AA is not racism, it is a response to racism that encourages diversity.
Of course it's racism. Or, if you're an advocate of the more recent redefinition of the word, it is at the very least "racial discrimination". And I think it's a mistake to conflate the concepts of racism and diversity. Those really are two different things. While we can certainly say that racism will tend to prevent diversity, we can't say that a lack of diversity is the result of racism, nor can we say that increasing diversity decreases racism. They really are two different concepts.
Diversity in the workplace or college is a positive & should be encouraged.
Diversity, when it occurs naturally is positive. When it's forced in order to make the stats look better, is isn't.
Imagine you run a diner and have 10 different menu items. Now, you could certainly say that if your customers order each of those 10 items in roughly equal amounts, that this means that all your dishes are equally "good" (or bad, I suppose). Thus, you might desire to obtain that balance. If you had a certain dish that was not ordered often, you might want to look into why this is happening and correct it, right? But can we agree that the absolute wrong thing to do would be to force customers to order the dishes you wanted them to order in order to ensure that a diverse set of dishes were eaten?
You want everything to be equally desired and equally chosen. But if you take out the choice element, then you haven't actually accomplished anything at all. Diversity is a good goal, but it has to happen as a result of people's natural and unmanipulated choices. Otherwise, it's meaningless.
I believe race can be a factor when encouraging diversity in instances where other policies do not do a good job of doing so. Furthermore, any white person that honestly believes that AA is a form of racism is completely clueless about what it means to be a person of color in our society.
Of course it's a form of racism. The very fact that you seem to want to define racism based on the skin colors of those involved is bizarre. You're using the word "racism" because it has power, but are using it in a way which makes it meaningless.
Racism isn't as blatant as it used to be, it's hidden but has become ingrained within our society- you don't see too many klan rallies nowadays. Because of generational racism & white privilege, a white person is considered "safe" and a black person "dangerous". A white person who's in charge of things like loaning money for housing, is going to approve a white person more times than a black person who has the same credit due to things like this. The person approving or denying the loan may not even be aware of it. Same thing happens when a cop pulls over a black guy because he looks "suspicious".
I think that's subjective interpretation though. You assume this is the case, but do you know it? I find it unusual that you readily accept the idea that a white person might be making racist choices without even being aware of it, but can't accept even the possibility that you might be making that false assumption without being aware of it.
You're assuming rationale after the fact. When a white cop pulls over a black person for being "suspicious", you assume racism. You make note of it and look for the racism. But if the same cop pulls over a white person for also looking suspicious, you don't take note. Thus, your own assumptions taint your perceptions of things. Similarly, you assume the white banker refused the loan to the black person because of racism, but don't notice when he refuses loans to white people.
You're using selection bias.
The solution to generational racism (Besides reparations), is diversity. AA encourages it and I support it.
I disagree. I think diversity is the likely outcome in a society with less racism in it, but you can't force a diverse outcome and think you're solving anything. Doubly so if your method to do this requires that you yourself treat people differently based on their race.
Again, I'll always support policies that encourage diversity that do not use race as a factor over policies thatdo (Provided said policy actually increases diversity).
I think you are placing more weight on the symptom (diversity) than the methodology (racism, or racial prejudice if you prefer).
I don't think AA is racism at all and since racism in our society is mostly silent anyways (it's hard to get the bad guys when they're not wearing hoods), in a lot of cases all AA actually does is increase diversity. I can understand why a white dude passed over for a job might be resentful that it was given to a black guy, but simply by being there the office is more diverse - and not to mention less racist - than it was before which is a positive.
It may be more diverse, but it's also *more* racist. Because the office is basing its hiring policies on race. I think the problem is that you (and most people) have a blindness to this based on if the outcomes are what you think is "good", versus if they are "bad". If I believe that the best makeup of workers in my society is black folks working the menial low paying jobs, and white folks working the higher paying comfy jobs, then I might implement racist education and hiring practices in order to accomplish my "ideal" mix of society. If someone else decides that an equal mix is ideal, they might implement equally racist education and hiring policies. But it's still racist.
You've just decided that your social ideal is "good", and thus any method used to get there is good. But to me, the methods are what matter. It doesn't matter if your objective is to increase the number of black people holding higher paying positions, or to decrease that number. You're still using race to artificially influence the outcome. Diversity is a good outcome to strive for, but not if we lose the more important principles of equality under the law on the way there. Just like with my diner example, we should try to figure out why people aren't ordering one dish as much as another rather than forcing them to order them in the ratio we desire.