I didn't offer any statements to agree or disagree with. Here's the chronology.

Ken points out that quotas are bad.

I presented a quote from Obama in which he states that quotas are bad and AA needs reformation.

In response, Ken stipulates that the problem with AA is that Obama's children could be favored in admissions at oregon state over an asian dude with higher grades, because they have both the advantages of sick wealth and the racial quota.

This isn't an appropriate response for 2 reasons: fundamentally it appears that Obama and Ken are in some agreement, but Ken doesn't want that to hang out there too long so he digs up an extreme example from the current situation which is irrelevant to the discussion of outcomes for policies that have yet to be enacted. Second, the example he cites is an extreme one. It is plausible but rare, and it should be noted that extreme wealth probably trumps all other advantages regardless of skin color. I think there's a discussion to be had here, but as I said before, ken didn't help his cause with this example. I ain't buyin' it.

There's a more fundamental issue, that of social engineering. That's the debate Ken wants to have. If we quibble about reforming AA Ken has already lost.