It's virtuous because it acknowledges reality, and the reality is that society does not treat all groups equally, and that there are still systemic barriers in place. It also acknowledges that targeted campaigns working on relatively homogeneous groups are probably the most effective.

The point of the whole civil rights movement wasn't just to extend all political and economic rights on paper to the black population and then just leave it at that. The point was to extend justice and fairness to all Americans. Anyone who takes a look at the last 40 years of American History can understand that that has not happened.

Unfortunately, since the systemic barriers are both externally enforced AND to a degree internally self inflicted, any attempt to address some of the self-inflicted barriers will be "discriminatory".

Good job asking a loaded question in what was I guess your attempt at appearing rational. (In case you don't see it, its analogous to a reporter asking someone: "why did you murder and rape that girl behind the shed")

Racial discrimination isn't inherently bad. Doctors "racially discriminate" regarding certain treatments such as heart disease, hypertension, etc because of their disparate prevalence among minorities. So whether discrimination is bad depends on the context and whats being accomplished. "Discriminating" against whites and men (fucking laughable) in an attempt to create a safe and welcoming environment for a severely underrepresented group is a positive use of discrimination.

That's a question, not an argument.