# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/61 "2014-02-24T00:53:11Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > There it is. Nothing more really needs to be said. Only if one deliberately chooses to confuse AA quotas with all Affirmative Action programs. ---
**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 24, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/62 "2014-02-24T01:01:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > There’s nothing irrational about what **lance strongarm** wrote. Indeed, it looks like the height of rationality. That’s because you and Mr. Strongarm are libertarian absolutists. I’ve already said that I don’t agree with race-based quotas in principle. But one _could_ make a case for temporary exceptions. Here is a hypothethical scenario. A certain school of post-secondary education has very high admission standards, such that many perfectly qualified applicants must be rejected and only the highest-ranking achievers are admitted. A certain minority race has been so disadvantaged for so long in educational, business, and social opportunities that almost no member of this race has a chance of gaining admission to this school at this time. Which option is preferable: Option A: Impose a numerical quota that gives the minority a preferential hand up in admission and accelerates the equalization process, at the risk of offending the majority race and creating a racial backlash, or Option B: Do nothing and let racial inequality fester for generations longer, at the risk of further disadvantaging the minority and creating a racial backlash I honestly don’t know the answer, and I doubt that simplistic platitudes are helpful in showing the way forward. All I know is that slavery was a really, really bad thing, and the price for that mistake is still being paid. ---
**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 24, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/63 "2014-02-24T01:23:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s because you and Mr. Strongarm are libertarian absolutists. > > I’ve already said that I don’t agree with race-based quotas in principle. Well, then, I guess you and I are pretty close to agreement. > [@](#): > > But one _could_ make a case for temporary exceptions. So could I. I have supported some of those in the past. I’m not as absolutist as you think. > [@](#): > > Which option is preferable: > > Option A: Impose a numerical quota that gives the minority a preferential hand up in admission and accelerates the equalization process, at the risk of offending the majority race and creating a racial backlash, or > > Option B: Do nothing and let racial inequality fester for generations longer, at the risk of further disadvantaging the minority and creating a racial backlash A classic case of false dilemma. As if the only choices are quotas or do nothing! Nevertheless, I agree that quotas are okay in some situations. But, like you said, above all they should be temporary. After all, if they’re permanent, they’re not solving the problem, are they? ---
**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 24, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/64 "2014-02-24T01:24:41Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Of course. A sort of third way of irrational thinking is a possibility in every discussion. Explain why my option is irrational. I think it’s the most rational of them all. ---
**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 24, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/65 "2014-02-24T01:28:00Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > 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. But that’s you still doing the false dilemma thing. We can have policies that remedy racism - or “bear on racial differences” - without using new racial policies. We can have, for instance, non-discrimination - a lack of racism. You know, judging people by the content of their character and all that. > [@](#): > > 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. No. Racism doesn’t “win” just because we haven’t instantly fixed the problem. In fact, racism wins if the only way you can think to fix the problem is to use more racism. > [@](#): > > The other option is to take action, which you’ve already determined would constitute racism, in which racism also wins. We didn’t “determine” that AA constitutes racism. It does by definition. ---
**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 24, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/66 "2014-02-24T01:31:14Z")
Who here is white? If you feel that justice requires that whites give up their jobs to blacks, well, shouldn’t you quit your job and urge your employer to hire a black person in your place? What are you waiting for? Suppose your employer came to you and said an analysis determined that whites are overrepresented in your job category, and he doesn’t want to wait for whites to retire – remember, we have to solve the problem NOW, or racism wins – so he’s asking for volunteers to quit so he can hire a few more black people. Would you volunteer? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/67 "2014-02-24T01:37:10Z")
As I said in the reparations thread, as a liberal I am opposed to all forms of racial affirmative action (although I’m agnostic on class- based ones). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/68 "2014-02-24T01:47:59Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > We didn’t “determine” that AA constitutes racism. It does by definition. No. It does not. ---
**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 24, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/69 "2014-02-24T02:17:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. It does not. Of course it does. Let’s not get into some convoluted definition war over “racism.” A policy that uses race to make a decision about something is racism. Hiring someone based on their race is racist, even when the intention is good. If you want to call it something else, whatever. The point is that the policy is identical to the very discrimination it seeks to remedy - hiring certain people based on race rather than entirely due to their qualifications for the job. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/70 "2014-02-24T02:32:16Z")
There just has to be an Onion article titled ‘Middle Class American White Male is fed up with all this Equality Buisness’. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/71 "2014-02-24T02:38:45Z")
> [@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. No, it’s basic willful ignorance. You’re more interested in specious platitudes than progress. The idea that it’s apparently okay to discriminate based on gender, religion, income level, geography, nationality, and 1000 other things, but as soon as you give preference to some Black folks, our collective integrity is compromised is just mind-boggling to me. It’s bullshit, pure and simple. Again, why is the source of your consternation race and not the 1000 other things we use to discriminate? Why id every AA thread about racial quotas and not gender quotas? Why are the greatest beneficiaries of AA not spoken about with the same contempt? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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.” Except that in public policy and the law, we act to make the person or entity whole. There is almost always redress in the form of money or consideration. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Affirmative action hurts black people, on the whole. To help black people, eliminate affirmative action. Does affirmative action hurt women? The evidence is pretty convincing that it did not. Given that the essentially the same policies were/are in place to help both groups, why did it hurt Blacks and not women? Doesn’t that indicate that it’s not a failure of affirmative action or preferential treatment, but rather something unique to the treatment of Blacks and not women? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. Why _after_ that? Honestly, if you think the above things are problematic, why are you only purposing we solve them AFTER you get what you want? > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > As I said in the reparations thread, as a liberal I am opposed to all forms of racial affirmative action (although I’m agnostic on class- based ones). Why? Why is it less offensive to “take a spot away” from someone to give it to someone who is poor rather than someone who is a minority? Do you think the aggrieved person should really care about the person who replaced them’s circumstances or attributes? If the argument is about “fairness” and “qualifications”, then why should ANY preference be given? Again, the only reason it makes sense to support class-based preferences and not racial preferences is because you feel one is more of an inherent obstacle than the other. Obviously, YMMV, but I don’t know ANY poor person who would voluntarily become Black to gain a middle class existence. If anything, class-based preferences make far less sense. Why “punish” people who generally worked hard to earn money? Why should a kid suffer because his parents, who may or may not actually give him any money, are rich? ---
**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 24, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/72 "2014-02-24T02:53:51Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > No, it’s basic willful ignorance. You’re more interested in specious platitudes than progress. Don’t tell me what I’m interested in. Don’t tell me that your ideas are the only ones possible. > [@](#): > > The idea that it’s apparently okay to discriminate based on gender, religion, income level, geography, nationality, and 1000 other things, Where the fuck did you get that? Of course it’s not. > [@](#): > > but as soon as you give preference to some Black folks, our collective integrity is compromised is just mind-boggling to me. It’s bullshit, pure and simple. Again, why is the source of your consternation race and not the 1000 other things we use to discriminate? Who the fuck said I’m not concerned about discrimination? I’m the one who is! > [@](#): > > Why id every AA thread about racial quotas and not gender quotas? Why are the greatest beneficiaries of AA not spoken about with the same contempt? Who said I’m not opposed to gender quotas? Do you follow my thread history? > [@](#): > > Except that in public policy and the law, we act to make the person or entity whole. There is almost always redress in the form of money or consideration. But AA doesn’t make someone whole. It’s an attempt to make their ancestors whole by penalizing the ancestors of someone else. It’s bullshit. > [@](#): > > Why _after_ that? Honestly, if you think the above things are problematic, why are you only purposing we solve them AFTER you get what you want? > [@](#): > > Why? Why is it less offensive to “take a spot away” from someone to give it to someone who is poor rather than someone who is a minority? Well, for one thing, race-based AA assumes - insultingly and falsely – that all blacks are poor and all whites are rich. > [@](#): > > Again, the only reason it makes sense to support class-based preferences and not racial preferences is because you feel one is more of an inherent obstacle than the other. No, it’s because the connection between the injustice and remedy are at least rational. Race-based preferences could involve a black millionaire taking something from a toothless white guy who lives in a shack. > [@](#): > > If anything, class-based preferences make far less sense. Why “punish” people who generally worked hard to earn money? Why should a kid suffer because his parents, who may or may not actually give him any money, are rich? Why punish white people because their ancestors may have benefited from racism? Why should a kid suffer because his parents, who may or may not actually have gained money due to racism, were possibly rich? ---
**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 24, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/73 "2014-02-24T02:55:06Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > There just has to be an Onion article titled ‘Middle Class American White Male is fed up with all this Equality Buisness’. AA isn’t equality though. ---
**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 24, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/74 "2014-02-24T02:57:33Z")
As for whether AA is racism - What’s the difference between “Sorry, Joe, you don’t get the job - you’re black” and “Sorry, Jim, you don’t get the job - you’re white”? Explain it to Jim. ---
**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 24, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/75 "2014-02-24T02:58:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Explain why that’s wrong. What?!?! The fact that you have to even ask that question shows how blind you are to the effects of racism. 400 years of slavery and 100 years of segregation has created not only inequality of wealth assets and institutional advantages, it has created a culture bias against blacks. > [@](#): > > 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? I generally don’t oppose affirmative action for women. > [@](#): > > Nobody said there is no racism now. Don’t confuse that with an attempt to remedy past racism. So you think racism exists today but we don’t need to do anything to remedy the effects of past racism? > [@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. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > There’s nothing irrational about what **lance strongarm** wrote. Indeed, it looks like the height of rationality. > [@Clothahump](#): > > There it is. Nothing more really needs to be said. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Who here is white? I’m gonna guess you, ITR Champion and Clothahump (you might also be Asian). The anti-affirmative action blacks of the world (like Clarence Thomas) are not very common and not because they think they all think they are going to get into Harvard, but because they can clearly see how the deck is stacked against blacks. Asians (as has previously been pointed out) do not really benefit anymore from affirmative action and yet they generally support affirmative action. They see how society is rigged against Asians and are usually self aware enough to realize that things are much worse for blacks. So why is it that whites (especially white males) are so against affirmative action? because they just can’t see why anything needs to be done at all. Things seem pretty fair to them from a white male’s perspective. > [@](#): > > If you feel that justice requires that whites give up their jobs to blacks, well, shouldn’t you quit your job and urge your employer to hire a black person in your place? What are you waiting for? That is about as nonsensical as telling people who think that taxes should be higher to go ahead and pay more in taxes, after all noone is stopping them from donating more money to the government. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Of course it does. > > Let’s not get into some convoluted definition war over “racism.” Definitions matter. > [@](#): > > A policy that uses race to make a decision about something is racism. Hiring someone based on their race is racist, even when the intention is good. If you want to equate all race conscious legislation as racism then I suppose you can get to your desired result. After all Japaneses internment and the Chinese exclusion act, were certainly race conscious legislation and examples of racism. But I find it hard to believe that anyone can say that you can have racism without power and bigotry. > [@](#): > > If you want to call it something else, whatever. The point is that the policy is identical to the very discrimination it seeks to remedy - hiring certain people based on race rather than entirely due to their qualifications for the job. Of course, that is a stupid argument. We do call it something else, we call it affirmative action. You are asking us to believe that racism can exist without power and bigotry because it reduces a socially and historically constructed advantage that you may have had. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/76 "2014-02-24T03:03:13Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > No, it’s basic willful ignorance. You’re more interested in specious platitudes than progress. The idea that it’s apparently okay to discriminate based on gender, religion, income level, geography, nationality, and 1000 other things, but as soon as you give preference to some Black folks, our collective integrity is compromised is just mind-boggling to me. It’s bullshit, pure and simple. Again, why is the source of your consternation race and not the 1000 other things we use to discriminate? Why id every AA thread about racial quotas and not gender quotas? Why are the greatest beneficiaries of AA not spoken about with the same contempt? Affirmative action, as I was taught to understand it, was making affirmative efforts to recruit and develop members of disadvantaged groups. No more, no less. If you’re favoring someone over someone else because of their race, sex, religion, etc., you’re doing it wrong. If you hire or promote an inferior candidate, you’re doing it REALLY wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/77 "2014-02-24T03:12:52Z")
Affirmative Action makes the most sense in political power. So when the US Senate has more than 10 African Americans and 50 women I’ll listen to arguments about how we’ve gone too far and my demographic is marginalized. ---
**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 24, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/78 "2014-02-24T03:19:27Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m the one who is! You seem to be the one that is interested in protecting white male privilege. > [@](#): > > But AA doesn’t make someone whole. It’s an attempt to make their ancestors whole by penalizing the ancestors of someone else. It’s bullshit. Assuming you meant descendants. Lets say that my grandfather’s grandfather killed your grandfather’s grandfather and took all his land and as a result my great grandfather went to harvard and my grandfather went to harvard and my father went to harvard, while your great grandfather shined shoes and your grandfather picked fruit and you father was a plumber. So I apply to harvard and you apply to harvard. harvard is aware of our family history. Do you think it would be unfair of harvard to give you a preference in admission so that even if I scored 200 points better than you on the SATs, they could still accept you instead of me? > [@](#): > > Well, for one thing, race-based AA assumes - insultingly and falsely – that all blacks are poor and all whites are rich. AA assumes all blacks are black and that all whites are white. There are disadvantages to being black in this society, separate and apart from any advantages there are to being rich. Of course AA should be better targetted. Too many of the black students you see in top colleges are not the descendants of American slaves or even the descendants of slaves at all. There are probably more children of East African immigrants at some of these schools than there are blacks whose grandparents drank from the colored fountains in the south. > [@](#): > > No, it’s because the connection between the injustice and remedy are at least rational. Race-based preferences could involve a black millionaire taking something from a toothless white guy who lives in a shack. That doesn’t really happen. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > AA isn’t equality though. Its doesn’t get us all the way there but all we have to work with are blunt instruments so we get there slowly. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > As for whether AA is racism - > > What’s the difference between “Sorry, Joe, you don’t get the job - you’re black” and “Sorry, Jim, you don’t get the job - you’re white”? Explain it to Jim. Its not, “sorry Jim, you don’t get the job because you are white,” its “sorry jim, bob, dave, ben, etc. we admitted 100 white dudes and 5 black dudes into our college even though those 5 black guys had lower test scores than you did. Next time try to be in the top 100” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/79 "2014-02-24T03:30:31Z")
If we’re talking about affirmative action as recompense, then it should apply only to African-Americans. Besides, in terms of the legality, hasn’t that concept become outdated? I thought diversity was the legal rationale now? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/80 "2014-02-24T03:40:26Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Don’t tell me what I’m interested in. Don’t tell me that your ideas are the only ones possible. Not the only ideas, but they are sensible and logical unlike yours. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Who the fuck said I’m not concerned about discrimination? I’m the one who is! Because your sentiments ring hollow given your selective indignation. More importantly, discrimination is the basis for decision making. All you can do is choose the bases for that discrimination. This is not that difficult a concept to grasp, yet you seem to be having trouble. My only question is whether you are just one of those majestic equality people; neither the rich nor the poor are allowed to sleep under bridges, right? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Who said I’m not opposed to gender quotas? Do you follow my thread history? I guess I missed that rant in this thread, huh? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But AA doesn’t make someone whole. It’s an attempt to make their ancestors whole by penalizing the ancestors of someone else. It’s bullshit. It does because the damage, past and ongoing, is to against a class of people as well as individuals. The culture that was created has damaged the esteem all Black individuals are held in broadly speaking, regardless of their wealth, position, or status. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well, for one thing, race-based AA assumes - insultingly and falsely – that all blacks are poor and all whites are rich. Wrong. It assumes all Black people are Black, and will likely be judged negatively by many because of that. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Race-based preferences could involve a black millionaire taking something from a toothless white guy who lives in a shack. Okay, I’ll bite. Give me a plausible scenario where that happens? More importantly, you can’t TAKE something from someone that they didn’t/can’t earn, or weren’t given. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Why punish white people because their ancestors may have benefited from racism? I take issue with your diction, but that aside, White people are not being “punished” because their ancestors benefited, but rather because they did, and continue to. White privileged is a real and ongoing thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=5)