E: Oops, doublepost! Argh. 

Added: 
[quote=The Harbinger of Ferocity] 
I added this in post, but that question alone begs from me these thoughts, "Who determines what is or is not 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Who decides what benefits they need in particular?", "When does someone cease being 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Does someone who falls under multiple spectrums of 'systematic disadvantage' gain more benefits than those with fewer? Doesn't that put those people at their own disadvantage?", "What about those who are not 'systematically disadvantaged', what is their role? Do they need to take on the burden of other people? Is it by option or force?"
[/quote]

I think these are all interesting questions, and I'd be happy to hear what people think of them. There is definitely an easy distinction between minority groups who are disadvantaged because they have a physical disability or handicap in the literal sense. There are other cases which are more contentious. People who have a disadvantage because of things they cannot control, like their skin color or sexual orientation, for instance. 

[quote] the sake of understanding my character and thus my statement[/quote]

Personal character is irrelevant, I think.

I do think grants that help people who are disadvantaged (because of economic status for instance) are a great boon to society because they allow people who are gifted to better contribute. There is definitely a pragmatic basis for 'social justice' beyond morality.