The vast majority of people objecting to affirmative action...don't understand what affirmative action ACTUALLY is or how it ACTUALLY operates.
This is a case of a successful anti discrimination ruling, which is distinct from and above and beyond affirmative action...and yet once again most of the would-be objectors have failed to show a grasp of the basis of the ruling.
Let's get some basics straightened out first:
A test need not be INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED to *disproportionately* favor or exclude any particular group...for it to actually do so. So all the folks crying bloody murder about the lack of blatant racist discrimination in the wording of the questions themselves...is barking loudly up the wrong tree.
This ruling -- which, I must remind folks -- was the result of big teams of well paid professionals spending hundreds of work hours assembling into cases and arguments -- found that the written tests did not reliably correspond with practical competence. In plain english: the written tests were not a reliable indicator of who would go on to become a competent firefighter. NOT of which people of color or which "white" people would go on to become good firefighters...but a case of not being a reliable indicator of ANY test-taker's performance as a firefighter.
Get it yet?!? The written test wasn't a reliable indicator of practical ability as a firefighter FOR ANYONE.
Then, after that, the long-term discriminatory result -- which once again does NOT require specific INTENT to discriminate -- was that QUALIFIED black and latino candidates were disproportionately NOT hired.
Anyone bitching and moaning about finding (or not finding) intentional explicit efforts to exclude certain groups of people...is so ignorant of the actual issue that they're not really in the same conversation. The court ruling is not based upon finding INTENTIONAL efforts to exclude certain people, because institutionalized discrimination requires no intent.
If, by your particular choice of values and principles, you reject one or more of the following premises:
- that institutionalized racism is a problem
- that the government has a legitimate interest in proactive steps against institutionalized racism
then by all means go ahead and make your case...
But it is ignorant and/or disingenuous to impose your values upon government actions when government actions (including anti discrimination law) are based upon acceptance of those premises.
It's like football fans yelling at tennis players for their "failure" to score touchdowns.