Equity of outcome, yes, but not opportunity; massive distinction.

No this is about equality of opportunity. The point is to make sure everyone starts off on the same foot. That takes time.

I hate this ruling as well, but there is nothing racial about it. Commiting a crime is a choice that has nothing to do with the color of your skin. When a warrant is put out for your arrest you haven't committed a crime. And its statistically true that black people are arrested disproportionately more than white people for similar crimes, and are similarly convicted.

Again, you are talking about outcomes. These policies aren't racist; meaning, there is no mention of race in them. They negatively affect people with a lower socio-economic status.

I'm not talking solely about outcomes. The policies are racist because the means by which the outcome is achieved is dripped in systematic racism. That's what is happening here too. Your problem here is with the means of affirmative action (since you don't seem to have a problem with the end goal of diversity or solid minority middle classes). This is a means that uses race to achieve an end. These other policies use race to achieve and end as well - they just do it systematically.

And here is your source: http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html. Note: this is a harvard study sponsored by the Buruea of Economic Research. I don't know how much more legit you get than that. This is a study that focuses on call backs. Other ones that have focused on hiring, interviews, and salary have the same result.

The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller.

"While one may have expected that improved credentials may alleviate employers' fear that African-American applicants are deficient in some unobservable skills, this is not the case in our data," the authors write. "Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability."

Further, discrimination levels are statistically uniform across all the occupation and industry categories covered in the experiment. Federal contractors, sometimes regarded as more severely constrained by affirmative action laws, do not discriminate less. Neither do larger employers, or employers who explicitly state that they are "Equal Opportunity Employer" in their ads.

Just because a policy doesn't say "hey its because of the color of your skin" doesn't mean that its not because of the color of your skin. We can hide from it all you want, but this is the same disparate impact case study as every other one - it is just open about it.