The starting line analogy is deeply flawed. The typical beneficiaries of RBAA do not start out behind the starting line; they start at the starting line but with the weight of ill-preparedness on their shoulders. The remedy is, well, remediation. Free, including modest room and board, college prep classes for perhaps two years, should be available to disadvantaged high- school grads who show the aptitude and drive to benefit from them. Universities can sponsor these programs.

I disagree with the argument that the beneficiaries of RBAA are being compensated for injuries done to others. A strong case can be made that RBAA compensates for current harm done by being born into a socioeconomic position burdened by the wrong RBAA seeks to correct. So I have no problem with the compensatory feature of RBAA. My problem is that it is the wrong form of compensation because it pretends people who are not ready for college are ready for it and (thereby) stigmatizes those who have "benefited" from it.

All that said, I disagree with the Court's decision. The Fourteenth Amendment and the laws enacted in furtherance of its goals should be read to give the "equal protection" of the laws to Black people by undoing the damage done by racism. If that means race-based preferences in some contexts, so be it. Yes, there's certainly a 1984-ish feel to saying that unequal is equal, but when "equal" is unjust, maybe that's how it has to be.