In the racial discussion there has always been this disdain for affirmative action based on so-called "principled objections." With respect on this matter, there is very few people, on this board and outside of it that live by the ideology of principled-conservatism--that is, "the contemporary argument over race at its core, is a political argument." Without getting heavily involved in whether who agrees or disagrees with affirmative action, I will say (in my opinion) that most opponents against the idea, of what researchers would call "general group-dominance" which means that societies tend to be organized as hierarchies of groups, differing in power and status, and politics is a competition between groups over scarce material and symbolic resources, and that dominant groups often rely on a variety of collective representations (e.g racism and individualism). Most often people here say "why can't they get in on their own merit?" What is merit? How do we define merit in a corporate world where "one hand washes the other?" What about the Bernad Madoffs, and others who have made gains off others? Where is their merit? Despite how corporate chiefs attain wealth and power it is now revealed to us in a series of scandalous events, that getting into a particular successful position may not be based on merit. Within my own field there are those in the medical field that get into positions over others based on "who they know." There are some that get into college based on having a family member in office, despite having poor grades. There are women who have sexual relations with their Chief Operations Officer just to attain a special status in their field. None of the aforementioned has anything to do with merit, or demonstrable proof of their ability to successfully complete their designated task (or goal). As an adult now, I was always taught, "it ain't what you know, its who you know." Seems to me that getting into positions of power is not about what you know or how hard you work.