1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.
I don't think that the policies to help those races should be targeting them by race though. The legitimate concern is that what happens to these laws as things do get better? You would have benefits coded into law for specific races, when do they disappear? And then what happens when there are people stuck in a similar location, possibly even neighbors, who aren't the right race to get the benefits?
The focus should be on the economic position the people are in. The issue being that the past racist policies have left the a disproportionate number of minorities in these poor conditions. Truly help the poor, you help the minorities, but in a way that could evolve to help anyone stuck in those positions rather than just specific races.
That specific case in Texas, where public colleges set aside enrollment for the top X% of any school, was the right way to go around doing it. Obviously that one was challenged too, but I think it has a solid reasoning behind it and would work well for helping those in poor conditions. Edited, Jul 15th 2014 7:04am by TirithRR