> I'm not arguing that we can't address other societally-imposed disadvantages...<AA opponents> are arguing that one form of assistance is verboten. I didn't t

> I'm not arguing that we can't address other societally-imposed disadvantages...<AA opponents> are arguing that one form of assistance is verboten. I didn't think you were. But, as a (weak) AA opponent, I would say that the fundamental problem with AA is that it needlessly replaces data about individuals, which we have, with group-mean data. Throwing away information like this naturally leads to all sorts of perverse results, where a poor white is considered to be doing well because the average white is, and vice-versa for blacks, etc. So I don't say AA is "verboten", but that AA is not an alternative to means-testing, it IS means-testing, except it is means-testing of groups instead of individuals. It is also a far worse intervention than means-testing, on its own terms, for a variety of reasons [1]. It is possible to argue that AA is about justice, but in practice the benefits are always allocated based on current bad outcome. Otherwise, Asians would get preference at Harvard. --- [1] AA disadvantages: - AA gives advantages to people based on ethnicity, regardless of whether an individual's ancestors actually suffered the abuse in question. - Means-testing turns the philosophical and intractable question of "how much should past suffering be worth? (in terms of admission preference, etc)" with the concrete and measurable question "how poorly is this individual doing now?" - Means-testing is far less politically controversial. - The AA mindset encourages people to invent an ever-expanding list of disadvantaged groups so that people can get a slice of the redress pie, leading to disputes over the relative value of different kinds of oppression. - Even wealthy, beautiful, well-educated members of a disadvantaged group get the AA benefits. AA "subsidizes" individuals who don't need it.