Affirmative action in college admissions and hiring has been a thing at least since the early 90s.
1969 iirc for college admissions and federal government contracts (and maybe federal government hiring).
Interestingly, the 90s are when some states, like California in 1996 (prop 209), banned affirmative action in admissions.
So your belief is that affirmative action in college admissions is the defining factor in race inequality, even though the vast majority of the structural disadvantages happen much younger?
Remember that this is the American society that upon integration decided over and over again they'd rather fill public pools with cement than have them shared between white and black children.
You don't believe those same barriers carried over to housing and schools? You just ignore the data and massive, persistent wealth gaps?
What did the white child do to deserve this? How much better could they possibly be at drooling and crawling to have so much more wealth available to them?
So I guess your belief is that household wealth has no impact on children?
Ah, the fallacy that everything you receive from your ancestors is undeserved. Will we be doing race-based asset appropriation tomorrow, comrade?
I think I'm not interested in discussing this with someone holding such a position which I consider completely deluded.
Is there an intelligent argument that some infants are more deserving than others?
Does it still rightfully belong to you?