One in particular caught my eye:
The study opens with a bold statement that affirmative action admissions in higher education allow for the college admission of minority students who have “weak” preparation for college-level work. This implies that students of color are not as intelligent or prepared as their white counterparts.
The rebuttal of these statements is so obvious, so tautological, it borders on the rhetorical. To wit: if students of color were as well-prepared for college as their white counterparts, there would be no need for affirmative action. In other words, if black candidates had similar high school grades, SAT scores, and other objective criteria for admission, they could be evaluated solely by that criteria. The fact that they do not have similar credentials is the raison d'etre that affirmative action exists.
Furthermore, the critics conflated "intelligent" with "well-prepared," which just muddles the issue, while enabling the race-card to be played. A student could have innately high intelligence and still be poorly prepared for a prestigious college if that intelligence had not been put to good use via a rigorous high school education.
There isn't a single valid criticism in that whole article; from start to finish, it shows pathetic ignorance of how science is done. I wonder if it ever crossed the authors' minds to consult a science major (which none of them were) before putting their names to this drivel.
Here's another that blows my mind...
Thus, affirmative action does not call for the admission of students of color who lag behind their peers. It simply serves to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas where they have been historically underrepresented...