So you&#x27;re telling me that it&#x27;s okay to tell someone, X, from group A that they are being disadvantaged in favor of someone else, Y, from group B because Y belongs to group B and because years ago someone, M, from group A unrelated to X disadvantaged someone, N, from group B unrelated to Y. How is this right? X isn&#x27;t responsible for any wrongdoing committed by M or others like M, so why should X suffer the consequences?<p>It&#x27;s fine to rectify past wrongs when X is responsible for the past wrongs, but guilt by identity association with M is absurd. I&#x27;m mixed-race mostly caucasian that immigrated to the US from South America in the 1980s but look vanilla white to most. Please explain to me what past wrong me and others like me are guilty of here?<p>I am aware and fully understand the purpose and anticipated benefit&#x2F;impact. A question worth asking is if those that propose a &quot;formula that rectifies past wrongs and undoes futures ones&quot; understand how that formula will produce present wrongs and foster unintended future ones? After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions[0]. You&#x27;re merely converting one system with inherent biases for another with inherent biases. That is a non-solution the problem[1] you purport to fix.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with...</a><p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.etymonline.com&#x2F;index.php?term=problem" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.etymonline.com&#x2F;index.php?term=problem</a>