Which country? I know in Germany, even asking the race question on college admissions is illegal...

If that counterargument is not merely for the sake of argument, but as a matter of genuinely held belief, I think this question has no place on the site since it alienates people, in fact, wrongly suggests that one may engage in a criminal act as to be decided by a final international authority (for e.g., ECtHR) while they are merely to be induced to undertake discrimination on the basis of the idea of "race"; hence I vote to close until OP asserts the intention of the question. CoC, "Be inclusive and respectful. […] If a situation[, like a question] makes it hard to be friendly[, including …]

[… being inclusive do not engage] and move on." […] "[A]ny language[, or idea conveyed therethrough including such used in a question] likely to offend or alienate people based on [the idea of "]race[" shall not be used; in fact, w]hen in doubt, [one shall not] use language that might offend or alienate" hence only such language or idea conveyed thereby may be used that one has ascertained or reasonably believes to not have a substantial probability ("might") to offend or alienate. The above question sets forth language or idea conveyed thereby that no person exercising reasonable care in […]

[…] in good faith would find to have more than an a mere possibility not to offend or alienate. Hence, it is likely a violation of the code of conduct unless OP intended to set forth their "counterargument" for the sake of the argument. Until that is ascertained, I flagged so as not to "offend or alienate [any person] based on [the idea of "]race["]". (see CoC law.stackexchange.com/conduct)

I’m voting to close this question because the language or the idea conveyed thereby will offend or alienate any one or more persons on the basis of the idea of “race”, and I invite others to follow suit.

@kisspuska You're taking the CoC out of context there. Avoiding offensive and racist language doesn't mean we should refuse to deal with valid legal questions simply because they involve controversial and/or race-related issues. Shutting down such questions is a form of discrimination itself. It's also very hard to follow your reasoning as to why you think this question is fine if it is "for the sake of the argument" but should be closed if the OP believes their counterargument is correct. Either the question is offensive or it is not - the OP's beliefs have nothing to do with it.

That is not a good reason to close a question. I urge neveryone toi leave this question open. Like it or not race-based categories are a think in US law for anti-discrimination purposes.

@DavidSiegel, you could remove "anti" from your comment and the statement would remain true.

@DavidSiegel This question purposes discrimination. Acknowledging the reality that racism is a thing, and systemically trying to make amends and rectify social wrongs against those subjected to racist discriminatory social wrongs especially of historic proportions, is a good thing. Maintaining a quota in admission for people suffering such discrimination is a good thing. Maintaining a quota to keep those out who were subjected to such wrongs on a historic scale (for e.g. people categorized as members of “the Asian race” under the ideology of racism) is manifest, systemic racism.

@DavidSiegel The college policy above to protect a group who organized and identified under the idea of race and were the beneficiaries of the exploitation of systemic, and historic-scale racism. OP proposes criminal sanctions on those who (persons categorized to be members of “the Asian race) defy acknowledging or accepting to be discriminated based on the idea of “race”. I almost always vote with you to keep posts open, but this is an overt message promoting hatred and alienation of people based on the ideology of racism. If this question would have proposed to assert they are categorized[…]

[…] to be a member of “the White race” so as to evade discrimination under the same college policy, the question would not include language[, or idea conveyed thereby] that is likely to […] alienate others based on [the idea of “]race[“]”. But as it stands it is a flagrant violation of the CoC even without wrongful, discriminatory intent.

@JBentley I thought an exception may be used if asserted to have been made for the sake of the argument as a person who may have been the be threatened to be ripped off of the liberty to higher education on substantially similar conditions as persons of materially similar persons. But I do agree: The question should be closed and may be re-wrote in an objectively non-alienating fashion, and as it stands it is, indeed, a flagrant CoC violation regardless of intent as it is “likely to … alienate on basis of [the idea of”]race[“]”. I invite you to vote to close.

@kisspuska I have edited my question. Also, I used Asian and white since those are the races mentioned in the reddit post. This could easily apply to white people. You don't even have to put yourself down as white, you could also lie about being black. Also, your comments make it obvious that you want to close this question for political purposes rather than the quality of the question.

@Trish United States, I think we're the only country with affirmative action

@Trish The nice thing in Germany is that you don't even need to tell them that a question is illegal (which could lead to discrimination against you), you are legally allowed to lie to any illegal question, and it is illegal to hold such a lie against you in any way. Like "Are you pregnant?" "Absolutely not, I hate babies". Four months later "I'm going on maternity leave, see you later".

@SomeGuy there are no races just racists. Define political. Or le me try for you. Acts of communication driven by the intent to prescribe policy? That’s what you’re doing. I am merely applying the Code of Conduct to the facts presented in your question (in my comments), and law both U.S. and international (in my answer). My comments are political only in the sense they are descriptive of policy. Your disgusting racist barf is political in that it is prescriptive, and is prescriptive in circumvention of int’national and U.S. law for purposes of identifying persecutees persecuted on idea of race

@gnasher729 there are cases where lying to the pregnant question is cause for discipline, but they are few and far between - usually they concern working with nuclear material or sources of radiation, e.g. access to certain labs. They do word such differently though: "By signing here you testify that you are aware of the risks of radiation to a pregnancy and are either not pregnant or take the risk on your own accord."

@kisspuska What policy am I prescribing? Are you accusing me of supporting or opposing affirmative action? Your argument makes no sense at all. Also, read my edits.

@SomeGuy accusing? That train is gone. Asserting that it would be a “lie” not only means it is a knowing, material false statement, for purposes of the college policy (whether or not legal), but that it is morally objectionable. A lie is a morally objectionable knowing false statement. You can’t lie you belong to a “race” other than human. The question is founded on the false premise of their existence. You alluding it would be a “lie” makes a moral judgement which implicates your desired change in policy. That is, axiomatically, a question driven by prescriptive intent of policy.

The original post asks "My counterargument is that this is fraud. You are lying about your race..."

@GerardAshton post has been updated to show that whether it is actually fraud is uncertain

@PatentosPite If there's only one race, like you say, then it's definitely a lie to say you are white/asian/POC because the only race is the human race. It seems like you don't like my question because you can't accept that people will treat different-looking people as being different races. This is just fact, not opinion. US Census and US Colleges categorize people into races and will make judgements based on them.