I would never advocate for treating an individual as anything else than an individual. Just because an individual belongs to group X does not mean, obviously, t

I would never advocate for treating an individual as anything else than an individual. Just because an individual belongs to group X does not mean, obviously, that he will exhibit the average traits of group X. And of course, there is much overlap between different groups, so it would be illogical to instate policies that target all members of just one group in particular. All three of the policies you have proposed sound good to me. But I would already be more than satisfied if we stopped the current trends towards trying to "equalize through force". As a concrete example, right now there is a pressure for many high performing high schools across the USA to drop standardized testing in favor of quotas and lotteries, because of the low enrollment numbers of blacks and hispanics. The justification usually given for this is that, starting from the axiom that all groups are of equal ability on average, the discrepancy in numbers can only be due to some kind of racist bias in the methods of evaluation, namely standardized testing (a theory which is unable to explain the fact that asians are even more overrepresented than whites at those schools). I personally believe that this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, that the reason for the discrepancy is to a great degree due not to some kind of bias in merit-based admission policies, but due to differences in average ability, and that the inevitable consequence of the lowering of standards which will result from the introduction of quotas and lotteries will be the destruction of the outstanding academic quality of these institutions.