Perhaps an obvious question, but I can't give a precise answer. Exactly, why the idea of AA to increase the representation of minority group through methods is gaining prominence in recent times(*)? I mean, what reasons should motivate a society to increase representation of minority groups through methods like affirmative action?

Some thoughts I've had:

I thought about the "fairness" argument, but if we really get to the meat of it, we are all fundamentally different. The manifestation of race based differences are due to the different genes in people and the environment they grew up in. Taking the idea of affirmative action to the logical extreme, wouldn't society in the future have AA based on literally what genes a person has? This seems a bit absurd to me.

On this track, would we be compromising the quality of the candidates in the upper position as in attempts to give equivalent gene reservation, wouldn't we push those with worser genes ( chance for disease, lower cognitive ability) into upper position.

Eg: Let's say for example, would we also give people with some rare disease genes reservation benefits/ AA benefits so that they can also be represented in the system.

Note: I do 'feel' AA as a whole is a good thing, the issue is when we try to properly try to define concepts relating to it, and the edges of it's meaning.


Does Affirmative action really help in reducing inequality?

The following is linked since usually these underrepresented groups own lesser amount of wealth in the country:

Correlation between wealth and Academic performance?

  • 4
    As you know, Politics Stack Exchange is a Q&A site, not a debate forum. This question reads more like a prompt to start a debate rather than a question one can give a straight "correct" answer to. And the fact that the sections "Some thoughs I've had" is much longer than the actual question makes it seem like the questions primary purpose is to give the author a vessel to share their personal thoughts with an audience, rather than to receive information.
    – Philipp
    Feb 1, 2022 at 12:32
  • I do understand this is a touchy issue for many, but the idea of starting of a debate was not my intention. I wrote the section of my thoughts, because I've asked these question to other people and these were answers I received and rebuttals I came up with. The nature of the question/answer being felt as sharing of one's thought is inevitable on this site. As it's people who are writing question and answers and whatever is written by people inherit the biases of people. @Philipp Feb 1, 2022 at 14:27
  • People of the lowest caste of India are there because they do not receive the same quality of life and education as higher castes, because they are lowest caste, because they...
    – CGCampbell
    Feb 2, 2022 at 12:00
  • 1
    Technically speaking caste is based on Birth at the moment, not on economic status. However, yes, it is related to social capital as UCS own about more than 50% of wealth when they make up less than 35% of population. There was another question I asked which gave evidence for the fact that money determines education run, but, my question is this particular point completely ruled out? Is there anyway to know it's not true? @CGCampbell Feb 2, 2022 at 12:36

1 Answer 1


You seem to be under the assumption that minorities currently are not represented because they are inferior. When in fact it's because of discrimination (just looking at the supreme court, it's rather unreasonable to assume that white, Christian, non-Catholic men are vastly superior to women, non-white people, non-Christians, and Catholics, or indeed any other religions).

Combating this discrimination results in a larger pool of talented people to choose from, and thus increases quality.

Additionally, a diversity in representation will lead to a diversity in points of views, which will result in better outcomes as more views are considered.

For a corporate view on the issue, see eg here.

And of course, the fairness argument is rather valid.

  • 4
    What sense do you think I consider them inferior in? Suppose one takes everything you said as a given, it still doesn't explain the premise I put forward of people being fundamentally different and genes Feb 1, 2022 at 11:33
  • 4
    @Buraian "The manifestation of race based differences..." This in the original question. Fundamentally there are no significant differences between people based on their race. Certainly not to the extent that as a group they would choose or be less suited to any particular job.
    – Jontia
    Feb 1, 2022 at 11:47
  • 2
    @Jontia Would you say the NBA is engaging in pro-black discrimination, given its disproportionate percentage of black players?
    – user76284
    Feb 4, 2022 at 9:36
  • 3
    There are significantly better ways to have diversity of opinion like having people from different professions, political parties, or other things that matter more than race.
    – user35972
    Feb 8, 2022 at 6:27
  • 3
    Also, you're ignoring that women go into different fields besides politics because of their own interests rather than solely discrimination.
    – user35972
    Feb 8, 2022 at 6:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .