Let’s stop and outline what we agree on because you seem to be attributing more extreme positions than I feel I am making and we likely have more agreement than it appears. I agree class, wealth, geography, gender and other factors can have an equally significant influence on disparity of opportunity and outcome. I agree that a low income kid from rural Oregon shouldn’t be grouped with wealthy white kids from New York. And I would go further and say they may deserve more of a boost than wealthy minority students.
I would also agree that DEI should not distinguish people solely along racial lines. But I don’t believe it does. And to the extent it does I would argue against that approach.
But you seem to be collapsing arguments based on ranges to binaries. It is possible that race alone doesn’t determine one’s class, wealth, or access to opportunity while also being the most predictable factor in a multi variate causal relationship.
I am curious if you would acknowledge that meaningful parts of American society have divided people along racial lines specifically to preserve wealth, class and geographical segregation. I would be the first to acknowledge meaningful progress to compensate for that reality and the only question is what work remains to reach the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
If your argument is that we should boost people based on individual analysis of multiple factors that increase or decrease their social mobility, access to opportunity and ability to reach their full potential in participating in the social contract then we are in agreement. If you go further and say race should never be considered because it has no relation to depriving individuals of opportunity then I would continue to argue that you aren’t correctly evaluating the facts of the past or present.