Please refer to previous discussion of this idea of "black privilege" some are saying in the forum. My problem with the examples has been that if you slap someone in the face and then give them a dollar, that's not a privilege, it's an undefined net thing.
You must have a strawman factory in your basement, given the number of these threads you've started.
No, being given money for actually and personally being wronged is not a "privilege". However, being given money just for kinda sharing some physical features with other people who were wronged is a privilege. This is especially true, when tons of other people actually did get wronged don't get any money because they don't have the "correct" physical features and therefore any wrongs against them are discounted.
Show me an affirmative action policy that states "People who have been personally wronged are especially encouraged to apply." No, they say things like "Minorities and other under-represented groups are strongly encouraged to apply." They mention nothing about being wronged or any actual personal relevant quality of the applicant, only what group that person can be categorized in based upon skin color or ethnic background. And while encouraging more applicants is not itself a privilege, actual AA policies go much further and use race a deciding factor. As all the mountain of data on AA policies at Universities shows, this usually means that people with objectively lower qualifications that predict worse future performance get privileged due to their race over others with greater qualifications. This is the only way we would get the result we do where accepted black applicants have notably lower high school gpas and test scores than white applicants that get accepted. Unless there are zero whites getting rejected, that could only happen if whites are being rejected for blacks withe objectively lower qualifications. Those who belong to certain categories get special privileges, even when that means a person who was not personally wronged gets a privilege at the direct expense of another person who has been personally wronged (such as a white applicant who got better grades despite coming from lower SES, a worse school, an abusive homelife, etc.).
No, it is generally not a net gain in privileges to be black. It is a net loss on average. And yet there are still instances of some blacks getting privileges just for being black, and this coming at cost of direct harm to some whites who have had it no easier and occasionally worse than the black person who got the privilege. On balance this happens less often than the reverse, but those instances do not occur with the deliberate endorsement and backing of government. Every instance of racial privilege is an injustice with individual victims and that erodes the principles of fairness. Injustice is not corrected by additional injustice. And principles of fairness actually most protect people in groups with less power. So, even injustices intended to benefit members of a minority group (aka, affirmative action) actually will cause greater injustices to members of those groups in the long run.
It is true that blacks on average experience a disproportionate amount of injustices and hardships. But the answer to that is not simply treat race as a proxy for hardship, which is what AA does and in itself will cause injustice and hardship. The answer to directly take into account actual hardship with more direct measures of it (e.g., such as parental income: have students submit their parents' tax return if they want to be given special consideration). This will indirectly wind up helping a higher % of blacks than whites (which is all most leftists seem to care about), but will also target that help toward the blacks that most need it while also helping others who need it too. As an added bonus, it won't give white racists the cover for their own discrimination that AA does by having public institutions openly endorsing racial discrimination.
