Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I know, right? It's like nobody is allowed to say anything positive about a group of people, such as Asians or Jews, who have admirable traits and behaviors that lead to success. Somehow, that's viewed as being racist. |
Anonymous
+1 (Some) Americans are crazy. |
Anonymous
| Kudos to Jews and Asians and everyone else who has done well in America despite difficulties and prejudice and discrimination. The key thing for many of them was getting out of agricultural and menial labor and being able to own property and own businesses or enter professions that were not controlled by white patronage and have access to good education. You need to understand that it was different for black Americans. Long after slavery ended, the South was an oppressive police state that denied them education, freedom of movement, property rights, voting rights, and really every basic right. Even if they did move from the fields, they were laborers and menial servants. They were only allowed to live where white people did not want to live and only allowed to have jobs working for white people. A black middle class did develop in some cities and states but even they had to be careful to stay in their place. Pretty much every political, legal, financial institution in the U.S. was dedicated to keeping blacks in their place. |
Anonymous
Please explain why they succeed when others fail. |
Anonymous
On a thread about eliminating affirmative action for black people? Yeah, it’s racist. It’s the exact definition of racism. Go start a new thread. “Definition of racism 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” |
Anonymous
Very well said but it’s falling on deaf ears. This has been explained countless times on DCUM but has never been acknowledged. |
Anonymous
OP here. OK, so they were day laborers that first generation. I feel very sorry for them and what they had to go through, and no doubt slavery was reprehensible. But that was 160 years ago. We are talking about NOW. There are many opportunities for black kids - and there has been at least the last 40 or so years In my college in the NE, I'd estimate that close to 15% of students were black, and it was an expensive private institution. (I graduated in 1981.) 1) First, my "top 5% in each school" proposal not only gives the high-achieving blacks the benefit of AA, it actually would pay their way their way to a four-year degree. 2) The relatively high income cut-off I suggested ($100k) assures that not only would poor blacks qualify, but those from the straight middle-class. 3) The only ones who would "lose" under this proposal are blacks from affluent homes. And remember, it doesn't mean they don't go to college. It just means they don't get a "bump up" based on skin color, given that they grew up in comfort, and that they need to compete with their own cohort of children from middle class homes. 4) I've heard one poster say that there is no evidence that middle-class blacks get any benefit of AA, and where's my proof, etc., but let's even assume that's correct and that middle-class blacks do not gain. Then why the big objection to excluding them from AA, given that they don't benefit anyway? 5) Finally, while it's true that some black middle-class students would have to compete on their own merits, the proposal now allows some of the AA "slots" to go to poor whites. There have been countless comments about white trash, poor whites - even those with excellent grades - should go to community college, and so forth. I still maintain that my race-neutral proposal is a good one, giving a leg up to those most deserving - whom I say are kids of all colors who have been disadvantages by a poor family background. |
Anonymous
That’s a great history lesson but the question posed above was if there are remaining systemic barriers to blacks progressing then why are black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere flourishing whilst African-Americans seem to be going backwards? |
Anonymous
|
Still OP.
Reflecting on my original proposal, I would make two adjustments, one based on the more recent impact of Jim Crow laws. 1) Southern states with Jim Crow laws up until the 1960's would be required to give "bonus" points to black kids. How this would work, I don't know....but since it would come at the expense of poor whites, there would have to be a time limit - say, 15 years or so. 2) In all states, we could extend the reach - instead of the top 5% getting AA "points," it could be the top 10%. But since money is finite, only the top 5% get the free schooling. So, two tiers. The beauty of this is that students who enter under AA are not suspect - that they only got in because of their skin color. Now getting in would be a mark of achievement - it means they were such excellent stidents, relative to their peers, that they earned they way to the benefit. Finally, in order to make this fully race-neutral, there's no need to call it affirmative action. We could call them "National Achievement Scholarships." |
Anonymous
It is just not true that blacks are going backwards. Black women, in particular, are doing much, much better than ever, so much so that all the racists are upset that, with less discrimination today, so many of them are getting jobs in the government and so many are going to college. This whole thread is about keeping black women in their place. |
Anonymous
Before desegregation blacks could not patronize white businesses, so many black businesses emerged to serve the population. People made it work. Where are these communities now? |
Anonymous
And most Jewish people are white. Ha! What you mean to say is that most Jewish people wish they were white. |
Anonymous
That was SOME white businesses--restaurants, movie theaters, etc. They certainly could patronize retail establishments. They were allowed to spend their money--just not sit, I guess. In other words, they were free to spend as much as they could at Woolworth's, but they could not sit at the lunch counter. Certainly, this contributed to black businesses. But, it was not the only reason they were formed. In other words, you are half right. |
Anonymous
Logic is white (seem to think some). |
Anonymous
Oh, FFS. First, having a fair and neutral policy is about keeping "black people in their place," and now it's about "keeping black WOMEN in their place?" No, if it were about that, the proposal (OP here, btw) would be that since blacks have benefitted from AA since the 1970s, it is now time to reverse that and apply that benefits to whites (poor whites). Blacks would not be eligible. But that is NOT what this is about. Black kids who do very well in school, as measured by their own cohort (so that those in poor DC schools with lousy teachers are not competing against the wealthier kids from W schools), will not only get a big assist in admissions, but they will get their way paid as well. A free college education. The only problem is that poor whites can benefit, too, due to the race-blindness aspect. And that, despite the racists on here who say demeaning things about poor white people, is a GOOD thing. And finally, remember....if those of you who are saying that community college is good enough for a white boy (with excellent grades), why isn't community college good enough for a black boy with OK grades? There are astronauts who started at CC! It's not a death sentence - for blacks or whites. I am honestly fed up with you people who are accusing someone (like me). who wants a race-neutral policy that would advantage blacks and whites both, a racist - and then calling poor whites "white trash" (or overlooking those that do). I do see a lot of racism on this thread, and much of it is against poor whites. |