A lot of Asians complain about affirmative action, but I think the real victims are poor Whites. Statistics show that affluent blacks get into college with lower SATs than poor Whites. When IQ is taken into account, blacks are actually overrepresented compared to whites in certain professions.
Still, affirmative action has a legitimate purpose. Diverse backgrounds promote cultural learning. Also, in the case of professional programs in public universities, the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that Black and Hispanic communities have doctors and lawyers.
People prefer certain athletes. People prefer certain genres of music. Why can we not prefer certain races without being called racist or people taking it personally?
I remember in CTY (geek camp) our instructor (who happens to be black) talked about the stereotype fallacy: just because most NBA players are black does not mean most blacks are NBA players. But that is dodging the point - I don't think even the most prejudiced people would make that claim.
Racism may be prejudice, but it would be impossible and impractical to live without prejudice. Take music preferences as an example. There are thousands of new albums I could chose to listen to. The problem is, I don't have an infinite amount of time to judge every album on its own merits. So, more likely than not, I will choose from a genre that I have statistically enjoyed in the past. That doesn't mean I automatically like all industrial music - it's just that I give certain music the benefit of the doubt. That's a form of prejudice that most people would not feel guilty about.
So why, then, is it wrong to give certain groups of people the benefit of the doubt?
Another example of something that bothers me: in the US, we presume that random strangers we meet in public speak English (or in some cases, Spanish). Is this not prejudiced against non-English speakers? We're being ethnocentric, but most people do not complain about that.
One argument for reverse discrimination is that certain groups have historically been persecuted, and that somehow we must "reverse" this prejudice. I don't deny that genocides and racism have occurred, or that they weren't violations of human rights. But if we try to repay every single debt possible, when does it end? If evolutionary anthropology is to be believed, we are all descended from the same woman, 8000 generations ago (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans). And the next time you have an argument with your parents, tell them "I never chose to be born in this family!" See how far that gets you.
/hopes nobody was offended by this post
Still, affirmative action has a legitimate purpose. Diverse backgrounds promote cultural learning. Also, in the case of professional programs in public universities, the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that Black and Hispanic communities have doctors and lawyers.
People prefer certain athletes. People prefer certain genres of music. Why can we not prefer certain races without being called racist or people taking it personally?
I remember in CTY (geek camp) our instructor (who happens to be black) talked about the stereotype fallacy: just because most NBA players are black does not mean most blacks are NBA players. But that is dodging the point - I don't think even the most prejudiced people would make that claim.
Racism may be prejudice, but it would be impossible and impractical to live without prejudice. Take music preferences as an example. There are thousands of new albums I could chose to listen to. The problem is, I don't have an infinite amount of time to judge every album on its own merits. So, more likely than not, I will choose from a genre that I have statistically enjoyed in the past. That doesn't mean I automatically like all industrial music - it's just that I give certain music the benefit of the doubt. That's a form of prejudice that most people would not feel guilty about.
So why, then, is it wrong to give certain groups of people the benefit of the doubt?
Another example of something that bothers me: in the US, we presume that random strangers we meet in public speak English (or in some cases, Spanish). Is this not prejudiced against non-English speakers? We're being ethnocentric, but most people do not complain about that.
One argument for reverse discrimination is that certain groups have historically been persecuted, and that somehow we must "reverse" this prejudice. I don't deny that genocides and racism have occurred, or that they weren't violations of human rights. But if we try to repay every single debt possible, when does it end? If evolutionary anthropology is to be believed, we are all descended from the same woman, 8000 generations ago (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans). And the next time you have an argument with your parents, tell them "I never chose to be born in this family!" See how far that gets you.
/hopes nobody was offended by this post