It seems that holistic admissions policies are indicative of our society as a whole. Yet I struggle with critics of affirmative action who cry "discrimination" without acknowledging that race is only one among a slew of factors considered in this university's admissions process. Such selective criticism radiated from Mike Hahn's Tuesday column, which stated:

"The whole issue of the holistic admissions policy is emblematic of another phenomenon in education: namely 'social promotion.' We all know what this practice is: passing along students who aren't really ready for the next level of education because we don't want to hurt their self-esteems and so they can be with their friends."

Give me a break. Students are let into this university on merits other than their academic achievements all the time. A friend of mine, for example, openly admits that the only reason she was accepted to UW was because her uncle is the former chancellor. We admit students with 17s on their ACTs simply because they know how to throw or catch a football. Admissions gives preference to international students or those hailing from outside Wisconsin just to balance the school's demographic representation. A generous donation from a parent or having a big booster for a relative is all one needs to get special admission treatment at this university. Many of these students "aren't really ready for the next level of education", but that doesn't prevent acceptance letters from being sent.

I wonder if Mr. Hahn is aware that the largest affirmative action campaign on this campus is not to pack lecture halls full of black or Hispanic faces, but to get more women involved in the sciences. Indeed, admissions at this university is not a blind process on many fronts.

But should they be? Proponents who advocate abolishing the race element of holistic admissions ride on the assumption that, forty years after the Civil Rights era, we are a colorblind society. Really? Policymakers are legitimatizing racial profiling of Arabs at airports for "national security reasons". Several months ago, a black student at a school in Jena, Louisiana actually felt compelled to ask the principal if he could sit under the "white person" tree. People blast immigration because it's causing the "invasion of Hispanic culture". Yet we have the audacity to claim that race no longer matters?

Why should admissions procedures be blind if our society is not? Holistic policies may be sexist, racist, and favor the wealthy, the well-connected, and the athletically endowed. But we live in a sexist and racist society that favors the wealthy, the well-connected, and the athletically endowed. It’s hypocrisy to expect the former to change without the later.

Despite these realities, I find it unproductive for Kyle Szarzynski to claim that opposing holistic admissions "effectively amounts to giving up on the struggle for racial equality." This logic allows critics to frame the debate in social welfare terms and accuse universities of giving "handouts" to undeserving (or "unprepared") minority students.

Mr. Hahn actually provides substantive argument: that the problem lies in the shoddy state of K-12 education. But of course, access to a quality education directly relates to socioeconomic status. And socioeconomic demographics — some of which Mr. Hahn cites in his column — reveal that minorities overwhelming tend to bear the brunt of poverty and lack of opportunity in this country. Whether skeptics wish to admit it, there is a clear connection between race and class in America. Holistic admissions policies are, in part, built on these realities. They don't stand to provide "handouts"; only to acknowledge the inherent disadvantages that come with being a particular skin color. They don’t stand to provide equality by themselves, only to acknowledge that inequality exists–and that it has a significant impact on students’ achievement.

Of course, it's hard for any of us to admit that we might not be "self-made"; that our skin color, gender, socioeconomic class or personal connections have propelled us into a nurturing environment that is as much responsible for our success as our skills, intelligence and work ethic. The privilege we've inherited might be invisible to us, but not to others.

Some people call this "white man's guilt". I call it a dose of reality, even if most people find it difficult to swallow.