I think the start to answer this question is actually giving the context for each quote, because in this case it is misleading not to do so. I believe this is true because the spirit of these quotes is a continuity of a principle, not direct contradiction. In fact, they could be considered in agreement (perhaps).

Roberts in Parents Involved: "For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Kendi in How to Be An Antiracist: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, 'You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."

The site's question format has a severe word limit (and the description space beneath a question risks boring folks if it is too long), so thanks Brett A. Diaz for providing fuller context-setting beyond the complete sentences I initially provided. Methodologically, more context is always a good thing. However, I am more interested in the ideas than in those who expressed them, so I could trim the names without loss.

Philosophically, the claim that we are confronted with, as you say, "a continuity of a principle, not direct contradiction," is quite contentious.

Do we really want to say that the fallacy of two-wrongs-make-a-right is admissible/permissible temporarily, until we (somehow and at some undefined point) deem that one particular wrong disappears? Can we not see how dangerous -- and self-defeating -- such an exemption for the sake of utopia is?

Of course, to see those dangers, one must have some familiarity with history. As the historian Niall Ferguson explains, to understand the human condition, one must broaden one's window beyond the 7% slice of humanity that is currently alive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufl-TIp4KuQ

Even comedians can see the parallels between today's social justice militantism and the mob hysteria that led to past atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysKhJ1U-vM

Our best story-tellers have a clearer grasp than our academics that two wrongs don't make a right. When Batman resolves to combat the bad guys, the first thing he does is toss his gun in the water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U45yQGwFmqQ

Heeding the moral conveyed in this modern-day myth, I submit that, if one truly resolves to fight evil, one resolves to never do the very evil one purports to fight.

Discrimination is wrong? Show me what you do and I shall tell you what you truly believe...

I thus side firmly with the latter statement in my titular question, irrespective of who voiced it and in what context.

I could be convinced that two wrongs don't make a right quite easily. The trouble though is that anti-discrimination policies are not a wrong.

So, while yes you could strip the names from the ideas, I think that would still be misleading. Kendi argues strongly that anti-racist discrimination is largely about policy management and the reduction in race-based harm that results, by the use of policy instruments. Roberts, in his opinion, echoes this exact maxim. Where there was not race-based discrimination (leaving aside the veracity of this view), then no anti-racist discrimination is needed. Where there has been, it is inappropriate to merely erase the discrimination and act as if nothing has happened. Rather, similarly strong anti-discrimination must be leveraged to restore equity. That is not two wrongs. That is one wrong righted.

Both the public figures you cite (Ferguson, Maher) are provocateurs and apologists, with strong bents for misrepresentation to suit their needs, and no small amount of racist pandering. I will not even address the Maher's points. With Ferguson, leaving aside the abject and amateurish bias of the "interviewer", this is unchallenged grandstanding. Ferguson, while well-spoken, impels us to believe that "woke-ism" does not engage in rational argument, is a cult, etc. There's no actual analysis here. It's just incendiary claim after incendiary claim. It's plenty effective rhetorically to repeat the same thing, and to make false equivalence by simply calling up events in history. Take for example his assertion that "woke-ism" is not directed, with 'superficial resemblance' to Marxism, who 'denounce professors online'. I laugh at this because the entire post-Alexander II rise of liberal, narodist, and eventually Marxist thinking occurred entirely by the 19th century equivalent of hot shit bloggers with nothing to lose. He also continues the North American trend of stridently denying that race operates as a class, and thus class conflict.

He further misplaces the challenge to totalitarianism as if revolutionaries must be LED by totalitarian thinking from which they want to escape 'right in the middle of a free society'. What a strange switcharoo. He then goes on to make critiques of the costs of free societies, then claims that the West's 'set of ideals and institutions' with an 'organizing principle [that is] individual liberty' (simply asserted). He (in this same segment) announces that the achievements of prior generations are being 'thrown away' and 'taken for granted'. This is absolutely poisonous, atavistic rhetoric. Either people are engaging in free thought, regardless of the source of direction, including the potential to challenge the institutions that he so cherishes, or they are not in a free society. There cannot be the latter without the former. But I digress.

Sharper analysis, as was offered by your original quotes, squarely issues something more like the following: the institutional achievements of the past ought to continue to be revised toward a better, less-discriminatory environment. The oversights and consequences of discrimination in the past, ought to be remedied with force rather than held up 'because it cost them something.' When discriminatory (whether racist, socioeconomic, imperialist, classist, whatever) policies, claims, practices, and so on, are sensed, they ought to be challenged. The sharper claim, from my vantage point, is not "two wrongs don't make a right," but that these are grounds for better challenging practices, brought to bear against the old. The comfortable may be discomforted, but I would argue that the 'free society' that is appealed to in these screeds also caused discomfort to the comfortable. The people making these claims are simply surprised to find that they are now the uncomfortable ones - not that those causing the discomfort are wrong.

Just in case the issue looks too theoretical: https://financialpost.com/opinion/ontario-human-rights-tribunal-discrimination

What is a remedy, and what is discrimination? Defining those terms easily leads to a loop. So there are at least two types of discrimination, one the cure of the other. One could argue.

We have seen the people's rights movement to eradicate all discrimination. In the following years, we still encounter differences in comparing groups of individuals of the same race. We, therefore, have to induce negative discrimination to accelerate the reduction in differences. This follows the idea that there is no observable common trait of individuals that share a certain race comparing them to ones of another race.

We conclude that individuals of all races could perform equally well without obstacles. We have to remove the obstacles.

The problem with the statement is that discrimination in the future can become present discrimination, and the discrimination will eternalize.

A good way to argue is that discrimination is a continuous process that can not be changed infinitely fast. Removing a law slowly stops the discrimination that was caused by that law. This process can be accelerated, but those measures still lack the same time. A false set of "counter" discriminations will eternalize discrimination. So both statements are true, and the question is: are the observed differences so severe that we have to counteract them, and what are the least influential measures to use?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFpUjyM0orQ