I've always been critical of positive discrimination, from a "two wrongs don't make a right" perspective. I've felt that programs should aim at providing equal

I've always been critical of positive discrimination, from a "two wrongs don't make a right" perspective. I've felt that programs should aim at providing equal access, not equal representation. Had you spoken to me a few years ago, i would have strongly agreed that this program was a bad idea, and more likely to stigmatize than to emancipate. I would have especially heckled it for arbitrarily benefiting one class of people at the exclusion of all others. However. My country adopted new electoral legislation a while ago, forcing politicial parties to put the same number of women as men on the voting ballots. I thought it was a silly idea and would lead to a decrease in the quality of candidates, and in the end it wouldn't help women get elected. Then something peculiar happened. Because all those women were on the ballots they became much more visible in the media, and because they were more visible they got elected. Because they got elected, they shook up the political establishment, and that in turn infused politics with fresh ideas, cementing the women's right to be there. After a while, it became so self-evident that a lot of women were on the ballot that the door was opened to other underrepresented communities, and the notion that only portly middle-aged white men could get elected flew out the window. It's gotten to the point that if you got rid of the law mandating it, there would still be a diverse cast on the voting ballots. So, to conclude by making an actual point, while you can point at this fog creek initiative and see its flaws, and i agree it is a flawed program, you should give it a fair chance and measure it by its achievements. You never know what might come out of it.