Many don’t even acknowledge that their policies are discriminatory.
But it’s still a good argument to point out that discriminatory diversity policies are discriminatory. Because that forces those that advocate for them to lay out their justifications and also at what point the policy is no longer needed.
I’m not against affirmative action where it makes sense, but it’s a heavy handed policy and as such needs very good justification and constant re-evaluation.
Affirmative action is bigotry of low expectations by another name.
Imagine if I were a minority doctor who benefited from this, my patients will always wonder if I'm less-than. Nobody wants to go to a cardiologist that was bottom of their class, so why instill that doubt and call it a leg up?
Sure, but it’s usually not like that though. All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard.
Like I said, this can be an overall good. For example, let’s say I run a small software shop where everybody is male. Now, it’s not likely that a woman would accept a job offer because of the environment. So if I were the boss I’d hold off on hiring until I can get three people at the same time and work hard to make all of them women, to the point I wouldn’t look at male applicants. After that the workplace would hopefully be more balanced and for the next hire gender wouldn’t matter.
Is this unfair towards the men applying? It absolutely is, and that’s why I would only consider this as a one-time thing for a clear and specific goal.
This is in the context of a small private company, I believe nationwide policies need specific goals and targets infinitely more.
> All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard
Be that as it may, a reasonable person given the choice will not want the least of the smart people working on their heart. This is a scenario where someone can be the smartest person in all racial categories but the stigma will still exist because race X is known to be favored over race Y for reasons not pertaining to skill, merit, or knowledge.
Affirmative action is heavy handed when it involves hard quotas. There's nothing wrong with an affirmative action policy that sets a goal to be more inclusive by reaching out to other groups yet does not require limits strictly on the basis of skin color.
How about just taking the best candidate, and be done with it?
I live in a former socialist state, and a combination of grades and standardized testing is calculated into a score in that score determines if you get accepted to a college or not. Colleges have no idea who you are, until you get an e-mail that you're accepted and come to sign in.
You seem to be confused. There is zero doubt that the two parents understand that one is legal and the other illegal, hence they are quite clearly discussing the topic from a moral standpoint.
Anyway, surely you don't think legal discrimination necessarily moral discrimination? After all, Jim Crow was perfectly legal.
There's legal and illegal discrimination.
Some forms of legal discrimination do amount to discrimination against White people.
When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.
Just crying out that "But.... but you said discrimination is wrong!" really isn't the 'argument' you think it is.