Just as a Saturday morning amusement, let's consider this question. Who SHOULD be in the back of the bus?
By this, we mean what group should enjoy the lowest group status in our society?
We know that SOMEONE must be in the back of the bus, it is practically a tautology.
Just for fun, let's approach this from a utilitarian perspective---one familiar to the both the wielders and those under the scourge of Universalism.
Well, what are the downsides of being at the proverbial back of the bus?
The biggest one is that it hammers your position in the SMP/MMP. Women go for status, enough said.
The second is that having low status contributes to inflammation markers in the body.
Not much can be done about the second---perhaps in the future we'll see GMO humans that don't care as much about status, or perhaps when Jesus returns, everyone would be overjoyed to be even a street sweeper in His Kingdom. Or perhaps through meditation, we might develop such insane state control that we effortlessly transcend status.
But meanwhile, back in the world we presently live in, it will remain a major concern.
But look at the first consideration. There's an easy way around it. Any group that has a largely self-contained SMP/MMP will suffer FAR less from being at the 'back of the bus'.
So what does this imply?
Consider geeks---since they're largely competing with the rest of society in the MMP/SMP (female geeks being vastly less common AND willing to date/marry non-geeks), geeks did suffer much/continue to suffer some from the status hit they suffered more in the past/still suffer to a lesser degree.
But blacks, for instance, have always had a largely self-contained MMP/SMP. The black man around the 80th percentile among blacks in status usually got around an 80th percentile attractiveness black woman as perceived by blacks.
So, from a utilitarian perspective, it made excellent sense to relegate blacks to the back of the bus back in Jim Crow days. They were the group least injured by it.
Note that I am NOT a utilitarian. By this argument I'm simply humorously pointing out how inconsistent must purported utilitarians actually are. In practice it's just a contest of glibness when universalism is the hegemon of 'SHOULD'.
Notice how nobody these days argues about the flip side of their proposed increase in status---just what group would you like to REDUCE in status to balance your proposed increase.