I'm not arguing that it wasn't effective at raising attention towards the issue. But it wasn't an effective way of demonstrating why they don't agree with affirmative action -- as KSig RC (I think) pointed out earlier, it doesn't attack the way affirmative action actually works. Plus its message was too vague and easily could be misconstrued.
I also think that it wasn't the actual act that brought this much attention to the subject -- after all, other schools have attempted the same stunt with less publicized results. It's the fact that the school shut these guys down that drew so much attention to it.
Not to mention that 7 pages isn't really that long for a GC thread . . . especially one on race.
You said a "good deal" of the students were minorities themselves. What constitutes "a good deal"? I'm just curious. Also, I'm sick of people using the "oh, well, there were minorities doing it too so why do people care if white people do it" excuse. As far as I know, there's nothing saying that every African-American has to be for affirmative action, or that every minority has to get upset about things like this. But there's also nothing saying that just because some people of color don't agree with affirmative action or aren't easily offended by issues related to race, AA shouldn't exist.
To sum up: I don't think anybody, myself included, is saying that AA is the answer to everything. I don't think anyone is saying that it's a perfect system, that it's always fair, or that it's always implemented correctly. But given the way things are in America (see the article above for one of many, many examples), it seems pretty clear that something is needed to even things out. AA might not be the perfect answer, but it's more fair than what we had before AA, and it's the best thing we have right now.