The problem is that whether you think the difficulty in accepting race-based affirmative action is reasonable depends entirely on when you're talking about.

Between 1776 and 1964, I absolutely don't think it was reasonable to be opposed to race-based affirmative action. Four acres and a mule could be argued to be race-based affirmative action. Black people were, and many would argue still are, owed for the mistreatment they faced in America.

Today, the picture is a lot more complicated. But yes, the issue isn't raw numbers. If a greater number of poor white people benefit from affirmative action, that's to be expected in a majority white country. We're (or at least we should be) talking about proportions. And, as I try to point out in the article, we should be talking specifically about proportions of poor minorities as opposed to minorities in general.

Treating all members of minority groups as if their needs are the same is, well, racist, but also, likely to work against the people most in need of help. It's not that poor white men don't need and deserve help too. They do, and they should get it. But they didn't face a long-term, state-sponsored effort to hold them back. That's why there's the sense that more should be done to help those who did face that.