Okay, I'm going to go against my general belief of government and propose a weak defense of AA.

I believe that majority, but not a large majority, of people in the USA at this time believe that merit alone should be rewarded. Most people don't give a flip about skin color as long as the job gets done. Most of us celebrate people who do well by their own merit. It wont be too far in the future before we have a non-anglo president because it just takes a majority of VOTERS to be swayed by a good speech, attractive appearance and lots of money. We have proven that winning combination for several generations. A shift in pigmentation is not far off.

However, there is a large minority of people who do not want non-anglos to succeed. Many of them will do whatever it takes to prevent non-anglo success. Laws against that behavior are strong and vigorously enforced. But guess what: behavior is awfully hard to enforce legally if it is not understood morally. And people who morally believe in anglo superiority do not consider discrimination and bigotry as immoral.

Yes I know, bigotry is not limited to white people. But white people are in teh majority and also have the most wealth and power. So white bigotry is much more venemous for those reasons alone.

So I believe that until a whole bunch of old farts from my generation finally die-off, there needs to be some way to give deserving poor minorities an extra boost.

I agree it is unfair and is unconstitutional and causes resentment to maintain AA. The sooner we get rid of it the better. But not yet. Get the folks 55 and up into retirement or dead and there will be no reason to hang onto those laws.

B