> It would be one thing to set quotas that favor a group, it's another to exclude any group at all.

Any sufficiently low quota is equivalent to exclusion (ie a quota of 1 is pretty much like a quota of 0, which really means "nobody"). The very notion of quota implies exclusion (of those who are "past the quota").

> It would be one thing to set quotas that favor a group, it's another to exclude any group at all.

Both of those are illegal.

Affirmative action is definitely not illegal, regardless of whether it should or shouldn’t be.

Affirmative action literally means the opposite of what you think it means. It means that there will be efforts taken to ensure no discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, sex, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 etc

That’s a very selective and intellectually dishonest defense. That was the original law, then extended by Johnson and taken in a different direction altogether by future leadership.

The current Department of Labor on affirmative action [0] clearly paints a very different picture that more accurately reflects the current meaning:

For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans.

And here’s the dictionary entry for “affirmative action:”

efforts to make education and employment available to people who have traditionally been treated unfairly, for example because of their race or sex, by giving them some advantages over people who have traditionally been more powerful

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/affir...

[0]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact

How do you know what he thinks it means?

Not for jobs, but for higher education it is in a few states already. So there is precedent.