Is race and gender discrimination moral? From the perspective of Rawls's A Theory of Justice, discuss.

Rawls did not really directly address racial nor gender discrimination in his famous work A Theory of Justice. He was, of course, aware of these issues, and they could certainly be made to fit within his theoretical framework. The theory of justice outlined by Rawls was based on a thought experiment usually described as a "veil of ignorance." He asked the following question: If a person had a choice of how their society would be structured, and they were forbidden, by a "veil of ignorance," from knowing what their socioeconomic status would be in this society, what would be the characteristics of this society?
Rawls argued that a rational person would choose a society that did the best job of taking care of the least fortunate. This was because the person behind the "veil of ignorance" could not be certain that they themselves might not be among the least fortunate. Rawls did not really discuss the issues of race or gender in this formulation, but given the close associations between race and poverty, and the dearth of opportunities historically afforded to women, if race and gender were also obscured by the "veil of ignorance," it would make sense that a person would choose a society that did everything it could to prevent discrimination based on race or gender.
Rawls viewed "justice as fairness," and in his view, morality was fairly close to the same thing as justice. He argued that these had a rational foundation, and it should be fairly clear that neither racism nor sexism would have been part of a society founded upon a rational social contract. So racial and gender discrimination would not be moral under Rawls's theory of justice. On the other hand, as many critics have pointed out, the failure to discuss these issues in A Theory of Justice is a substantial and important oversight.
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01163932/document

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/