Laws are there to ensure that worst case scenarios won't happen. As for your assumption that someone less qualified would get ahead of a white male, I refer you to Frank's post.
Diversity is not the excuse. It's normal to assume there are bright talents among minorities and among women who would be discriminated against if not for affirmative action.
So a less qualified woman or minority should automatically be put ahead of a more qualified man/white just so we can make sure there is no racism? What a bunch of bunk. You're entire argument is based on assumption, which is a big reason why the 5 justices punted on this case. There's too much assuming in regards to race by people who act and think it's still the 1960's because it benefits them.
Statistically, It's obvious that there are qualified colored persons and women even more than quota required to be admitted based on merits alone. Affirmative action only makes sure that a racist staff wouldn't dismiss such cases on false claim that they weren't qualified. Plus, with Asians on the rise, white male is going to need affirmative action soon enough.
That's about 5th time you've used the "colored person" term.
Only pointing it out this time because you used what is considered to be the appropriate term for (what I figure you're talking about) people of Korean,Japanese, and Korean background.
When I meet people who use the "colored" term in this country, it's generally a person of a certain age and/or regional origin(South, deep South specifically)...and nine times out of ten they use "old school" terms when referring to other groups of people also.
I don't and can't speak for all Africans in the diaspora, and people define themselves using different terms...but "colored" ain't one of them....unless you're talking about American Black folks who are or 75 years of age or older.
