LAWLAW09 wrote:How can something be "reverse" when the consequences and rationale aren't the same or even close to being equal?
You can argue that the consequences and rationale are justified, but the fact is that AA is an example of discriminating between applicants based on race. And this form of discrimination is "reverse" in the sense that it disfavors the majority.
I didn't argue that the consequences and rationale are justified. I'm arguing that the consequences and rationale aren't the same or even close to being same. Therefore, the "reverse" never took place and doesn't take place.
LAWLAW09 wrote:You think there's a demographic of Whites folks that can point to AA as an explanation for negative realities connected to how they live and where they live?
Negative realities? Yes, of course; they don't get into certain school.[/quote]
You can't acknowledge that there are other factors to explain why a White person gets into a school over a White person with higher grades, or that there are other factors at play to explain when a lower-scoring URM gets into a school over a higher scoring URM, and then try to say a White person didn't get into a school because an applicant took their spot b/c of a policy that considers race as an additional consideration.
You're picking and choosing which factors (outside of scores) should matter and are the deciding factor. And, you're doing so with very little information.
LAWLAW09 wrote:AA used to be a very positive and acceptable thing when it was primarily White men and White women benefiting from it. Correction: When White men and White women were aware that they were the ones that were primarily benefiting from it.
That's absurd. We're fair minded people here, and I don't think anyone is arguing that discrimination against minorities is positive.[/quote]
I think fair-minded, but self-interested people implicitly argue that all the time. Institutional racism isn't perpetuated b/c it's the cool thing to do or the right thing to do.