Did you know that according to the US Labor Department, the group of people that have benefited most from Affirmative Action since the 60's is actually white women? Here's a link from ACLU about it: https://www.acluok.org/sites/default/files/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Affirmative-Action-Mythbusters.pdfhttps://acluok.org/sites/default/files/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Affirmative-Action-Mythbusters.pdf
Secondly, Affirmative Action is what is known as "corrective legislation", meaning that it, as the name suggests, is legislation made to correct prevalent and preexisting… Read more structural errors, in this case: systemic racism and discrimination. Affirmative Action, admittedly just a bandaid solution to a larger problem, exists to attempt to correct for the disparities caused by racism and discrimination; it is BECAUSE there is racism and discrimination against minority groups in the first place that Affirmative Action is needed to step in and correct the disparity. Affirmative Action is meant to correct preexisting racism.
Thirdly, AA does not just "prioritize minorities based upon no foundation but the colour of their skin", it is (an imperfect bandaid solution) designed to assure that employers/recruiters/etc. cannot ignore qualified minorities and just select a bunch of qualified white guys. They still rely on the necessary qualifications and merits; it is not just pulling random minorities off the street to replace white people (which is an incredibly white supremacist argument).
Fourthly, even according to your own provided definition of racism, AA does not even fit that criteria, considering there is no prejudice involved. Even at the most basic level, enforcing regulations to tell employers they cannot just hire a bunch of white guys when there are plenty of other equally-qualified people is neither prejudiced nor racist...it is literally correcting the racism that is occurring.
Fifthly, yes, people should be hired on the basis of their hard work, merit, etc...but what happens if opportunities are not equal? Would that not create a disparity in who can afford certain qualifications, degrees, connections, etc.? If a certain group or groups are disproportionately disadvantaged, then how would you seek to rectify this? Personally, I would do something else other than AA, but I'm curious how you think we should solve an issue such as this..?
Sixthly, yes, of course you can commit an individual act of racism against a white person, the difference is simply that there is no structural racism against white people, because (along with "white people" not being a real racial group, as mentioned before) that kind of racism requires some form of structural violence against you, which white people do not have. No racism is good or okay, but to suggest that racism is the same against all groups is ignorantly and/or maliciously false.
Lastly, I will pose a question. As of 2022, the median white household income was around $81k and the median black household income was around $53k...so do you think this disparity is caused by intrinsic or extrinsic factors? If you think this disparity is caused by intrinsic factors, meaning that something about black people or "black culture" is inherently worse than whites, then you are definitionally racist; however, if you believe that this disparity is caused by extrinsic factors, meaning that there are factors outside of their control that cause a disproportionate outcome, then you believe in systemic racism, because that's what that is. So which is it..?
