"Still has a higher chance of being hired, overall" is not being penalized.

Most state hiring boards (schools, colleges, administrators, etc) and federal contractors add points to minority, female, and veteran candidates--essentially a deduct from white male non-veterans.

That they are still winning with a handicap doesn't change the fact that they are being penalized.

The veteran one is the only one deliberately biasing things away from neutral. And shouldn't neutral total bias be the goal?

Fighting bias with bias is not as good as fixing root causes, but it works in more places.

Why not just do "blind auditions" like some of the orchestras?

Far less subjective compared to adding points when you have no idea what a person's back-story is.

Sure, go for it.

Lots of subjective hiring practices are terrible.

Because it's a false assumption that the "natural" distribution perfectly reflects the demographics of the population.

> Why should he be penalized for what someone else's grandparents did?

I'm not convinced that you're asking in good faith, but I'm going to try to be optimistic and answer anyway.

Most of us can agree that there are demographics who have been systematically disadvantaged and that we live in an economy where advantages are often passed from one generation to another. This cascading injustice is similar to a relay race, where cheating in the first leg of the race affects the outcome in the last leg of the race.

In a race you'd be able to disqualify the team that cheated regardless of whether all of the members were complicit, but we can't disqualify white people from the economy. It's also unacceptable to ignore the injustice, as it continues to perpetuate those disadvantages into the future.

Instead, the idea is to try to counter those disadvantages by focusing on inclusivity rather than optimizing for people who want to keep the advantages that they've inherited through injustice.

To answer your question: the things that you feel are being taken away from you were never yours to begin with.

There's a much more rational way to try and account for that though- your parents income/wealth. That's what actually determines whether you are a leg up or a leg down, so if you're committed to this type of equality Index on that. Skin colour is a pretty insane proxy! There are poor white people too, and you can't assume they "deserve it because their family failed" it's insane. And your metaphor that it would somehow be justified to "disqualify" white people is bonkers. It's about as logically valid as an argument that we should "disqualify" black people- without slavery they wouldn't exist (butterfly effect), but assuming they did their median income would be that of eg. DRC. Slavery is a bad thing so we should "reverse" the effects right? We're NOT teams. I'm not on "team white" and anyone, regarding of race who thinks I'm on it is on the opposite team, because my actual team is my beliefs.

I don't think that's a bad idea, but it would be difficult to capture a wealth index as well. Do you measure their current income? Total lifetime income? How do you measure social wealth, education, or even capital? None of this is simple.

I'm not claiming that all implementations of affirmative action are perfect, but I think progress is being made in the right direction. I think that moving to a system that took income or class into account could be an improvement, but I haven't seen enough research to have a strong opinion here. Maybe you could point me to a few resources?

> And your metaphor that it would somehow be justified to "disqualify" white people is bonkers.

I think you're confused. I said "we can't", not "we should" or "it would be justified".

> We're NOT teams. I'm not on "team white" and anyone, regarding of race who thinks I'm on it is on the opposite team, because my actual team is my beliefs.

You're responding to words I haven't said. Of course we're not teams, I didn't suggest anything of the sort.

Almost perfect post but your beliefs don't matter. They may help you maintain sanity in a chaotic world. Otherwise, your beliefs only matter if you have enough money to bribe a senator.

Your actual team, at least the one that matters, is your class. If you have to punch a clock to survive, you're working class. If your money works for you, you're investment class.

Most people (self included) can barely figure out what "justice" is going back 10 minutes. That is why we have judges and juries--not as a solution, but as a mitigation.

And here you have it sorted out for generations! Ponder that very carefully.

You’re being downvoted because your claim that white men are victims of discrimination is ridiculous and not worth debating.

It is not a claim. It is fact. I know guys at so many federal contractors (all very good at what they do). Every last one reports to a woman who is still working on her degree and can't do the work. Middle management is the obvious place for diversity hires.

>Every last one reports to a woman who is still working on her degree and can't do the work.

In situations where this is the case, these guys are more or less slaves, I would expect to see this exact same dynamic in ancient Rome