A long and closely-argued piece on affirmative action admissions at Harvard, from a couple of years ago.
For the record, I believe in freedom of association, and therefore I believe that Harvard has the right to admit whomever it pleases, for whatever reason, nor do I believe that its indirect reception of federal monies overrides that right, which is a fundamental one.
Imagine if Gubmint determined to make the indirect reception of federal monies dependent upon what one says, rather than upon whom one determines to associate with. I am quite aware that freedoms may be used badly or abused outright, but we ought to tread carefully here.
That said, I also believe that, when you have plenty of actors in play, and no legal obstacles to the success of any group of people, anti-discrimination laws are either unnecessary or unjust. If you are so stupid as to refuse to hire John because he comes from the wrong race or ethnic group, or for any other reason unrelated to the job you want him to do, and if John would make an excellent hire, all you have done is to hand John over to the competition. You have punished yourself, and you had better wise up, fast. If, however, somebody says that you must hire John or a certain percentage of people like him in some respect that has nothing to do with the job, and John would not actually be of greater benefit to you than would Ed over there, then that somebody with his law or his directive is being unjust.
Nothing, of course, should prevent you from hiring whom you please even against your immediate benefit, for whatever reason you choose. I'm not saying that you should or should not hire John. I am saying that, in ordinary circumstances, I should have no say in what you do.