LOL. Check the statistics I've shared. Relative to Asians, it's both, but blacks are afforded an even more profound bias. It varies from school to school.
Furthermore, for the very reason apologists of affirmative action have tried to raise in this thread, that the overall value of an applicant's resume as universities judge is complex, with test scores and GPA being the most important, even someone whose test scores are in the 99.9% percentile will lose a spot to this racist preferential treatment. Because there are only limited spots for universities to afford. There will always be candidates who fall at the very bottom of the cutoff between acceptance and rejection. Affirmative action consumes spots, and so this cutoff is shifted to make room, and those who are lost due to this shift are the victims of affirmative action-- of racism. This ladder from top to bottom isn't linearly assigned according to test scores and GPA, though the correlation to a candidate's ranking will be more closely tied to that, generally, than any other applicant statistic. Anyone who loses a spot is the victim of discrimination, and for Asians in this group, there are likely candidates of all races ahead of them to which they unfairly lost their candidacy. And stolen they are as the data I've shared demonstrates via mathematical proof. Per spots stolen by an specific racial group, it doesn't matter if it is many spots or only a few spots we are discussing that are robbed. Just a little racism isn't okay.
