Finally, a racial preferences proponent admits, publicly, exactly what the policy is. James P. Sterba, author of Affirmative Action for the Future, says (emphasis added):
“Affirmative action is a policy of favoring qualified women, minority, or economically disadvantaged candidates over qualified men, nonminority or economically advantaged candidates respectively with the immediate goals of outreach, remedying discrimination, or achieving diversity, and the ultimate goals of attaining a colorblind (racially just), a gender-free (sexually just) and equal opportunity (economically just) society.”
Interviewed by InsideHigherEd.com, Sterba says, in so many words, that it’s okay to discriminate against white men doing well for themselves. This is called “good” discrimination. Any other kind is bad, bad, bad.
Regarding the “outreach” goal, affirmative action, as conceived, was about reaching out to people previously left out of the process intentionally (No blacks need apply) or unintentionally (those “We’re hiring” flyers weren’t widely distributed). The definition of this non-discriminatory practice expanded to the point of absurdity, until its new and proper name was applied: preferences, or lowering standards for certain racial minorities most of the time and for women some of the time.
The “remedying discrimination” goal is fuzzy and faces limitations. For instance, the Supreme Court contended in Ricci v. DeStefano that when actions intended to remedy past discrimination are based on discrimination, there must be a “strong basis in evidence” that the remedial actions are necessary.
The “attaining a colorblind” society justification for racial discrimination is plainly ludicrous. The argument is, we discriminated in the past, so if we discriminate in the present, we’ll end up with a colorblind society in the future. On what level does that make sense?
As I’ve said many times, colorblindness among individuals may be a worthy goal. Either way, it makes little difference to me. What matters is whether government policy is colorblind. Such a policy treats people as individuals without regard to race. Individual, private citizens may hold prejudices and biases for whatever reason, but those prejudices and biases are held in check by a government whose duty is to protect everyone’s rights.
An individual is free to think whatever he wishes about me because I’m black, for example, but neither he nor my government may interfere with me because I’m black.
It’s not rocket surgery.
Roger Clegg comments on Sterba’s interview. An excerpt:
“But even if you think there are some benefits to affirmative discrimination, one must weigh them against the undeniable costs of such discrimination, and of course there is no mention of them here: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves…it papers over the real social problem of why so many [blacks] and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership.”
The 
Voters in Westchester County, New York, kicked Democrat 
In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New Haven discriminated against Hispanic and white firefighters when it tossed the results of a promotions test. No blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotions, and the city feared disparate impact lawsuits.
