Cool, more "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism". Remember folks, if we want to be unified we need to segregate. Love is hate. Peace is war. Orwell must be rol

Cool, more "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism". Remember folks, if we want to be unified we need to segregate. Love is hate. Peace is war. Orwell must be rolling in his grave - doublespeak is truly the language of the future. EDIT: Since the view that affirmative action is positive is so prevalent, and that I hadn't previously given it an in-depth look, I've been reading around the subject. From the horse's mouth (http://www.mat.jhu.edu/~sormani/affirm-impact.html http://www.mat.jhu.edu/~sormani/affirm-impact.html): > As an illustration of what that would mean, they constructed a rough profile of 700 black students admitted in 1976 under race-conscious policies. Of the 700, 225 obtained professional degrees or doctorates; 70 are now medical doctors, 60 are lawyers, 125 are business executives and more than 300 are civic leaders. Their average annual earnings are $71,000. As expected, getting people into higher level education substantially improves their quality of life. > A more troubling question, the authors acknowledge, regards the white students whom these black students displaced. Would society have been better off if they had attended instead of the blacks? > "That is the central question," the authors write, "and it cannot be answered by data alone." It is a clash of "principle versus principle, not principle versus expediency." They come down firmly on the side of admitting the blacks, saying that society needs them because of the scarcity of black professionals. > "In the case of universities and colleges, race turns out to be very relevant because we are interested in what students can teach one another and race is a part of that in an increasingly diverse society. Well-prepared minorities have a special leadership role because there have been so few in the past. So what is fair involves the question of the purpose of a university. And, ultimately that question is not soluble with data." In summary, a subset of people are earning substantially more than another subset, where both were equally qualified for the position, because their skin was a particular color. The justification for this is that the minority is a minority. The proponents assert that whether this is right or wrong is a question of principal. They assert that this causes a minimal impact on the majority population and a significant benefit for the minority population. They do not apply concrete numbers to this last assertion and instead state percentages. Ofcourse, those percentages translate into living, breathing human beings who, in the absence of race-based discrimination would be living a very different life. Fairness is not an obvious thing, it seems. Fairness depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If your target is making sure that the year book photos have the right balance of color, by all means discriminate. If your target is giving people a fair opportunity based on their abilities then a meritocracy might suit you better. Can't we all just be equal? Can't we just share with people who have less than us and help them get on their feet without disenfranchising someone else? Can't we make room for everyone, no exclusions? Call this idealistic but I'm just being real about it.