I think a good faith interpretation of this section requires the context:
>the Fairfax County School Board is “embarrassed” to have a school that, despite all its outreach attempts, remains only 5% Black and Latino—even though, crucially, the school also happens to be only 19% White (it’s now ~75% Asian).
The initial motivation in changing the school was (at least partially) to increase specific nonwhite minority student representation. Aaronson is pointing out that removing the entrance exams will likely not achieve these goals, though it will remove any negative attention from the school. I don't think Aaronson is advocating that good schools should all have smaller white student populations, instead he is criticizing methods that don't achieve their goals and have significant negative effects.
> The initial motivation in changing the school was (at least partially) to increase specific nonwhite minority student representation.
I.e. even though white students were under-represented, improving their representation was never a goal, and when it happens as a side-effect, it's presented as a negative.
presented as a negative because it is contrary to some group's views, not Aaronson's. Or to use a phrasing from his line of research, relative phase matters, not global phase.
>the Fairfax County School Board is “embarrassed” to have a school that, despite all its outreach attempts, remains only 5% Black and Latino—even though, crucially, the school also happens to be only 19% White (it’s now ~75% Asian).
The initial motivation in changing the school was (at least partially) to increase specific nonwhite minority student representation. Aaronson is pointing out that removing the entrance exams will likely not achieve these goals, though it will remove any negative attention from the school. I don't think Aaronson is advocating that good schools should all have smaller white student populations, instead he is criticizing methods that don't achieve their goals and have significant negative effects.