Where the boys are (not)

On the editorial page of thhe New York Times, the dean of admissions at Kenyon College
apologizes for discriminating against femake applicants. Young women have better credentials and, to get some measure of "gender balance" (less than 60% female is apparently important), you have to set lower standards for men.

Although she is not about to stop, she does wring her hands and worry about the damage that a policy of blatant discrimination might do. She writes:

What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options? And what messages are we sending young women that they must, nearly 25 years after the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, be even more accomplished than men to gain admission to the nation's top colleges? These are questions that admissions officers like me grapple with.

Sure, now they grapple with them because a group that is supposed to be a victim in the left's narrative of exclusion has found itself on the short end of the diversity game. But I have not heard much worrying or "grappling" from the higher education establishment over the adverse consequence of the far more pronounced discrimination in favor of racial minorities.

Have they been concerned about the consequences of African-American applicants "discovering that even if they do less, they have more options"? Have they fretted over the "message" that affirmative action sends to white and asian students?