It doesn't, but you can't discriminate against white men.
/s
/s
There's legal and illegal discrimination.
Some forms of legal discrimination do amount to discrimination against White people.
When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.
Just crying out that "But.... but you said discrimination is wrong!" really isn't the 'argument' you think it is.
But it’s still a good argument to point out that discriminatory diversity policies are discriminatory. Because that forces those that advocate for them to lay out their justifications and also at what point the policy is no longer needed.
I’m not against affirmative action where it makes sense, but it’s a heavy handed policy and as such needs very good justification and constant re-evaluation.
Imagine if I were a minority doctor who benefited from this, my patients will always wonder if I'm less-than. Nobody wants to go to a cardiologist that was bottom of their class, so why instill that doubt and call it a leg up?
Like I said, this can be an overall good. For example, let’s say I run a small software shop where everybody is male. Now, it’s not likely that a woman would accept a job offer because of the environment. So if I were the boss I’d hold off on hiring until I can get three people at the same time and work hard to make all of them women, to the point I wouldn’t look at male applicants. After that the workplace would hopefully be more balanced and for the next hire gender wouldn’t matter.
Is this unfair towards the men applying? It absolutely is, and that’s why I would only consider this as a one-time thing for a clear and specific goal.
This is in the context of a small private company, I believe nationwide policies need specific goals and targets infinitely more.
Be that as it may, a reasonable person given the choice will not want the least of the smart people working on their heart. This is a scenario where someone can be the smartest person in all racial categories but the stigma will still exist because race X is known to be favored over race Y for reasons not pertaining to skill, merit, or knowledge.
I live in a former socialist state, and a combination of grades and standardized testing is calculated into a score in that score determines if you get accepted to a college or not. Colleges have no idea who you are, until you get an e-mail that you're accepted and come to sign in.
Anyway, surely you don't think legal discrimination necessarily moral discrimination? After all, Jim Crow was perfectly legal.
What I'm hearing from you, dendriti, is that slavery wasn't wrong when it was legal.
That definitely seems a hot take in 2022.
When you choose your gf you discriminated another girl that liked you.
When you choose another coffee brand also.
When you hire someone also.
Ppl who pay the cost should be able to choose.
Any solution forcing the party paying to choose what you would like them to choose without you paying the cost is, IMHO , plain wrong.
You do not date X bc you prefer Y (higher value). You do it with everything... we do it. It is just how things are... that you choose one over the other makes the other the not chosen side of the thing. So yes, in some way you can see that as discrimination (even if we do not give it political meaning, it is still)