I have struggled with this dichotomy for many years. I still feel that "affirmative action" is inherently discriminatory. But I too can offer no alternative to foster change. Considering the circumstances http://www.samefacts.com/2012/04/msm-mainstream-media/womens... I reluctantly accept that the end justifies the means.
Affirmative Action[1] is not discriminatory, but it is inherently _exclusionary_.
Discrimination:
> the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex
Is Affirmative Action unjust? No, it is justified by the vast wealth of research backing it and pointing to its success in changing the status quo towards a more equal environment.
Is AA prejudiced? No, because prejudice is about not being based on reason or actual experience, and AA is very specifically based on both reason and past experiences.
Being left out of a group that is openly being exclusive may not feel right or sit well on your mind, but that doesn’t inherently make it a case of discrimination. AA can be an exclusive treatment based on gender, but it is neither unjust nor prejudicial, thus it is not discriminatory.
Hope that helps clear up the distinction for you! :)
[1] This is partly why it is no longer called “Positive Discrimination”—because that term is inherently oxymoronic—and instead is known as "Positive Action" elsewhere.
I'm thinking I'll probably have to accept the same. I can't rightly argue against it unless I can offer up an alternative, and the need for change is significant enough.
I'd feel a lot better about it if it were at least acknowledged as such by the class it promotes, though.
