more successful." Again, what someone can bring to a firm might not always be so obvious to you or a group or people that all think the same. And I'm don't think the second sentence is that true or helps your argument at all. Making the place better and more successful and be caused by your execution of your intelligence, but I understand what you're trying to communicate. What makes you qualified it not a single factor, e.g., intelligence, but a multitude of factors and how well you can use them to add value to the firm. Would you agree with that?

• "IMO, money and new business will always be more important to an institutions survival and success than artificial diversity- I'm sorry if that is upsetting." I think the sentence that is the least objective. How do we know that money and new business can't be caused by having a more diverse workforce? If by important you mean that money and new business are more important becasue they create more value, then I'd simply say that a more diverse workforce can creare value and therefore can be equally as important. Additionally, what does artificial diversity mean? And the existence of artificial diversity implies the existenc of natural(?) diversity.

I wanted to take the time and reply to your post becasue I emphassize with you and many others. I'm neither a legacy kid or a AA kid, but the issue is more complicated than the simple examples that paint AA as a terrible initiative (which is easy to do with hyperboles).

As a last note, your example, "Jeff Bezos son working at GS is going to bring in business, the top universities in the world are the best because they have the largest endowments (alumni donate to get children in)," maybe implies that we should accept instances where the sons of billionaires are hired at firms, and one influential factor is new business caused by being the son or daughter of a billionaire. If we were to accept these, we'd also accept that fact that life isn't fair. If we accept that life isn't fair, then we should also accept the AA initiative, right? Since we can't choose the color of our skin or our socioeconomic background at birth. Your parents and the color of your skin are both things we can't choose, right?