Kim C, gosh. Golly. Because "not supposed to matter" is not the same thing as "ISN'T GOING TO MATTER" just because we get rid of AA. It will, it does, you can test it, you can prove it. And by a much wider margin than AA begins to balance. You can show it back to people who made the decisions that they will hire an underqualified white person before a qualified black person, and there's always a non-racist or quasi-rasist-not-that-I'm-a-racist rationale, but there it is. It's not better because it's cold-blooded, and everyone knows to say the right thing. In some ways I think it's worse. I can see this is pointless, but--aigghyh.

Forum Lurker, please please please. One difference in racial discrimination is that AA is there as a stated bias, a policy of racial discrimination, yes it is, and you can see just what it is and who it's for. But ask yourself if you've ever known a non-minority who with no such stated, obvious, and open bias working for them, who got into college or got a job and seemed underqualified. Never? Then never mind, go with what you know. That's what anyone has to do. But if so, hm, how does that happen? I've known non-minority people who got in and graduated and got jobs and still seem underqualified to go in the first place. Are you considering the whole picture? Does the question seem too easy? Too obvious? it's racial discrimination, and isn't that "supposed" to be wrong? Isn't race "supposed" to not matter? as Kim C keeps petulantly asking like an adorable naive six-year old. The answers seem to me very childish, vain, silly, careless, thoughtless--and some quite grown-up sophisticated and insane.