My whole point was that it doesn't.
What reverse catalyzing effect on the original evil?
Giving one guy something does not reverse another guy being discriminated against because they are of the same skin color.

As I stated earlier that there is a clear distinction in my mind between discrimination designed for the purposes of inclusion - which I think is of benefit to society - and one that discriminates for the purposes of exclusion - which I think marginalises minorities.

If you aren't in favour of outright marginalisation of minorities what alternative solution to the problem of discrimination in favour of majorities in the workplace and/or academic world would you suggest get used instead?

To say that any group of people (associated by race) as seeking excuses 'from personal responsibility' is a steriotypical, bigoted statement. I very much hope this was a mistake because this type of steriotyping isn't allowed.

PC Talk eh? Shall we diminish the contributions made by those trying to alleviate human bigotry by reducing their work to "PC Talk"?

Because its a sad-but-true legacy of humanity's behavior. From the earliest times to present day, in a thousand forms across every continent, there's a tendency towards "us and them"; to insult, demean, degrade and exclude those who don't feel "like us". If you don't see it then either you're badly uninformed or biased towards believing it doesn't exist.

What I find peculiar in this statement is that the very individuals you're name-calling here ('soft heads') are generally the ones who are fighting for the point you are (that race shouldn't be treated as anything more than a collection of non-impugning physical differences).

Also, I'm curious how it is you know their motivations? You're saying, 'they just want to feel fluffy' (which is by no means certain). How did you come by this information?

And exactly how does the math work on this one? I'm very curious to hear - specifically - how the few years affirmative actions has been around is a 'bigger problem' than the millenia of racial violence and discrimination. Would you please enlighten us?

I'm sorry, but this is flagrantly ignorant of both history and reality. How is mass ghettoization, crappy overcrowded schools, political disenfranchisement, and grossly inadequate infrastructure funding not a predisposing factor? And what on earth do you know about denial of personal responsibility among impoverished black people? I've spent my entire career taking care of predominantly poor black and hispanic patients, and you know what -- they have hard lives and they work hard to make ends meet without any of the opportunities that I had growing up... and I've never heard an "excuse".

As an admittedly extreme example, I don't think my reaction to a racially motivated assault is "the problem" - the assault is. Neither do I think my reaction to racially motivated refusal to educate, employ or promote is "the problem". It is a problem proposed to counter a nastier problem.

I want to plant my flag firmly in the camp of those that oppose racial exclusivity, abuse and assault. I think the easiest and clearest way to do this is to support inclusivity. Affirmative action is the only policy that visibly demonstrates inclusivity, even though it is a discriminatory measure.

Not if you feel that the reason the current problem exists is to stem the other.

As an analogy:

Various reactions to events such as the election of a mixed-race president have me pretty convinced there are racists in the US

I join you in hoping for a day when such measures are no longer needed, but I disagree that it's arrival can be counted on.

Same point as my first - discrimination that encourages inclusivity is very different from that which encourages exclusivity. Where quotas wildly differ from proportional representation they clearly need to be realigned, and a certain amount of response to demand is also necessary (hence the Californian admissions system changes you tackle elsewhere).

No, but it levels the playing field in the given social gestalt - hence disproving claims of institutional prejudice. In my experience of life in Northern Ireland this does effectively diminish the feelings of bitterness within those communities that feel they have an historical disadvantage. It does not altogether assuage it - but it is the only way to effectively demonstrate a commitment to countering prejudice. This is the reverse catalyst I mention - because it provides a balm to the resentments of the disadvantages, and undue liberty taken on behalf of the advantaged.

Alleviate human bigotry? Should we compensate a race for what disproportionate evils have been done to them?

I am opposed to discrimination both for bigoted and noble reasons.

Subjective observation. If they wanted to do good they would not create this problem in order to fight it.

Well, if there are such injustices, we should eliminate them, right? Nobody is against equality here.
I btw. don't see what bad schools have to do with race. There are whites in bad schools, and there are blacks with privileged upbringings.
Can't we just be people?

Can we agree that treating people differently because of race is the problem? Or do you think that treating each others according to race is not the problem, but only if we do so i a negative way?

If the last presidential election showed me anything, it's that the guy got a lot of votes for being black. And any reasonable criticism was racism.

I hope so too, but what I'm saying is that the problems that affirmative action is supposed to fix are caused by it's side-effects. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as we divide Americans along racial lines for the right reasons, dividing them for the wrong reasons is not far away. The problem is dividing.

The UC admissions system is an example of how tinkering with social engineering usually backfires.
Humans can't correctly anticipate this, it can't work in my humble opinion.

Try throwing a coin 10 times, and tell me if the outcome is exactly 50-50. Racial make-up is just sometimes disproportionate

What you are referring to is in essence reparations. Tell me how far that should go. Should a racial group be compensated for disproportionate injustice that is done to them by other race groups?

Should we compensate a race for what disproportionate evils have been done to them?

I think a clear commitment to disowning such evils, assuring they will not creep back and attempting to mitigate their legacy is a level of compensation that leads to an equitable resolution without dramatically undermining the social or administrative order.

I am opposed to discrimination both for bigoted and noble reasons.

Oh that's intriguing (if not exactly a suprise), what are the bigoted ones?

The idea of a lesser evil actually seems to me to be conceptually beyond you, is this so?

Poorer schools tend to exist in poorer communities. The legacy of racism means that proportionally speaking african americans tend to live in poorer communities. Hence the link between schooling and race.

As I said I've no first hand experience of the US - but the fact that there was more to Obama's victory than "people wanted to vote for a black guy" is abundantly clear. One might think that blaming the Republican's defeat on the skin colour of the democrat, rather than the poor performance of the Republican candidate was a bit, you know, racist.

A minority clearly are divided and you obviously feel among them, I sympathise to a degree - but it is also quite clear that at the current time the American gestalt feel such policies result in greater inclusion and integration, or just don't really care either way.

What you are referring to is in essence reparations. Tell me how far that should go. Should a racial group be compensated for disproportionate injustice that is done to them by other race groups?

I am not myself certain of what exactly needs to be done by an authoratitive body in order to demonstrate that it is not institutionally prejudiced. Affirmative action seems to me to be the only method of doing so.

There was a comedian who during the election asked people in a black neighborhood if they were going to vote Obama, sadly I can't find it now. Of course they all said yes. So then he asked them if they agree with some of Obamas policies, and they all said yes. But he named McCains policies, that are diametrically opposed to the ones of Obama. But they said yes, we support Obama for these policies.

Hmmm... you're being purposely ambiguous, I think. You know where I'm driving with this.
Lets say whites are disproportionately the victims of robbery. Does the white race have to be compensated for that?

Let's have some benefits for people from bad schools, not because of race.
1. Get's at the real problem.
2. Doesn't divide people into groups.

He had the media on his side for being black, which pretty much decided the election (or some other reason).

The whole 'Palin is stupid' thing was an invention. They could have made Biden or Obama look that silly, but that would have been racism. Mainly because Obama never said anything, it was all just words. But that didn't matter.

And then there was the disapproval of Bush. That McCain was the absolute anti-Bush and Obamas policies were pretty much the same as Bushes didn't really matter, as long as the media didn't report on it.

There was a comedian who during the election asked people in a black neighborhood if they were going to vote Obama, sadly I can't find it now. Of course they all said yes. So then he asked them if they agree with some of Obamas policies, and they all said yes. But he named McCains policies, that are diametrically opposed to the ones of Obama. But they said yes, we support Obama for these policies.

And the authoritative body should not have to demonstrate that it is not institutionally prejudiced. What is that? Thought policing. Sounds a little too Orwellian to me.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was Hillary Clinton or Obama as the candidate for the Democrats. African Americans historically vote about 90% for the Democratic candidate. Of course, more African Americans voted rather than abstaining than normal due to Obama not being a white male, but to percentage distributions that is irrelevant.

I think so. Comparison between victims of robbery to insurance payouts, police time, cases brought to trial and other means by which society deals with burglary should demonstrate a proportionate response to demographics peculiarly affected in order to be effective.

School reforms are a part of the process.

"Or some other reason"?

Brilliant.

A little, but all institutions adopt a certain degree of accepted behaviourable norms. A clearly prejudiced regime, the Taleban for example, simply own up to their prejudices and order their ambit accordingly - with clear injustice arising as a result. I don't want to be party to anything of this ilk, and I don't want to second guess institutions within my society who may or may not be discriminating behind closed doors or with minimal tokenism.

At least you are consistent. We have to agree to disagree, I don't think compensating past evils makes any sense. And I don't think it is attempted except when benefiting certain groups.
And I believe that in the case of compensating racism it does not work. And we can't even be sure what racism is the cause of. Every poor black person is not poor because of racism.

What I meant was that if you want to give children from underprivileged backgrounds a heads up, why does that have to depend on race. Wouldn't it pretty easy to rate schools and grant an appropriate edge in college and job applications?

Nobody is discriminating, where do you get that from?

Fair enough on agreeing to disagree. However, I think you would misrepresent the argument if you were to claim that AA advocates suggest that every black person currently directly suffers from racism. This is about admitting to a legacy of long-term impediments to equal opportunity which is being assuaged by a system of checks and balances.

If the legacy of denying certain races civil rights were not felt to be part of the issue then this would be much of a muchness, but it is.

How do you know this? Are you denying the existence of bigotry? Is it beyond belief that there may be bigoted employers who might not hire people from demographics against which they are prejudiced?

How do we know what is the consequence of racism and what is the consequence of our reaction to it?

Isn't that just an appeal to majority opinion or authority or something?

Is that the fault of racism or the fault of our overreaction to it?