raveneye, while i don't disagree with your sentiments about the biology of race (i in fact agree with you), but it still stands that people make differences based on what they see, i.e. phenotype.
while the philosophical argument of what race is or isn't, or does it even exist, is a great topic... it does nothing to answer the question of necessity of affirmative action programs. if anything, it says that race doesn't exist, and thus affirmative action programs shouldn't exist... but women and minorities will continue to be shunned and exlcuded from certain arenas.
i said it earlier in the thread, and i'll say it again:
the simple fact that a man like george w. bush can graduate with a c average, attend business school at harvard, become governor after many failed business ventures (oil, getting rid of sammy sosa), and then become president shows, in my eyes, that affirmative action programs are indeed necessary. getting into a post graduate school with a c average?!?!?!?!?! i don't think anyone can argue that it was anything but privelege that helped him get into business school at harvard.
i have a hard time imaging that a woman or a historically underrepresented minority could get into business school at harvard after having a c average in an undergraduate institution. should an affirmative action program change that. no. what it should do is allow people who have the credentials a seat at the table.
what many people seem to think is that affirmative action programs allow people who aren't qualified in the least bit, a position/seat at an institution. this is hardly the case. rather, people who tend to be ignored are now looked at.
are all administrators/board of directors/human resource managers/those in charge of hiring/admission committee members racist?!? i wouldn't think so. but are there things that may cloud their judgement/taint their view? sure.
for instance, the university of chicago and mit had a study using resumes, those with unique names/names typically associated with African-American names, and names that seemed to be culturally/racially neutral... the outcome was that even though the resumes were the same, people in positions of power tended to choose the resumes with culturally/racially neutral names (1/10 name neutral resumes received a response versus 1/15 of racially/culturally associate names)...
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
http://boston.bizjournals.com/kansas...s7.html?page=1
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...03dnews-01.asp
http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/...rimination.asp
were those in charge of hiring racist? were the decisions unconscious?
the study's aim was to see whether or not there was a difference with just a name... and it seems quite clear that there is a difference, at least with hiring employment.
one can only imagine what occurs with admissions to college/universities.
edit: here's the paper in pdf format:
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf