Ivy,
If a higher qualified white candidate who's had every societal advantage and has never been the victim of institutional discrimination is compared to a supposedly less qualified minority candidate, but one who comes from the bottom of the social scale, has had to fight their way up the decades old manifested racial hierarchy and system biases, and has not been afforded the same opportunities as said white candidate, then who's actually more qualified? It's not as simple to discern when considering the entire scope of the candidate's background.
You said yourself back in post 723400 that racism does still exist, "But it's nowhere near the widespread institutionalized racism of decades ago." Even if that last part's true, you'd still have to admit atleast some form of AA is necessary, correct?
No, I don't admit it's necessary. Most blacks in the U.S. today haven't experienced "institutional discrimination, racial hierarchy, or system biases," despite what Sharpton, Jackson, and the average liberal thinks. This ain't the 1960's anymore pal. Just because a candidate is white, it doesn't mean they've had "every societal advantage" any more than a black candidate hasn't. There's more of an argument to consider socioeconomic status in college applications but not race. And if we are going to consider race, then we can't bitch about blacks getting more traffic stops or Middle Easterners being profiled at the airport.
