I don't deny that it happened and that it was wrong. What I said is that trying to make up for it using the same factor that was used is denying it is also wrong.
Your logic is just wrong because what you're doing is using the "Intolerance" argument that goes
"Its intolerant to be intolerant or intolerance"
No helping the people who were adversely affected by a policy is not a bad thing. Its an apology or sorts.
A weak one at that since AA isnt only for Blacks.
AA often IS only for Blacks. I, and 16 other non-Blacks were denied assistantships in our graduate school. 8 assistantships were granted. ALL to the only 8 Blacks who applied. And among those who were denied, were women, Hispanics, and Asians.
How long ago was that? At the inception of the initiative, some blacks(not all) were the beneficiaries of AA, simply because those are the blacks who grew up in an era of legalized discrimination.
It was 1977, so the people there, were mostly about 21 years old, so they would have been 8 years old when the 1964 Civil Rights Acts were passed and AA began (too young to have been victim of race discrimination. Well within the age to be race discrimination (AA) beneficiaries.
What about people at that time who were in their 30's and 40's and in their prime earning years and were passed over or denied opportunity because they did not "look like" the person doing the hiring?
A 21 year old in 1977 still had enough time to reinvent themselves and go on to be successful in spite of being passed over "because of AA."
I don't see how AA could have ruined your life as you say unless you just didn't have the right skill set to better yourself and move on
On a daily basis in this forum, people repeat over and over how great a country America is and how anyone can make it if they apply themselves, and I happen to agree with that fact.
If one door closes, one can wait for another to open, or they can open it themselves.