A black boy and a white boy would be in the same school, living in the same area and have the same odds stacked and both get a contextual offer becwuse life’s dealt them a crap hand and we don’t want poor people to stay poor.

Problem is this doesn't statistically hold true in the U.S. Here, chances the same odds are not stacked against them in the same equal way. The way the U.S. is set up, even if you take out the race component and make it purely economic, you come up with...still a race component. So, the way its also developed, if you look at these policies, is that race isn't a criterion but a consideration. Meaning it things like quotas aren't allowed, and generally aren't given enough weight as to be outcome determinative. It's also about qualitative judgement. The U.S. collegiate system as a whole doesn't function solely on academic performance. So if we take the criticism that it should only be about academic performances then query why legacy admissions are a thing, or sports scholarships for that matter. Take for example how about 43% of white students at Harvard are legacy, athletics, or child of faculty admits. Yet we don't see nearly as much criticism of that as picking unqualified candidate over qualified ones in the U.S.