&gt; it implies that group x or y&#x27;s work isn&#x27;t good enough to compete on it&#x27;s own.<p>I think this is a common misunderstanding. It assumes that the judgment to hire is on merit.<p>The assumption behind affirmative action is different; it&#x27;s that the judgment has been based on race and gender, and on the network of those in power (which, due to prior discrimination, is of one race and gender). I think that is much more realistic than the meritocratic model:<p>* If there wasn&#x27;t discrimination, why would 33% of the population (white males) still hold the great majority of power, wealth and opportunity. Certainly we know discrimination has been widespread and still is in many places.<p>* We all know that &#x27;who you know&#x27; and networking is far more important than &#x27;what you know&#x27; when it comes to getting jobs, business deals, getting into college (consider children alumni and big donors), etc. The current network, due to historical and current discrimination, is mostly white males.<p>On that basis, choosing the best minority options improves quality. For a simple but imperfect example, think of the integration of baseball: Before 1947, black and Latino players weren&#x27;t allowed to play in the Major Leagues.[1] At that point, if you hired the best excluded players based simply on the fact that they were excluded, would you improve your team? Certainly; there were Hall of Fame level players that were excluded, and the players they would replace, the ones you would fire, would be the guys at the bottom of your roster who would have been minor-leaguers if not for the discrimination.<p>[1] And after 1947, it took 20 years or more before the opportunity to play was equal. At the end of 1947 only 2 non-white players played. It took until 1959 for the last two teams to integrate. From what I&#x27;ve read, if you were black and hit like an all-star then you could find a job. If you were an average hitter, they would take the white guy.