I understand that the redressing of past wrongs sometimes looks like reverse discrimination. Unfortunately, this view mistakes putting the bones of discrimination (based on race/gender/sexual orientation/religion, etc) for digging them up. There are two problems with this argument:
1. This approach removes Affirmative Action from its proper context – civil rights/ more equitable treatment of human capital; based on merit.
2. This approach confuses two different idiological perspectives, attempting to combine the results of ways of thinking that are so disparate, as to constitute polar opposites.
This is intellectually dishonest insofar as it tries to minimize the laziness of trying to sweep a socio-economic *obstacle to exploiting the full potential* of human capital under the proverbial rug, with aggressively attempting to eliminate economically .
This approach further insults the general population’s intelligence, by arguing that on this basis, no work has been left undone.
Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike – if pressed for a ‘non-soundbyte’ – cannot refute the inadequacy of the current state of affairs regarding socio-economic ACCESS alone. The figures for per capita GDP by race/gender are cause alone for suspension of arguments.
See for yourself:
(Try to think of the number of countries with [-] numbers as a macrocosm of the inequality seen between interest groups in the USA, for example). Interest groups and the corresponding Inter Governmental Organizations and supranational bodies like the UN would not be necessary if their truly were a more equitable playing field.
* * *
If you honestly think that there is ‘enough of a level playing field’ in the post civil-rights period, then you probably don’t know what inequality looks like. Consequently, this person might have an ‘equally’ difficult time even defining ‘equality’. It’s okay though, we’re all in this shell-game *together*; we all have our blind spots. Actually, that brings us back nicely – full circle – to why diversity is essential for solidarity.
“As I’ve often said… this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society
—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing.” – Alan Greenspan, June 2005