Konstantin Yanovskiy

• Occupation: Director of Shomron Center for Economic Policy Research (Israel)
• Affiliation: Center for Economic Policy Research
  
• Address: Israel, Karney Shomron

Sergey Zhavoronkov

• Occupation: Senior researcher, political economy and regional development studies department, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy
• Affiliation: Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy
  
• Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

Advocates of the war against discrimination and supporters of affirmative actions claim it is necessary to set up additional regulatory procedures that will defend interests of minorities who, previously, were not given enough chances to succeed. Because there is no set clear definition of a minority who suffered from discrimination in the past (Historically Excluded Groups [HEGs]), law-enforcement practices are to a large degree dependent on precedence (judicial authorities) as well as on the discretion of bureaucrats who have the authority to defend people against discrimination. Incentives of the bureaucrats and the true criteria for selected minorities choice for special protection of thereof, to be analyzed in this paper. Analysis of the enforcement practices in the USA, as well as statistics of EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, that is a kind of specialized attorneys / public prosecution office) support the hypothesis that the main anti-discriminatory activity aims to mobilize groups who traditionally voted against a limited government, to vote for a Nanny State that provides cradle to grave care. Some cases raise a grave Doubt about “moral” claims of antidiscrimination and overall morality of campaign for affirmative actions and for selective “Justice” for the selected minorities.