From the Wikipedia page on Affirmative Action, there's a quoted selection of misconceptions of AffAct opposition:
Scott Plous said:
- One cannot hope to create a color blind society by practicing color blind policies since such policies put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance color blind seniority systems tend to favor white workers against job layoffs, since senior employees tend to be white.[4] The point being existing imbalances in representation tend to perpetuate themselves in the absence of affirmative action.
- While a few studies claimed that affirmative action undermined the self-esteem of women and minorities,[5][6] more recent studies and public opinion polls have indicated that such is not that case[7][8][9]
- The claim that one cannot redress one form of discrimination by introducing another is a play on words that uses the same word "discrimination" to refer to two different things. Racial, ethnic or sex based discrimination is often based on unfounded, often irrational and deeply ingrained prejudices. Affirmative action is a response to a statistically observed inequity in representation, reproducibly demonstrated by social scientists in many societies with a history of discrimination.[10][11]
- Some opponents of affirmative action believe the practice implies the preferential selection of unqualified candidates over qualified candidates. But in fact, most supporters of affirmative action oppose such preferential selection and instead prefer preferential selection among equal or comparable candidates.
a) The problem is that the implementation of AffAct policies is then not dealing with problems of racism but simply punishing the majority for being in the majority, which is not conducive to a colour blind society either. The only place where people should be protected is if, to keep the same example, senior executives are being selected because of a racist bias. If that is the case, then it is that racist bias that should be attacked, not anything else.
In fact, a seniority system actually increases the percentage of job losses held by the majority demographic in a given tier, because assuming no deliberate bias, any given job loss within a tier will be more likely to remove a majority than a minority.
If you're not comparing like with like in terms of the jobs being lost, you are misconstruing your statistics. Consider instead the argument that in a recession, you should cut down on senior executives from one company but force another company to keep their mechanics. It's equally ridiculous.
To use affirmative action to beat seniority methods is just hiding any racial bias, and not dealing with it.
b) The fact that most members within the minority are not offended, does not mean it is any less patronising. Patronising with a benefit attached is still patronising, just like how running into someone's formal dinner and yelling "YOU'RE ALL CUNTBAGS" is crass even if noone at the formal dinner is upset. Things aren't entirely defined by the way they are perceived.
c) Even if you take the discrimination as two separate meanings, the argument still stands as "You can't beat X by introducing Y." The fact that Y isn't the same as X does not make Y any more of a useful solution.
d) I'm totally fine with that opinion, and I am a supporter of that premise where relevant, and most opposition to AffAct would probably agree with it too. The problem that is complained about is that regardless of what the supporters actually support, the implementation of AffAct is, in some/many cases, NOT reflecting that opinion but instead allowing benefits to compensate for otherwise underqualification.