Unqualifed to be accepted.

Frankly, you still have no idea what the point is.

I'll use the hypothetical I just gave Pancho to see if you can understand the point:

Let's consider a hypothetical.
Let's say you are a student, a white student, with no special factors that weigh in favor of your admission except your academic record.
You apply to a school.

It has 1000 slots. Of those slots, a certain number x, are likely to go to students because of factors other than academic record.

0.67x of those students admitted are white.

0.33x of those students admitted are non-white.

Which of the preferences applied is most likely to cause you to lose a place that, absent consideration of those factors. you would otherwise have?

What is more likely to cause "unfairness" to you?

That is the point. The statistic clearly overwhelmingly supports that point.

the concern about the admission of so-called "unqualified" [Affirmative Action] students is a red herring as it has, at best, a limited effect on the institution.

Maybe without the words Affirmative Action, which you left out of the quote, you would have a point. If anything this piece is a argument that Affirmative Action is a good thing.

A degree from a selective college can open many doors for a talented young person from a humble background. But rather than promoting social mobility, our nation's selective colleges appear to be thwarting it, by turning away applicants who have excelled given their circumstances and offering second chances to wealthy and connected young people who have squandered many of the advantages life has offered them.
When social mobility goes away, at least two dangerous things can happen. The privileged class that produces most of our nation's leaders can become complacent enough to foster mediocrity, and less-fortunate segments of our society can become resigned to the notion that hard work will not get them anywhere.