Beaudreax said:
If you were still alive, no, it would not be fair just do nothing.
How many generations of descendants yet unborn are to be held responsible for actions taken by their predecessors, hundreds or maybe even thousands of years ago, while the descendants of those that were harmed are not held responsible for their own actions or inaction now that the laws allow them equal opportunity?
Has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Beaudreaux said:
In this country we are guaranteed by the Constitution and the law an equal opportunity, we are not, however, guaranteed an equal outcome.
We are not guaranteed an equal opportunity, and people typically do not have equal opportunities. Whatever gives you that idea? Bill Gates had vastly better opportunities than I ever did.
Beaudreaux said:
This ruling does just that - guarantees equal outcome.
Looks to me like it's an opportunity, not an outcome. Getting into college is no guarantee of a degree, or a job afterward, or of a job that will make one wealthy.
Beaudreaux said:
If one person meets the criteria to be given affirmative action, and the other does not, yet the one that does not has better grades, higher test scores, a more full and diverse list of extracurricular activities and awards yet is not accepted for college admittance while the other person that may have lower grades, lower test scores, and less or no items of extracurricular activities and awards yet because of affirmative action is granted admittance, then they have been given something that they did not earn, but were given by the sole fact of what they are genetically, and not who they are as a person.
Same argument is often used against women: women have contributed very little to the intellectual tradition of the West over the centuries...of course, they were never given the education to do so. Getting into college, and getting into a higher economic class, is a matter of having inumerable skills that aren't taught in other economic classes. In short, you're confused about what it means to say "who a person is"--the skills to rise above one's present station are not part of who one is.
Beaudreaux said:
That is the very definition of discrimination. If discrimination is wrong, which it is, then it is wrong in every sense,
That seems false to me. It is wrong to lie. Is it wrong to lie about your friend's location to someone you know is planning on killing him? Obviously not--but that means the principle that goes "X is wrong, therefore, X is always wrong" is false. Ergo, it does not follow that merely because discrimination is wrong, it is always wrong.
By contrast, it is clearly wrong to just leave a people in poverty when their poverty is the result of something that was done to them.
Beaudreaux said:
including when it is used in an attempt to right an historical wrong done to long dead people by other long dead people.
An historical wrong that is still being felt.
Beaudreaux said:
As for the current generations and why they may or may not be succeeding? Read my sig below...
I have heard this before. I think it's a catchy way to dodge a guilty conscience and avoid actually thinking about something. This is not to say that no one is responsible for their present state, because some people clearly are. But that does not mean that everyone is, which is what would have to be the case for your sig line to be correct.