# Most of these policies are illegal, though this isn't widely recognized

### Here's why:

There's some added complexities here that Matthew's answer hasn't addressed, especially in the meanings of words like *group* and *disadvantage.* Lets focus on the latter of the two and proceed by way of example.

Suppose the evidence suggests that the members of a particular group are under-performing at a particular discipline. But suppose the evidence also suggests that they are being actively discriminated *in favour of* in that same discipline. The question arises: are the members of this group at an advantage (because they're discriminated in favour of), or at a disadvantage (because they're under-performing)? [This seems to be the case for women in science, for example][1].

Ergo, since the language is vague, it's thus an unfortunate fact of life that the legality of such things mostly depends mostly on the politics and broader zeitgeist within which the case is heard. Left-leaning judges will tend to decide that the members of the group under question are at an overall disadvantage, despite discrimination working in their favour, and will thus tend to hold that such discrimination is lawful, while anti-left judges will tend to decide that the members of the group under question are at an overall advantage and thus that further discrimination in their favour is unlawful.

Based on the above comments, discrimination in favour of such groups will tend to be regarded as lawful in the current intellectual climate. But in my opinion, common-sense dictates that left-leaning definition of disadvantage upon which such decisions are based doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, and as time goes on and society cycles through different worldviews, I think that a consensus will eventually emerge that the anti-left conception of disadvantage makes by far the most sense. Therefore, I consider it likely that the judicial system will ultimately begin to rule that such affirmative action policies are illegal. Indeed, I think judges will eventually declare that these kinds of policies were always illegal, but that this simply wasn't recognised at the time for political reasons.

  [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360