&gt; Is it?<p>Perhaps, perhaps not -- but your examples do nothing to counteract the idea that it is, as every single one of the groups you&#x27;ve mentioned is, in the US, significantly advantaged over the broader, corresponding group that is identically described without the &quot;white men&quot; or &quot;white male&quot; limitation.<p>Now, in many case, the system is <i>also</i> stacked <i>against</i> the class described in the other part of the descriptor, such that the intersection of that class with the &quot;white men&quot; restriction is disadvantaged compared to &quot;white men&quot; more generally.<p>But that doesn&#x27;t, in any way, change the fact that the system (in the US) is stacked in favor of white men.<p>&gt; Why is it OK to assume the system is stacked in someone&#x27;s favor?<p>There is a difference between &quot;conclude&quot; and &quot;assume&quot;.<p>&gt; How is that not prejudice?<p>If you assume in the absence of evidence, it <i>is</i> prejudice. If you conclude on the basis of evidence, it isn&#x27;t prejudice (because there is no &quot;pre&quot;.)