Yes, that is a side effect of affirmative action, although I see the issue primarily as one of fairness. (I do think an individual's economic background should be taken into account by admissions officers, but that's a separate issue.)
In any case, the most interesting part of the editorial was the following:
For Sotomayor, of course, affirmative action is personal. She’s said she believes she got into Princeton and Yale Law because of affirmative action, disclosing once that “my test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale.”
It’s what came afterward, when a big law firm came recruiting at Yale, that is more revealing. One partner in the firm asked her, “Would you have been admitted to the law school if you were not a Puerto Rican?”
Sotomayor didn’t react well, lodging a complaint with Yale. The firm had to apologize to the university, lest it lose its coveted right to recruit at the nation’s top law school.
But what on earth did Sotomayor expect? What else did she think could possibly result from racial preferences?
This is a dynamic we see all the time. The proponents of affirmative action insist on a dual set of standards, a higher one for whites and Asians and a lower one for blacks and Hispanics, regardless of any of their economic backgrounds. Yet, with those different standards in place, they consider it the height of bad manners to suggest that anybody actually benefitted from them.
In fact, they act as if anyone who suggests this is downright evil.
Doesn't that create a bit of cognitive dissonance?
Sotomayor's logical disconnect certainly makes it easy to see why her SAT's and LSAT's were subpar.