Kabuki theater of group identity or real commitment to improving the lives of individuals - a choice

I have not seen this before. It pulls together a lot of the evidence and strands of argument around the academic mismatch thesis. From A 'Dubious Expediency': How Race-Preferential Admissions Policies on Campus Hurt Minority Students by Gail L. Heriot.

Whether you believe in affirmative action, reincarnated as diversity, as an appropriate public policy or not, a critical predicate question is whether it is effective.

I am deeply concerned about the undermining of equal citizens and the implied state-sanctioned racism of affirmative action while recognizing its supporters are well intended.

But evidence is increasing, despite powerful interests to suppress it, that affirmative action, as implemented, is in fact not just philosophically incoherent but is also individually and in aggregate detrimental to its supposed beneficiaries. The sooner we see the back of this postmodernist social justice monstrosity and start treating all citizens as individuals and treating them equally, the better.

From the Abstract:

Mounting empirical research shows that race-preferential admissions policies are doing more harm than good. Instead of increasing the numbers of African Americans entering high-status careers, these policies reduce those numbers relative to what we would have had if colleges and universities had followed race-neutral policies. We have fewer African-American scientists, physicians, and engineers and likely fewer lawyers and college professors. If, as the evidence indicates, the effects of race-preferential admissions policies are exactly the opposite of what was originally intended, it is difficult to understand why anyone would wish to support them.

Just because sanctioned racial discrimination is not effective in achieving its stated objectives doesn't mean that we throw up our hands.

Most competitive universities desperately want to show that they have a diverse student body, admitting preferred groups under less rigorous standards. But if you look at the graduating class rather than the matriculating class, they are much less diverse. The university has admitted students who could not compete, took their money, and failed them out with nothing to show for their efforts. The university gets to feel good. The student suffers. Nothing changes.

When you shift the focus from an appearance of commitment to diversity to an actual commitment to individual students, it can do wonders. Georgia State University is an open admissions university. They take everyone as they present themselves. They then work with those students with all sorts of counseling and wrap-around services, but no relaxation of standards, seeking to ensure that everyone who is willing to do the work and learn, regardless of their originating circumstances, can graduate. They are working hard to ensure that students benefit and become more productive rather than conducting the kabuki theater of diversity admissions.

Not only is that morally more respectable but it makes a real world difference to both the individual student and to our society. You'd think that would be the more desirable aapproach.