This isn’t unique, just this particular news article happened to spur me to write about it.
Austin Top Cop Art Acevedo said:
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said increasing diversity in APD’s top ranks starts by recruiting more minorities for starting positions.
He spoke at the African American Resource Advisory Commission on Wednesday.
He said getting more minorities to join APD is just the first step.
So they need to recruit more minorities. In order to do that, you have to single people out based upon their ethnic background.
But I thought singling people out based upon ethnic background was bad and wrong?
Stuff From Hsoi 
Discriminating AGAINST people based upon ethnic background is bad and wrong.
Discriminating FOR people based upon ethnic background is debatable and, at best, tricky to do well. But I’ve never heard it called bad and wrong.
But it is bad and wrong. It’s just not politically correct to say it’s bad and wrong.
The thing is, what matters is selecting someone based upon appropriate criteria. So for instance, if you’re going to be making a movie about the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., you really need to cast a black male in the role. Casting an oriental female just won’t make for a very believeable role… unless for some odd artistic reason that’s precisely what the role needs.
So let’s take the case of the Austin Police Department hiring more officers. What does being of some particular ethnic group have to do with being a cop? OK, maybe it might help to deflect the constant accusations of racism because now it’ll be only black cops shooting the black gangbangers or Mexican cops shooting the Mexican gangbangers. But of course, that’s a poor reason to hire (but I wouldn’t be surprised if such a thought cross their minds… at least, if you know what APD has been through in this regard). But seriously… there are only so many available slots to hire for. So shouldn’t they hire ones that have the skills directly applicable to the job? That know the laws? that know the policies and procedures? that are physically fit? that know how to handle their tools (gun, baton, etc.)? That the candidate is male or female, black or white, that matters in no way towards the ability to accomplish this job (male or female MIGHT, but only because of biological realities… but I’ve seen some really strong and fit women and some really pansy men, so really gender isn’t the issue).
So when does “discrimination” (in the racial-sense of the word) come into play? When you start applying irrelevant criteria to the task at hand. To discriminate against Lucy Liu for the role of Dr. King isn’t based upon irrelevant criteria. To discriminate against someone for a police job because of their skin color… yeah, that’s irrelevant criteria, and that’s where problems start.
It’s even bad to “discriminate” for something. For instance, people that get something because of status or position… e.g. because their parents have money or pulled a favor. The criteria was irrelevant to the task.
So in the end, painting “discrimination” for or against as a good or bad thing isn’t so cut and dry. Sometimes it’s a very good and sound thing to do, and sometimes it’s not. But in general what matters is the appliability of the criteria to the task.