|
The case you cite is one among many, and the explanation its hard to see at first glance...
IF the society where blind to race, religion or sex, having any sort of law that promote preferences will be not just unfair, but also useless.
IF the society its still struggling for equal rights for the different races, religions and sexual preferences, the laws will need ways to ensure not just the equality in the present, but specially in the future.
Minorities biggest problem was, and in some instances still is, the lack of opportunities, and to insure those opportunities some artificial improvement is needed, think of it as a way to promote a leveling.
This of course its not perfect or without faults, but its still one of the best ways I have seen or read about.
Think about the example you give, Jane Smith was given the 'upper hand' thinking in the handicap generated of years of desegregation, the schools she was able to attend where not as good as the ones John Doe had access to, this is done to allow the sons of Mr. Doe and Ms. Smith to get in the university in equal ground, without consideration of race, religion or sex.
The biggest problem with this kind of laws its to keep them in balance, how much should one group be benefit or not, or for how long, for those answers I just fall short, the amount of study needed, and the responsibilities that they will take are beyond any message board [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
|