So,
in my opinion, here's how Affirmative Action ought to work.
Minorities with similar or slightly better qualifications than non-minorities are sometimes passed up for jobs in favor of people with lower qualifications but who aren't minorities. There's a myriad of reasons for this, usually the bias isn't explicit/intentional, the brain just loves making assumptions about things that aren't relevant if it believes they are at some level. Like the whole 'resume with black vs. white sounding names'. Odds are most employers/hiring staff don't realize they're doing that, there's just a part of them that associates those names with criminal behavior, lower professionalism, etc. that just shifts their perspective on the applicant's qualifications; they're slightly more suspicious of neutral statements, less impressed by previous accomplishments, little things on the margins that result from just lower levels of trust that aren't really big enough to realize (you've got a lot of resumes to go through, after all).
So, there's a bias against minorities present. Affirmative action is an attempt to counter that bias with a bias in the opposite direction, to bring the system closer to equilibrium. Someone looking for work who might otherwise be passed over just because they don't really want to take the time when they have so much else on their plate (everyone everywhere is always busy with something, or bored
), now has to be considered. If an employer already considers everyone equally, then it does depend on the state in particular, but usually they don't end up with any issues. Maybe they get a sub-par employee here and there compared to not needing to deal with affirmative action (this is with the assumption of a fairly large pool of potential employees). Maybe a white person gets passed up now and then. But on the whole, it is intended (or should be intended) to counter existing bias and allow people to get closer to being considered based on their actual qualifications. It causes the total incidents of being passed over based on things other than your ability to be reduced. And at a societal level, it is necessary to think in utilitarian terms, not deontological terms.
Of course, there is an argument that can be made that racism in the past has led to reduced resources for minorities when going through school and etc. that leads to them having reduced qualifications, and that they could/would have been more qualified if they had those resources, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and also effectively redistribute wealth so that they have those resources in the next generation. Other side/different phrasing with similar conclusion: The systems by which we gain the credentials and qualifications which determine whether we hire someone are biased against them, so their actual ability is greater than what is implied by their listed credentials and/or qualifications. Which has merit in the 'is' section, I just have my reservations about the 'ought' section. I don't think hiring people preferentially based on minority status even if they're less qualified (and this argument obviously works mostly for minorities who are just a bit less qualified than their non-minority counterparts) really helps that as much as the argument assumes it does? The second phrasing/argument is more valid to me, in part because how focused society has become on credentials is pretty dumb and also costly, but it still seems like solving the problem from the wrong end to me.
But yes, equality is about lifting everyone up to the same level, not flattening it out downwards, whenever possible.
And yes Asians are discriminated against because they a. do well enough on their own not to need or be considered deserving of protection(basically they aren't really considered people of color; for example, look at articles about silicon valley's lack of diversity and then you look and realize they're lumping asians and caucasians together for their definition of diversity), b. are often conservative, in older generations, which means they don't really form that much of voterbase for Democrats, and c. there's barely any of them compared to other minority groups which honestly is probably the biggest factor. 4.7% of the United States population is Asian, compared to 12.2% African American, and like one in six people in the US identifies as Hispanic or Latino.
@Powder Miner, Re: rights of individual: I agree, I'm also interested in the rights of the individual. I think the rights of a greater number of individuals would be protected with intelligent Affirmative Action policies than are restricted by them, in practice. Unfortunately, well-executed policies are hard to come by, and figuring out the appropriate level of Action to take in order to get closer to the equilibrium mark is hard to find. The government must be run for the greatest good of the greatest number of it's people, whilst still attempting to maintain the principles of equality, justice, and fairness. There are so many people it has responsibility for and authority over that it is the only way it
can be run and be effective.
Basically I disagree with UrbanGiraffe on the use of Affirmative Action at a fundamental level. *shrug*