Let me put this straigh, “boys will be boys” is a common excuse “white and male” have. They might not think about it, but it is there. When they missbehave at class? “boys will be boys”. If they got into a fight? “boys will be boys”. If they treat badly a girl? Again and also “that means he likes you” (Never mind if the girl doesn’t like him back, that is not important). And so on.
That excuse is not available for the rest, so they learn to study hard and be quiet at class. And when the time to compete arrives, is when they need to prove they are twice as good, because “boys will be boys” translate in “he has so much potential”, which is the way some people justify bias. Of course, no one would ever consider that seeing “potential” only on white and male is an unfair advantage, but somehow, it almost never is used as a reason for including a girl or a person of color.
“ And if you are the child of alumni, then you are, regardless of sex or color.”
Lets tal about demography. In the past, the time where the parents of those alumni studied, it was a lot more difficult for people of color to study. In fact, if you go abough years back in time, there was a moment where only white men where allowed to study. So there was a time that “legacies” where mostly white. And those legacies had children in turn which would be mostly white. That means that the legacies pool is schewed towards white.
“ If blacks or Hispanics don’t want to, then nobody is going to force them…”
That is simly a false assertion. They do want, but if you have to chose between eating and studying, or you have to work while studying, you are at a disadvantage. You might not like to be told that if your parents could pay for a better school and for you to only study you have easy, but that is exactly what happens most of the time.
“ You’d be a fool not to hire an Asian with an advanced degree… and you’d be a fool to hire a black with an advanced degree unless you had no other choice for the entirety objective reasons I’ve outlined.”
And there you go, proving that the way you see potential is not related to facts, to the actual work or results students get, but stereotypes. You would see “potential” in young white boy who remind you of yourself when you were younger, and not on the black boy or the girls. Even if they have that potential and they have also worked twice as hard. And people wont give them an opportunity until that have more than proved results. Asian are rated lower on “personality traits” which are subjetive. How are rated whites? Bias works that way.
By the way, in your example you forgot to add the white men with unfinished grade who gets hired anyway because it shows “potential” and, somehow”, there are never women, black or hispanic with that potential. Curious.
You are not objetive, you just want to justify your bias by not acknowledging that some people haven’t the advante of “boys will be boys” and of remind the examinator of a younger self that make them see the “potential in you”. And how riches and advantages inherited might make your life easier.
But if you think that rating “personality” and “likeability” and “potential” is fair, maybe we can agree that the rating is done by women and people of color and see what happens. If it is “objetive” it surely would make no change in admisions, right? XD