If X is some value that best describes inherent affinity to learning, relevant to discipline you want to pursue, and Y is already amassed knowledge and skills, also relevant, then:
Your y prior to going to college/university is a derivative of x and any prejudice, your score on the test is a derivative of x and y and prejudice, your future potential is a derivative of x and y.
The interaction between all these is complicated, depends on how exactly we derive knowledge from intelligence and prejudice, scores from all above and future potential from knowledge and intelligence. It is different for different models of education, types of tests and disciplines. But in general it is most unwise to expect that 10% of any ethnic group has the same future potential, if only because tests show they are less or more educated already.
In general you cannot estimate if there should be more or less of a certain group if you do not carefully examine the nature of prior disparity. And this is impossible, and even more so when the problem gets politicized.
A side note - free market gets rid of the problem. We do not need a common stand on all the issues, when everyone only risks their own resources, and those who pick right, flourish.
Every action we take affects lives of everyone around the globe, and it significantly affects lives of thousands, when You take into account that all society's visible pressure on your life is built upon small decisions of all people that form this society.
When i buy apple, i affect lives of all that stand ready to provide the apple to me. I affect lives of all that stand ready to provide me peaches, grapes, bananas. I affect the prices of all above and so i affect lives of all interested in buying any of the products.
One of the driving forces of market economy - competition - is because of third parties choosing either me or you, and thus affecting my life positively, and yours, conversely, negatively.
What's the problem with prejudice? We are all prejudiced in million ways. That is the essential of being efficient in achieving our goals. We make decisions based on optimal amount of knowledge and information, not more or less. When You are in a hurry in the morning, in winter, You take warm clothes, rather than checking the temperature prospects for all locations you are going to be this day. Why so much prejudice against light clothes, it just might be a warm day! Do You know exactly why is it going to be cold? No, but you reasonably expect it. That is what a prejudice can be - a reasonable, with amount of knowledge and information you posses, expectation.
So when not to be prejudiced? Well, one certainly ought not to be prejudiced when it's unreasonable. If one could really benefit, long-term, from getting information, he ought to do just that. It's reasonable to know some about things that affect your actions.
One then should not be prejudiced when it comes to other human beings, because it does not cost much to get information, and altough it does not much good to yourself, if you don't care, but it can be very important for people around you if you are not prejudiced against them, but get to know them before passing judgements.
But can we force people to first or second one? Not on my watch - unnecessary force is worse than unreasonable, yet peaceful, actions. The only situation when one MUST not be prejudiced is - when you use force. When you are a policeman, a judge, a tax collector. These people should only treat people different based upon difference in their actions, not any kind of traits that are only correlated.
Now back to the point. When I do nto give You a job, i do not affect your life forcible. Assuming you accept private property rights in their basic form, my business is mine, and as long as i keep it away from hypothetical Mr.X's life, it's only him that affect forcibly my life, when he gets a job I did not want to give him. It's actually a hidden ongoing robbery.
No. Every meter. RFID perhaps; EU tried to experiment with GPS too. As far as i recall, too no avail tough.
There are things in economy called "public goods". Long story short, as soon as owners can collect toll efficiently, the roads will cease to be one. The government will hold on to that tough.
Assuming the grading system measures values relevant to my interest. You talk about injustice like it was some inherent right of a man to be always perfectly well judged. Or is there a limit to it? How much effort are people morally bound to put into making sure their judgments are possibly pure?
Note, we do not talk about judgments in situations where you forcibly affect life of others. No, we talk of, more like, assesments. The assesment takes up enterpreneurs resources, and if the race or gender, or any other tidbit of relevant information, that was already public or got undisclosed by interested voluntarily, is taken into consideration, it only helps to make the recruitment process more efficient. Recruitment has it's product - a good employee on correct position. It also has costs - a HR's salary for example. You may call it prejudice or racism, but it's not the point. If a group of workers loses opportunites because of prejudice, then the group of employers that are prejudiced lose the very same opportunites. Karma. If however they are "prejudiced" and it turns out more efficient, then the only thing you can do about this, unreasonable to me, but suit yourself, is refuse to interact with companies that do not earn a label "no-prejudice" from some reliable third party.
+-
Your y prior to going to college/university is a derivative of x and any prejudice, your score on the test is a derivative of x and y and prejudice, your future potential is a derivative of x and y.
The interaction between all these is complicated, depends on how exactly we derive knowledge from intelligence and prejudice, scores from all above and future potential from knowledge and intelligence. It is different for different models of education, types of tests and disciplines. But in general it is most unwise to expect that 10% of any ethnic group has the same future potential, if only because tests show they are less or more educated already.
In general you cannot estimate if there should be more or less of a certain group if you do not carefully examine the nature of prior disparity. And this is impossible, and even more so when the problem gets politicized.
A side note - free market gets rid of the problem. We do not need a common stand on all the issues, when everyone only risks their own resources, and those who pick right, flourish.