# Let's debate affirmative action **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818 "2014-02-20T20:35:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/41 "2014-02-21T22:37:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Admittedly, this is where I struggle with thoughts on AA. You are absolutely right. But is the solution a simple setaside? Is it knowingly hurting majority children who had nothing to do with this past discrimination? This is where the OP fails. It’s one thing to criticize AA for not bringing black people to the same level as white people after 50 years of implementation. It’s quite another to say AA is _damaging_ white and/or black people. The whole point of compensating for past wrongs is that the group that received benefits unfairly has to fork over _something_. If a group’s advantages come at the expense of another group, then that first group can’t just say “Oops, sorry. Our bad!” and continue to expect their advantages to keep advantaging them. So inasmuch as no longer having an advantage = harm, then I guess AA damages white people. But I can’t see how you can redress without “harming” in this way. I think one day AA will be unnecessary. And I think it should be stopped long before it is truly harmful to any group. But I think it’s far too soon to say it’s harmful to whites right now. But I’d love for the OP to try to change my mind on this. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/42 "2014-02-21T23:00:13Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’m trying to follow you here. So you are saying that if an applicant is black, he likely has worse grades, took fewer AP courses, and went to a crappier high school? In all likelihood, he would have those things, often through no fault of his own. As far as whether that makes him less qualified, that is not necessarily the case. I work with kids that age. Living in the DC area, you see a wide range of school quality and options. I can tell you that there is not some perfect correlation between true ability and any of those things. > [@jtgain](#): > > Doesn’t that make the applicant less qualified than someone with better grades, who took more AP courses, and went to a better high school? No, that is not necessarily the case. For example, if your schools does not have enough AP courses, your grade point average is limited because your classes won’t be weighted. If you live in an area of the city where there are not internships nearby, you won’t be able to participate. Many private schools have rampant grade inflation because they do not want to be responsible for the students not getting into their dream schools even if the can’t hack it. I can go on, but I think you get the point. The idea that numbers tell the whole story is just not borne out by the data, or the accounts of any reputable person I know in education. No that’s not to say that a a kid in the inferior school will always have those things to rest his/her hat on, but the idea that better grades equal “more qualified” is specious. Additionally, you are missing the broader point about qualifications. The point is to “qualify” someone; to see if they meet a necessary condition you set. Nobody has put forth any compelling data that people accepted based on AA don’t meet those minimum conditions, they just argue that someone else was “better”. Having seen the process first hand, I would anecdotally tell you that the means of differentiation is usually arbitrary. The data and metrics these people have in front of them is just not detailed enough to makes such fine grain qualitative judgments. > [@jtgain](#): > > If so, then we’ve tossed the merit system aside. We need to treat the reason why he didn’t have these opportunities instead of punishing the applicants who did. There isn’t really an objective qualitative merit system as you seem to be implying because merit is such a squishy concept. Think of it this way. If you asked people to put together a list of the 200 best NBA players, you would probably have a lot of overlap at the top. Everyone’s list would have players like Jordan and Magic. The bottom 50 (numbers 150-200) or so would likely be all over the map because subjectivity starts to creep in the further you go down the list. That’s kinda how admission is except that it’s even worse because it’s predictive. Given that a group of people can’t even agree on the past as in my example, what makes you think there is a fair way to predict the future with that sort of accuracy? Yes, past behavior matters, but it just as often leads to things like Sam Bowie being drafted before Michael Jordan. I mention all this because all of these people who think the process can be made objectively fair are kidding themselves. All these admission people are trying to do is to pick people they like, they think can do the work, and they think will be a good fit on campus. There isn’t a way to take subjectivity out of these equation, so because of our ingrained biases that affect the quantitative measure and our collective judgment, we need to take corrective measures to make better choices. Race is but one of those corrective measures. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/43 "2014-02-21T23:39:51Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I generally agree with you and I oppose affirmative action on the idea that we have collectively decided that discrimination based on race is abhorrent. Therefore, why is it okay to tell an 18 year old white kid that he doesn’t get the job/college admissions slot because it was given to someone else based upon race? That 18 year old was born after slavery ended, and after Jim Crow ended. He has seen “whites only” water fountains only in history books. How is it now fair to racially discriminate against this kid? > > That being said, it does make sense to give some kind of leg up to people as a whole. As LBJ said, you can’t take 400 years of oppression, free someone from that oppression and tell them that they are on their own. Some type of assistance is required. How do we give that assistance without it becoming permanent or even worse, perpetuating an underclass? We could try making AA class-based instead of race-based. Then the poor blacks in the projects and the poor whites in the trailer parks both benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/44 "2014-02-21T23:45:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > We could try making AA class-based instead of race-based. Then the poor blacks in the projects and the poor whites in the trailer parks both benefit. AA programs that I’m familiar with do seek diversity of economic background, along with race. There is, however, value to the school (or workplace) in having a variety of racial backgrounds, even absent class issues. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/45 "2014-02-21T23:47:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > We could try making AA class-based instead of race-based. Then the poor blacks in the projects and the poor whites in the trailer parks both benefit. And then it **does** become permanent – but it does not create an underclass, which we have now in any case; different underclass people benefit from it in every generation and get a leg up on the social ladder. The process continues until there is no more underclass and Jesus freaks. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/46 "2014-02-21T23:48:52Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > what about women wanting to go into engineering or some similar field? does not AA help them in such an endeavor, even in 2014? well maybe they can get in easier now but i’m told they have ahard time being taken seriously. i dont guess AA can fix that but it is still a factor right? I think profession specific affirmative action might be appropriate but I don’t think the barriers to women anywhere are close to the barriers that existed 30 or 40 eyars ago while the barirers that exist for blacks and American indians still loom pretty large. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > In other words, while it’s true that a commonly-accepted benefit of affirmative action is increased diversity, it isn’t the case that you can get away with affirmative action on the grounds that it will bring about increased diversity. Exactly. Diversity is not enough to justify something as radical as affirmative action. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Funny thing is, though, Asian Americans also suffered historical discrimination. And affirmative action helped them just as much as it helped women, if not mroeso. To the point that race conscious selection seems to work against Asians now. > [@](#): > > So the group that suffers the most from affirmative action was, itself, on the lower side of the historical playing field. Lets say they suffer now, they would not be in a position to be suffering the consequences of affirmative action BUT FOR affirmative action putting them there in the first place. And frankly I don’t think the race neutral admissions of California shows that Blacks were prospering at the expense of Asians so much as Asians were suffering at the hands of admissions offices that didn’t want too many Asians in their entering class. Sure the perceantage drops in black enrollment at top UC schools was severe, especially at palces like UC berkely and UCLA but out of ~7300 (between 1996 and 1998) admissions at Berkeley, black admissions went from 572 to 236 (Chicanos were more significant, going from 992 to 455), these were huge percentagewise but White admissions went from 2709 to 2370. Asian admission went from 2388 to 2373, practically a rounding error. The UC system doesn’t have a legacy preference (or much of one). > [@](#): > > I certainly wouldn’t cry any tears if legacy preferences were abolished. But if they don’t get as much attention as affirmative action, I’d guess it’s because their effect on the admissions process is small. here is an article: [http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/](http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/) > [@](#): > > Despite stereotype, I’d imagine that most kids of Harvard graduates who go to Harvard are pretty darn smart and could have cut it with or without a special preference. (If there’s any hard data on the topic, I’d be happy to see it.) There is. See, Espenshade. > [@jtgain](#): > > As far as the status quo, I don’t support it either. The legacy system is ridiculous. I don’t care if your grandfather went to school there; maybe your grandfather was smart and you are the village idiot grandson (the general you). That should have no bearing either, but it is simply a stupid admissions standard instead of a constitutionally defective, insidious standard like race. Do you know where the term grandfathering came from? it came from the Jim Crow era literacy tests where you had to pass a literacy test to vote unless your grandfather could vote. It seems facially neutral but the effects clearly has a disproportionate racial effct. Do you imagine that most of the alumni at top schools are disproportioantely any particular race or do you think its pretty evenly spread? > [@](#): > > I’m all for changing the status quo where it needs changed, but to use race, whether openly as in Gratz, or hidden as in Grutter, is wrong. While admissions offices will never admit it, legacy admissions preferences create a preference for white applicants. While they would never admit it, their diversity balancing creates a penalty for Asians. > [@monstro](#): > > Lemme axe you something… > > OK, let’s say it’s wrong. Tomorrow we make it illegal to use race and gender in hiring/admissions. > > As a society, how do we redress the “wrongness” of the past? How do we prevent past discrimination from continuing to cascade intergenerationally? Do we just assume that one generation is long enough for us to be even stevens–that existing disparities result solely from individual merit and failure rather than a long legacy of oppression? Or do we simply stop paying lip service to the notion of equality all together? Do we admit that the past was screwed up, but we shrug our shoulders and move on like it never happened?.. > > …Most black Americans are not poor, believe it or not. A considerable number of us are actually doing pretty well for ourselves. I’d be curious to know how much of the black middle class owes it’s success to AA. If it’s significant, then I don’t see how anyone can say with a straight face that AA has ben a failure. Perhaps when I get home from work tonight, I’ll see what information I can find. Most black folks aren’t poor but poor folks are disproportionately black. The problem is white privilege. They can’t see your point at all. After all they didn’t personally oppress you or your ancestors, why should you be given an advantage over them because of something that happened last milenium? After all there is no racism now right? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/47 "2014-02-23T17:51:57Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > 40 acres and a mule. Now we have all this compound inerest and damages. AA isn’t necessarily a good form of that though. And the OP argues that it can actually make things even worse. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/48 "2014-02-23T17:53:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The problem is white privilege. They can’t see your point at all. After all they didn’t personally oppress you or your ancestors, why should you be given an advantage over them because of something that happened last milenium? Explain why that’s wrong. Also, a question - are you male? If so, what are you doing to make up for the advantages you got from past sexism against females? > [@](#): > > After all there is no racism now right? Nobody said there is no racism now. Don’t confuse that with an attempt to remedy past racism. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/49 "2014-02-23T17:55:26Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > AA programs that I’m familiar with do seek diversity of economic background, along with race. There is, however, value to the school (or workplace) in having a variety of racial backgrounds, even absent class issues. Yes, that’s diversity for its own sake, as opposed to AA for the purpose of remedying past discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/50 "2014-02-23T18:17:10Z")
I’m in general agreement with **brickbacon** ’s arguments in this thread. The focus on black Americans in the aff act debate is a function of resentment against them, not a concern for fairness or non-discrimination. I will also add that affirmative action has been banned at the state government level in multiple states, and will be banned in many others in the future. It’s also been reduced in scope by the Federal Courts beginning in the late '70’s. The level of outrage aff act inspires is disproportionately high in relation to its limited societal effects. One thing I’ve noticed over the past ten years is that mildly racialist right wingers have gradually moved from attacking affirmative action to attacking discrimination law. This was their aim all along, I think, to return the country to Northern style, defacto Jim Crow. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/51 "2014-02-23T18:29:27Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > I will also add that affirmative action has been banned at the state government level in multiple states, and will be banned in many others in the future. It’s also been reduced in scope by the Federal Courts beginning in the late '70’s. The level of outrage aff act inspires is disproportionately high in relation to its limited societal effects. I don’t think it’s fair to say that. The outrage came long before AA was limited - the limits were a function of the outrage, after all. And it’s still an issue. What’s more, issues of racial justice shouldn’t be proportional - a small injustice is still worth outrage. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/52 "2014-02-23T18:39:43Z")
Why the focus on black Americans, then? Why no comparable level of outrage over white women, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/53 "2014-02-23T21:35:14Z")
I think you’re looking at two different forces whose interests happen to coalesce around opposition to affirmative action (and which, I think, it’s fair to say coalesce around lots of things). It’s certainly true that racists oppose affirmative action and are outraged in particular about the “preferential treatment” they see being granted to black Americans. I think it’s also true that there are interests taking action in opposition to affirmative action in general – spearheaded by those such as the aforementioned terrible human being Jennifer Gratz – who are coming at primarily motivated by selfishness. The latter groups oppose affirmative action in general, because they individually are unlikely to be the recipients thereof, and they’re selfish people and think it’s terribly unfair to them in the way that all social programs tend to “disadvantage” the advantaged. But, for what it’s worth, I think that latter group opposes it equally in its promotion of success by Native Americans and Hispanics as in its promotion of success by black Americans, and the latter group is the one with the clout. That’s why they don’t like affirmative action, after all: its stated objective is to take away their advantage, and they’re selfish people. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/54 "2014-02-23T23:00:56Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I think you’re looking at two different forces whose interests happen to coalesce around opposition to affirmative action (and which, I think, it’s fair to say coalesce around lots of things). > > It’s certainly true that racists oppose affirmative action and are outraged in particular about the “preferential treatment” they see being granted to black Americans. I think it’s also true that there are interests taking action in opposition to affirmative action in general – spearheaded by those such as the aforementioned terrible human being Jennifer Gratz – who are coming at primarily motivated by selfishness. The latter groups oppose affirmative action in general, because they individually are unlikely to be the recipients thereof, and they’re selfish people and think it’s terribly unfair to them in the way that all social programs tend to “disadvantage” the advantaged. But, for what it’s worth, I think that latter group opposes it equally in its promotion of success by Native Americans and Hispanics as in its promotion of success by black Americans, and the latter group is the one with the clout. That’s why they don’t like affirmative action, after all: its stated objective is to take away their advantage, and they’re selfish people. There is a third group - those of us who don’t believe that racism now is a just, or effective, way of remedying past racism. That’s not selfish, it’s anti-racism. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/55 "2014-02-23T23:46:57Z")
Of course. A sort of third way of irrational thinking is a possibility in every discussion. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/56 "2014-02-23T23:51:54Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I find that conservative sources like to talk about affirmative action a lot–[National Review is leading with the topic right now](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371510/outdated-business-model-diversity-inc-victor-davis-hanson)–while liberal sources tend to mention it much less often. But last week Slate published _The Massive Liberal Failure on Race_. . From your later post, I gather that it’s the quota system you have a problem with, and I tend to agree. What I find bizarre in all this is how it’s become associated with liberals and liberalism. The term probably dates back to 1961, when President Kennedy required federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed … without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.” It was a simple statement of non-discrimination. This was followed by the Civil Rights Act and the establishment in 1965 of the Office of Federal Contracts Compliance, which was basically set up to enforce Kennedy’s Executive Order on non-discrimination. It was only with Nixon’s “Philadelphia Plan” in 1969 that the concept of quotas and timetables first reared its head, and the redefined “Affirmative Action” has been bouncing around the courts ever since. Maybe in some way liberals have come to own this, but they certainly didn’t originate it. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/57 "2014-02-23T23:55:18Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Lemme axe you something… > > OK, let’s say it’s wrong. Tomorrow we make it illegal to use race and gender in hiring/admissions. > > As a society, how do we redress the “wrongness” of the past? How do we prevent past discrimination from continuing to cascade intergenerationally? Do we just assume that one generation is long enough for us to be even stevens–that existing disparities result solely from individual merit and failure rather than a long legacy of oppression? Or do we simply stop paying lip service to the notion of equality all together? Do we admit that the past was screwed up, but we shrug our shoulders and move on like it never happened? I’m assuming that your first sentence was meant to say “Let me ask you something.” I’d say this. In the medical community, they say: “First do no harm.” There’s also a colloquial saying: “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.” In public policy, we could perhaps phrase the same idea in a pedantic way: “When a particular group suffered something wrong in the past, remove any policies that hurt the same group.” Affirmative action hurts black people, on the whole. To help black people, eliminate affirmative action. After that we could start talking about ending the war on drugs, reducing long prison sentences, repealing restrictions on business in urban areas with high black populations, prioritizing the needs of inner-city school students above the greed of teachers unions, and so forth. > [@](#): > > Most black Americans are not poor, believe it or not. A considerable number of us are actually doing pretty well for ourselves. I’d be curious to know how much of the black middle class owes it’s success to AA. If it’s significant, then I don’t see how anyone can say with a straight face that AA has ben a failure. Perhaps when I get home from work tonight, I’ll see what information I can find. How has the percentage of blacks who are middle class changed between when Nixon created affirmative action and now? Is the percentage of blacks who are middle class lower in states that have abolished affirmative action than in states that haven’t? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/58 "2014-02-23T23:58:19Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > There is a third group - those of us who don’t believe that racism now is a just, or effective, way of remedying past racism. That’s not selfish, it’s anti-racism. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Of course. A sort of third way of irrational thinking is a possibility in every discussion. There’s nothing irrational about what **lance strongarm** wrote. Indeed, it looks like the height of rationality. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/59 "2014-02-24T00:03:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Affirmative action is a type of racial discrimination. If racial discrimination is always wrong, then affirmative action is wrong. There it is. Nothing more really needs to be said. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/60 "2014-02-24T00:04:53Z")
I’m sure that it does look like the height of rationality. This is because it is a reiteration of your OP. As I have been saying, and you have largely been ignoring, that statement is operating at such breadth of meaning as to render the entire conversation pointless. It is literally impossible to do any such thing as “remedying past racism” without taking action that bears directly on racial disparities. If every action that bears on racial differences is racism, and all racism is equally unpalatable, then by definition, you win. Unless we immediately stop noticing the massive racial disparities which have been, we agree, institutionalized by past racism, we cannot stop taking “racist” action, in which case racism wins. The other option is to take action, which you’ve already determined would constitute racism, in which racism also wins. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=4)