The College Board is expanding its new system that assigns takers of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) a new score to tell college admissions officers whether each of them was privileged, coming from rich parents and good neighborhoods and schools, or “disadvantaged” by coming from poor families, high-crime neighborhoods and bad schools.

Students and parents will not be shown their algorithmically determined “disadvantaged” score, but by next fall more than 150 colleges will presumably be using it to boost admissions of applicants who had the pluck to overcome such adversity.

A more cynical interpretation is that California and Florida have already banned colleges from giving racial preferences to minorities. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely soon to ban race as a factor in college admissions in all 50 states. This new secret “adversity” score – although it never mentions race – gives liberal colleges new ways to guess (with high accuracy) which student applicants are leftist-favored minorities. It is a way to circumvent any future ban on explicitly using race in college admissions.

This is ironic because, as Sidney Fussell noted in the May 18 online Atlantic magazine: “The original Scholastic Aptitude Test was invented in 1926 by Carl Brigham, a Princeton alumnus and avowed eugenicist who created the test to uphold a racial caste system.”

Fussell writes that Brigham believed standardized tests “would prove the racial superiority of white Americans.” Testing, wrote Brigham, would prevent “the continued propagation of defective strains in the present population” … [the] “infiltration of white blood into the Negro.”

Progressives like Brigham, socialist Adolf Hitler, and Margaret Sanger, the Planned Parenthood founder who lectured the Ku Klux Klan about using Abortion to curtail African-Americans, were zealous believers in eugenics. And, indeed, today blacks comprise 12.5 percent of America’s population but account for more than 25 percent of abortions.

“Like my [African-American] father, I used to believe that hard work and mastery of a standardized exam was the fairest way for students like me to compete with those who had far more resources,” wrote author Thomas Chatterton Williams about what he called the SAT’s “bogus” adversity score in the May 17 New York Times. “That the College Board will now manipulate the outcome with no transparency is a chilling step in the wrong direction.”

Will the new “adversity score” make things more fair in a world of leftist bias where rich Hollywood stars cheat and bribe their own children’s admission into Yale, Stanford and the University of Southern California? Probably not, says Fox host Tucker Carlson. Rich parents will now merely buy their kids an “address” in Harlem to show how “disadvantaged” a neighborhood from which they come.

In an honest, right-side-up world, college admissions officers would give favored admission to the “truly disadvantaged” by finding answers to more important questions. Is an applying student Christian, for example, overcoming discrimination as a member of the world’s most persecuted religion?

Is a student a Caucasian, the only racial group whose average age of death has gotten lower each of the last three years, making white people not “privileged” but candidates for listing as endangered? Jews have also become targets of Democratic Party virulent anti-Semitism.

Asian-Americans have been routinely discriminated against when they have applied to Harvard University, apparently because they are such high achievers that if judged fairly they would become a large majority of those granted admission. Above all, the left hates and reviles meritocracy, the reality that some work harder and achieve more than others.

Males likewise have been discriminated against, and today a strong majority of college students are female. Colleges should correct this imbalance, if only for the reproduction and survival of humankind.

Other factors in those who are “truly disadvantaged” are also obvious. Are you an individual or a progressive collectivist? Are you for free enterprise or a state ownership-loving socialist? Do you believe in freedom of speech, or in stifling all politically incorrect ideas? Do you believe in the free inquiry of genuine science, or in the authoritarian dogma of a pro-big government pseudo-scientist elite on issues such as global warming or gender identity?

You are “truly disadvantaged” if you earn your own way, work at a job and pay taxes that are used by self-serving politicians to give lazy students a free ride.

You are “truly disadvantaged” if you stand up for fellow humans in the womb, because you risk being threatened, deprived of your job and schooling, and being physically attacked by college professors and other “unwoke” hypnotized, radical leftist zombie thugs.

Lowell Ponte is a former Reader’s Digest Roving Editor. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other major publications. His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith, “Protecting Your Wealth in Today’s America: How You Invest Your Savings Requires New Thinking,” shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings in our new schizophrenic politics. For a free, postpaid copy, call toll-free 800-630-1492.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.