Stop Defending the Detour—Design the Destination

University admissions offer a revealing case study in how well-intentioned reforms can be institutionalized into permanent flaws.

To address historic racial exclusion, universities implemented dual-track admissions—parallel admission systems meant to expand access while preserving excellence. But these tracks never converged. What was supposed to be a transitional fix became an entrenched norm.

Rather than move toward a single merit-based system where equity and excellence meet, it institutionalized division. And now, similar models exist across our institutions—so-called inclusion structures that operate in parallel but never truly intersect.

These systems were supposed to close gaps. Instead, they often maintain them.

What’s most troubling is how forcefully some now defend these parallel approaches—not as temporary measures, but as permanent ideology. In the process, we’ve replaced one imperfect system with another. We haven’t solved the problem; we’ve just rerouted it.

The lesson from the last fifty years isn’t to double down on dual lanes. It’s to study them. To ask what worked, discard what didn’t, and build something better.

If we’re serious about creating a system that rewards merit and expands opportunity, we must stop defending the detour.

It’s time to design the destination:
One track. One standard. Open to all. Intentional. Fair. Unified.