I do not think so. I still recognize the need for active correction, but now believes it was a mist

In South Africa (SA) money for 16 years had a policy of "affirmative action" (RA) ("affirmative action" or "positive discrimination") - discrimination based on race, gender and (non-) disability to ( the effects of) prior to rectify unfair discrimination. RA takes many forms. Appointments eg preference to applicants from the "designated groups" (blacks, women and the disabled) provides certain "targets" (minimum percentages of "previously disadvantaged") to try to get in order to escape penalty. In the public see the government itself that the targets are achieved - even if it means that some positions in the absence of suitable applicants from designated groups remains vacant. In sport pursued teams that reflect the country's racial composition.
The same applies suite life on deck to the award of scholarships and admission to prestigious fields. Some institutions require, as a prerequisite for admission, better school marks "previously advantaged" as "previously disadvantaged". Sometimes even within a designated group further distinction: In the generic category "black" from "Indian" applicants better results than "colored", and the latter better than "Africans" are required.
I myself suite life on deck was only a proponent of this. I still believe that, over a long time discriminated against groups, justice suite life on deck not served by simply stop the discrimination, because the disadvantaged have a backlog to catch up. Mean the end of racial discrimination, for example, not all of them are now in the same boat. Those who received inferior education, certain occupations not allowed to practice, could own property and to a limited extent had little political participation, it is more difficult to take advantage of opportunities, their potential and social contribution. A form of positive correction is necessary. So I thought RA on the basis of race, gender and disability (henceforth: RGG) is justified.
I do not think so. I still recognize the need for active correction, but now believes it was a mistake to base it on RGG categories. The arguments convinced me more. Discrimination on the basis of RGG in the SA Constitution rightly regarded as prima facie undesirable. The burden suite life on deck of proof lies with those who plead for an exception. Although critics of RGG-based RA not to develop alternative models of RA have not (like the defense in a lawsuit by an acquittal not have to identify the guilty), I, when I consider the arguments suite life on deck critically, yet alternative proposal.
The objections I RGG-based RA commander, does not focus on the disadvantages suite life on deck of "previously advantaged". From their (and my) perspective is indeed a case against to make, but what I argue is that, far more than the privileged minority, disadvantaged majority, who are supposed to benefit from RA to pull the worst is prejudicially . The gravest objection to RGG-based RA is not that it is "reverse racism", but that it already disadvantaged are further disadvantaged.
Justice concept that RGG-based RA defended is retributiewe (retributive) justice, with a deontological or duty ethics with it. The emphasis is on right and duty, and an abstract moral order. RA is the argument that people who applied based of RGG disadvantaged, receive, according to the same categories, benefit to the same extent. Who consistently executed, will also define the reverse: those based on RGG benefit, should be disadvantaged on the grounds. This consistency suite life on deck is rarely explicitly stated, but is sometimes suite life on deck implicitly present.
Seen that logic may be asked or RGG sufficient criteria. After all, not everyone in these groups are equally affected. Some blacks as rulers of former so-called black "homelands", and black police officers who suppressed the struggle helped collaborated with the former regime and materially benefited. Among the majority who are disadvantaged, some suffered more than others. There were whites who fought against suite life on deck apartheid and many had to sacrifice. A consistent application of retribusie would require that the degree of benefit that people deserve for every individual. This would lead to absurdities. Consider the fact that South Africans are not only disadvantaged by apartheid. How much debt which British which farmers, and how many may what Pedi still what Zulus claim?
Because suite life on deck earnings in retributiewe arguments play a role, it is a different form. Previously suite life on deck disadvantaged job applicants are sometimes unfairly not appointed - for example, if their curriculum vitae not reflect suite life on deck their abilities. Indeed, the fact that someone from a poor school in a slum his final year exams just pass, more talent, dedication and deurse