Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That means white people giving up their privileged bubbles, right?

You mean the poor white kid, sleeping on the sofa in the living room because his parents couldn't afford a 2-bedroom apartment, and studying diligently for As while his less motivated and less intelligent classmates hung on out street corner, and knowing that his only chance to attain a middle-class life would be if he got an academic scholarship to college, and having to work part-time during the school year to help bring in money, should get out of his privileged bubble?

Yeah, right.

^Definition of a white person who doesn't understand what "white privilege" means.

-signed an Asian American who grew up poor and lived in a filthy tiny 1 br apt as a child of a family of 5

There are countless kids of every color and race living as you described. The ones who also happen to be white and impoverished are not privileged.

Again, you don't understand what white privilege means. You don't have to ever worry about being racially profiled by the cops or store owners; a poor white person is treated better by our judicial system than a black person

A rich black person can still be racially profiled by stores than a not so rich white person. A middle income black man can't get cabs to stop for him, while a poor white person would have no problem getting a cab to stop.

It's not about how there are some poor white people who struggle financially, but that white people, no matter their income level, will never have to struggle with the aforementioned issues. Get it?

What does any of that have to do with academics and college admissions?

(And ask anyone who has ever worked retail about profiling: class plays an element. How you dress, the purse you carry, the brands you display, and your manicure convey class to retail workers, and they most certainly do profile poor looking whites. Ditto for cops and the car you drive.)

Nope. You can be dressed really nicely and still be profiled.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/28/barneys-racial-profiling-shopping-while-black

It has to do with white privilege in general, and that includes jobs, which is the end goal for most people who go to college. Resumes with white sounding names get a call back at a rate higher than the same resumes with black sounding names.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/23/516823230/asian-last-names-lead-to-fewer-job-interviews-still

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

When 6% of the population commits over 50% of violent crimes then you get profiled. Why not drill down on why that level of criminality exists instead of whining about the results. These are DOJ statistics BTW.....go look them up.

Perhaps many are stuck in the cycle of poverty and have very few other options. Maybe we should think of ways to lift them up. Maybe AA can help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That means white people giving up their privileged bubbles, right?

You mean the poor white kid, sleeping on the sofa in the living room because his parents couldn't afford a 2-bedroom apartment, and studying diligently for As while his less motivated and less intelligent classmates hung on out street corner, and knowing that his only chance to attain a middle-class life would be if he got an academic scholarship to college, and having to work part-time during the school year to help bring in money, should get out of his privileged bubble?

Yeah, right.

^Definition of a white person who doesn't understand what "white privilege" means.

-signed an Asian American who grew up poor and lived in a filthy tiny 1 br apt as a child of a family of 5

There are countless kids of every color and race living as you described. The ones who also happen to be white and impoverished are not privileged.

Again, you don't understand what white privilege means. You don't have to ever worry about being racially profiled by the cops or store owners; a poor white person is treated better by our judicial system than a black person

A rich black person can still be racially profiled by stores than a not so rich white person. A middle income black man can't get cabs to stop for him, while a poor white person would have no problem getting a cab to stop.

It's not about how there are some poor white people who struggle financially, but that white people, no matter their income level, will never have to struggle with the aforementioned issues. Get it?

What does any of that have to do with academics and college admissions?

(And ask anyone who has ever worked retail about profiling: class plays an element. How you dress, the purse you carry, the brands you display, and your manicure convey class to retail workers, and they most certainly do profile poor looking whites. Ditto for cops and the car you drive.)

Nope. You can be dressed really nicely and still be profiled.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/28/barneys-racial-profiling-shopping-while-black

It has to do with white privilege in general, and that includes jobs, which is the end goal for most people who go to college. Resumes with white sounding names get a call back at a rate higher than the same resumes with black sounding names.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/23/516823230/asian-last-names-lead-to-fewer-job-interviews-still

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

When 6% of the population commits over 50% of violent crimes then you get profiled. Why not drill down on why that level of criminality exists instead of whining about the results. These are DOJ statistics BTW.....go look them up.

Perhaps many are stuck in the cycle of poverty and have very few other options. Maybe we should think of ways to lift them up. Maybe AA can help.

We’re 50 years into AA.

[Anonymous]

Can we stop with the overquoting please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That means white people giving up their privileged bubbles, right?

You mean the poor white kid, sleeping on the sofa in the living room because his parents couldn't afford a 2-bedroom apartment, and studying diligently for As while his less motivated and less intelligent classmates hung on out street corner, and knowing that his only chance to attain a middle-class life would be if he got an academic scholarship to college, and having to work part-time during the school year to help bring in money, should get out of his privileged bubble?

Yeah, right.

^Definition of a white person who doesn't understand what "white privilege" means.

-signed an Asian American who grew up poor and lived in a filthy tiny 1 br apt as a child of a family of 5

There are countless kids of every color and race living as you described. The ones who also happen to be white and impoverished are not privileged.

Again, you don't understand what white privilege means. You don't have to ever worry about being racially profiled by the cops or store owners; a poor white person is treated better by our judicial system than a black person

A rich black person can still be racially profiled by stores than a not so rich white person. A middle income black man can't get cabs to stop for him, while a poor white person would have no problem getting a cab to stop.

It's not about how there are some poor white people who struggle financially, but that white people, no matter their income level, will never have to struggle with the aforementioned issues. Get it?

What does any of that have to do with academics and college admissions?

(And ask anyone who has ever worked retail about profiling: class plays an element. How you dress, the purse you carry, the brands you display, and your manicure convey class to retail workers, and they most certainly do profile poor looking whites. Ditto for cops and the car you drive.)

Nope. You can be dressed really nicely and still be profiled.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/28/barneys-racial-profiling-shopping-while-black

It has to do with white privilege in general, and that includes jobs, which is the end goal for most people who go to college. Resumes with white sounding names get a call back at a rate higher than the same resumes with black sounding names.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/23/516823230/asian-last-names-lead-to-fewer-job-interviews-still

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

When 6% of the population commits over 50% of violent crimes then you get profiled. Why not drill down on why that level of criminality exists instead of whining about the results. These are DOJ statistics BTW.....go look them up.

Perhaps many are stuck in the cycle of poverty and have very few other options. Maybe we should think of ways to lift them up. Maybe AA can help.

We’re 50 years into AA.

It’s helping but won’t fix everything. Maybe we need more comprehensive programs to break the poverty cycle.
https://psmag.com/magazine/breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty

“What defines both CareerAdvance and Warren Village, as well as other modern-day two-generation models, is their focus on true wrap-around case management, on being something of a one-stop shop for clients. Family advocates at Warren Village don't simply tell a parent that they're likely eligible for a Pell grant to fund their education; they help them complete the paperwork and follow up on their progress. And CareerAdvance academic coaches don't just tell participants what to bring to class on the first day; they ensure that parents have the childcare and transportation they need in order to make it there.”


“At the heart of the two-generation model is the hope that the motivation goes both ways. Advocates of the model hope that low-income children who watch their parents work hard to complete post-secondary education will be inspired to do so themselves.”

[Anonymous]

OP I agree. I think "reparations" should be handled this way too. Affirmative action based on SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
When 6% of the population commits over 50% of violent crimes then you get profiled. Why not drill down on why that level of criminality exists instead of whining about the results. These are DOJ statistics BTW.....go look them up.

OK, so then since the majority of mass shooters tend to be white males, we should profile ALL white males, and do double background checks and mental health checks when they go to buy a gun. Instead of whining about your rights being taken away, why not drill down to that level of criminality and why most of the mass shooters tend to be white males?

See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That means white people giving up their privileged bubbles, right?

You mean the poor white kid, sleeping on the sofa in the living room because his parents couldn't afford a 2-bedroom apartment, and studying diligently for As while his less motivated and less intelligent classmates hung on out street corner, and knowing that his only chance to attain a middle-class life would be if he got an academic scholarship to college, and having to work part-time during the school year to help bring in money, should get out of his privileged bubble?

Yeah, right.

^Definition of a white person who doesn't understand what "white privilege" means.

-signed an Asian American who grew up poor and lived in a filthy tiny 1 br apt as a child of a family of 5

There are countless kids of every color and race living as you described. The ones who also happen to be white and impoverished are not privileged.

Again, you don't understand what white privilege means. You don't have to ever worry about being racially profiled by the cops or store owners; a poor white person is treated better by our judicial system than a black person

A rich black person can still be racially profiled by stores than a not so rich white person. A middle income black man can't get cabs to stop for him, while a poor white person would have no problem getting a cab to stop.

It's not about how there are some poor white people who struggle financially, but that white people, no matter their income level, will never have to struggle with the aforementioned issues. Get it?

Yes, I absolutely do get white privilege, if you mean upper middle class and wealthy whites. Either you've never lived in a place with truly poor white families or you're intentionally being obtuse. They are indeed profiled by police and are often looked down upon and quietly denied housing and bank loans. Get it?

Really? Now imagine being black and getting that treatment double times over. Get it? I'm not black btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When 6% of the population commits over 50% of violent crimes then you get profiled. Why not drill down on why that level of criminality exists instead of whining about the results. These are DOJ statistics BTW.....go look them up.

Perhaps many are stuck in the cycle of poverty and have very few other options. Maybe we should think of ways to lift them up. Maybe AA can help.

We’re 50 years into AA.

It’s helping but won’t fix everything. Maybe we need more comprehensive programs to break the poverty cycle.
https://psmag.com/magazine/breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty

“What defines both CareerAdvance and Warren Village, as well as other modern-day two-generation models, is their focus on true wrap-around case management, on being something of a one-stop shop for clients. Family advocates at Warren Village don't simply tell a parent that they're likely eligible for a Pell grant to fund their education; they help them complete the paperwork and follow up on their progress. And CareerAdvance academic coaches don't just tell participants what to bring to class on the first day; they ensure that parents have the childcare and transportation they need in order to make it there.”


“At the heart of the two-generation model is the hope that the motivation goes both ways. Advocates of the model hope that low-income children who watch their parents work hard to complete post-secondary education will be inspired to do so themselves.”

Maybe AA can help - this was a question asked decades ago when it was first put in place. This question and the answer it has revealed since shows us that it is immoral to "help" someone at the expense of someone else based on race. If we are a nation striving to identify and erase the effects of systemic racism, we *MUST* be against all forms of systemic racism no matter how noble we think was the intent of the people that put the racist policies in place.

Perhaps an argument could be made for AA to be temporary, a short term lift for a segment of the people - those that are negatively affected like Asian Americans can take some comfort that their hard work and sacrifice will at least contribute to a greater society overall. And yet here we are over 50 years after affirmative action and black descendants of slavery are doing worse than ever on key measures. Do not fall into the trap of listening to anecdotes, or looking at niche indicators.

Income gap between whites and blacks have not only persisted, but they have gotten wider since the 1960s:



No surprise then that the wealth gap between whites and blacks have also gotten significantly wider:



Black home ownership gap is also wider:



And education attainment despite racist AA policies that favor blacks, has not narrowed the college degree gap:

[Anonymous]

Imagine how much worse it’d be without AA.

These charts show there are other factors where AA alone isn’t enough to help bridge the gap.

Providing two-generation support systems.
Reducing systematic racism.
Etc.

It will take some time to reverse the effects of centuries of slavery and systematic racism - some of which still exist today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The flood of white tears in this thread is amazing. Of all the problems minority kids face today, this is what you guys cry about.

The disdain for white folks in this thread, who lose college seats to those less qualified, is amazing. I wonder if the bigota going on about "white trash" are black?

And being kept out of med school, a lifelong dream, so that a lesser scoring minority gets in instead of you is a big deal.

That wasn't his seat - a more qualified white/Asian kid would have taken it if not the URM. WAY more qualified kids applying - don't blame it on the handful of spots for URMs. Next time study harder.

Again, complete denial. if there's one spot remaining, and the black kid with a 3.2 gets it and the white kid with a 3.8 is told to take a hike, the white kid DID lose to the black kid.

Why don't you take that same WGAF attitude and apply it to black kids who, if standards were equal, would have lost out to the white kid. I don't hear you telling HIM to study harder.

The AA policy as it now stands is most unfair to lower-income whites who, despite their disadvantage, manage to get close to a 4.0 average - and their lose their spot in grad school to a middle-income black stident with a B+ average.

waiting for AA in sports

look all liberals and URM apologists on here. Make it an even playing field or shut the heck up

As soon as life is an even playing field then we won't need AA.

That means white people giving up their privileged bubbles, right?

You mean the poor white kid, sleeping on the sofa in the living room because his parents couldn't afford a 2-bedroom apartment, and studying diligently for As while his less motivated and less intelligent classmates hung on out street corner, and knowing that his only chance to attain a middle-class life would be if he got an academic scholarship to college, and having to work part-time during the school year to help bring in money, should get out of his privileged bubble?

Yeah, right.

Wow. Proud Boy material right here.

So tell me, oh ye liberal who calls everyone a racist.....what was possibly racist about my comment above? It was taken from a real-life example.

You, OTOH, are resistant to acknowledging that the poor white kid deserves the chance he earned.

“Real life example”? Sounded more like a steaming heap of racist stereotypes.

Yes, real life - with the result of a life- changing experience for a hard-working, intelligent, and motivated poor white kid WHO DESERVED THAT CHANCE.

But you still haven't said what's racist in my post, or what supposed racist stereotypes you are reading into it. And be careful....your answer will reveal your own racism. So, do tell.

Year? Location? Which street corner? How did you measure motivation and intelligence?

What's with all these questions, and what do they have to do with race?

But to answer, since I'm curious as to how you'll twist this around to make it racist: the year was 1940-something; the location NYC; the precise street corner, who knows....somewhere in a poor section of East New York. As far as measuring motivation, the boy who comes straight home to study until dinner rather than play stickball and do boyish pranks because he wants to ace his Regents exam and get to college is MORE MOTIVATED to get to college than the kids playing stickball and doing pranks. (Watch....the liberal will argue that point.) And as far as intelligence, the boy who took calculus and physics in high school while his classmates struggled through algebra and biology is more intelligent.

That impoverished boy DESERVES the chance he earned - to go to college and get to the middle-class - rather than having it taken away from him by someone with poorer grades, lower admission scores, and, quite possible, more family money. The fact that he DID get to college, and his hard work and scholastic achievements and sacrifice paid off, is precisely before it was before the days of AA. Now if the AA policies were changed to being SES-based, he'd still get in. But as it stands now, he likely would have been "bumped" for a lower-achieving kid of the "correct" color.

But what about the rich white kid who was also motivated and intelligent and only scored a tiny bit higher than the poor kid? Why should the poor kid steal the rich kid's spot?

Yes, the poor kid should get the leg up - and the same applies whether he's competng against an affluent white kid or an affluent black kid. Race should not matter. (It only seems to matter to leftists, who think blacks should get an advantage regardless of their financial circumstances.)

Because...that's what affirmative action should be all about: giving a leg up to disadvantaged kids who, without the benefit of affluent parents and superior schools, beat the odds to exceed academically - and thus would have a path to the middle class except for the fact that current AA policies give the advantage to the wealthy or even middle-income black kid.

It's time to abolish race-based AA. Blacks have been given preferential treatment over whites for two generations now, based strictly on skin color, and that's enough. It's time to go straight to an income-based system. For those black kids still enveloped in poverty, the "new" AA policy would still give them the advantage, based on SES.

And to liberals here who insist that a black child of middle-income, college-educated parents should get an advantage over a poor white child with superior grades, shame on you. YOU are the ones who are racist, seeing everything through the prism of race and assuming, for some bigoted reason, that black = poor.

-OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The flood of white tears in this thread is amazing. Of all the problems minority kids face today, this is what you guys cry about.

The disdain for white folks in this thread, who lose college seats to those less qualified, is amazing. I wonder if the bigota going on about "white trash" are black?

And being kept out of med school, a lifelong dream, so that a lesser scoring minority gets in instead of you is a big deal.

That wasn't his seat - a more qualified white/Asian kid would have taken it if not the URM. WAY more qualified kids applying - don't blame it on the handful of spots for URMs. Next time study harder.

Again, complete denial. if there's one spot remaining, and the black kid with a 3.2 gets it and the white kid with a 3.8 is told to take a hike, the white kid DID lose to the black kid.

Why don't you take that same WGAF attitude and apply it to black kids who, if standards were equal, would have lost out to the white kid. I don't hear you telling HIM to study harder.

The AA policy as it now stands is most unfair to lower-income whites who, despite their disadvantage, manage to get close to a 4.0 average - and their lose their spot in grad school to a middle-income black stident with a B+ average.

waiting for AA in sports

look all liberals and URM apologists on here. Make it an even playing field or shut the heck up

As soon as life is an even playing field then we won't need AA.

That means white people giving up their privileged bubbles, right?

You mean the poor white kid, sleeping on the sofa in the living room because his parents couldn't afford a 2-bedroom apartment, and studying diligently for As while his less motivated and less intelligent classmates hung on out street corner, and knowing that his only chance to attain a middle-class life would be if he got an academic scholarship to college, and having to work part-time during the school year to help bring in money, should get out of his privileged bubble?

Yeah, right.

Wow. Proud Boy material right here.

So tell me, oh ye liberal who calls everyone a racist.....what was possibly racist about my comment above? It was taken from a real-life example.

You, OTOH, are resistant to acknowledging that the poor white kid deserves the chance he earned.

“Real life example”? Sounded more like a steaming heap of racist stereotypes.

Yes, real life - with the result of a life- changing experience for a hard-working, intelligent, and motivated poor white kid WHO DESERVED THAT CHANCE.

But you still haven't said what's racist in my post, or what supposed racist stereotypes you are reading into it. And be careful....your answer will reveal your own racism. So, do tell.

Year? Location? Which street corner? How did you measure motivation and intelligence?

What's with all these questions, and what do they have to do with race?

But to answer, since I'm curious as to how you'll twist this around to make it racist: the year was 1940-something; the location NYC; the precise street corner, who knows....somewhere in a poor section of East New York. As far as measuring motivation, the boy who comes straight home to study until dinner rather than play stickball and do boyish pranks because he wants to ace his Regents exam and get to college is MORE MOTIVATED to get to college than the kids playing stickball and doing pranks. (Watch....the liberal will argue that point.) And as far as intelligence, the boy who took calculus and physics in high school while his classmates struggled through algebra and biology is more intelligent.

That impoverished boy DESERVES the chance he earned - to go to college and get to the middle-class - rather than having it taken away from him by someone with poorer grades, lower admission scores, and, quite possible, more family money. The fact that he DID get to college, and his hard work and scholastic achievements and sacrifice paid off, is precisely before it was before the days of AA. Now if the AA policies were changed to being SES-based, he'd still get in. But as it stands now, he likely would have been "bumped" for a lower-achieving kid of the "correct" color.

But what about the rich white kid who was also motivated and intelligent and only scored a tiny bit higher than the poor kid? Why should the poor kid steal the rich kid's spot?

Yes, the poor kid should get the leg up - and the same applies whether he's competng against an affluent white kid or an affluent black kid. Race should not matter. (It only seems to matter to leftists, who think blacks should get an advantage regardless of their financial circumstances.)

Because...that's what affirmative action should be all about: giving a leg up to disadvantaged kids who, without the benefit of affluent parents and superior schools, beat the odds to exceed academically - and thus would have a path to the middle class except for the fact that current AA policies give the advantage to the wealthy or even middle-income black kid.

It's time to abolish race-based AA. Blacks have been given preferential treatment over whites for two generations now, based strictly on skin color, and that's enough. It's time to go straight to an income-based system. For those black kids still enveloped in poverty, the "new" AA policy would still give them the advantage, based on SES.

And to liberals here who insist that a black child of middle-income, college-educated parents should get an advantage over a poor white child with superior grades, shame on you. YOU are the ones who are racist, seeing everything through the prism of race and assuming, for some bigoted reason, that black = poor.

-OP

Nope. Not time yet.

You can add a SES component but we are not ready to take out race as a consideration.

[Anonymous]

Can we stop with the overquoting FFS?

[Anonymous]

OP, you are fundamentally right but as you can see too many folks are still addicted to racism.

It's like a virus, and no effective treatment exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we stop with the overquoting FFS?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The flood of white tears in this thread is amazing. Of all the problems minority kids face today, this is what you guys cry about.

The disdain for white folks in this thread, who lose college seats to those less qualified, is amazing. I wonder if the bigota going on about "white trash" are black?

And being kept out of med school, a lifelong dream, so that a lesser scoring minority gets in instead of you is a big deal.

That wasn't his seat - a more qualified white/Asian kid would have taken it if not the URM. WAY more qualified kids applying - don't blame it on the handful of spots for URMs. Next time study harder.

Again, complete denial. if there's one spot remaining, and the black kid with a 3.2 gets it and the white kid with a 3.8 is told to take a hike, the white kid DID lose to the black kid.

Why don't you take that same WGAF attitude and apply it to black kids who, if standards were equal, would have lost out to the white kid. I don't hear you telling HIM to study harder.

The AA policy as it now stands is most unfair to lower-income whites who, despite their disadvantage, manage to get close to a 4.0 average - and their lose their spot in grad school to a middle-income black stident with a B+ average.

waiting for AA in sports

look all liberals and URM apologists on here. Make it an even playing field or shut the heck up

As soon as life is an even playing field then we won't need AA.

That means white people giving up their privileged bubbles, right?

You mean the poor white kid, sleeping on the sofa in the living room because his parents couldn't afford a 2-bedroom apartment, and studying diligently for As while his less motivated and less intelligent classmates hung on out street corner, and knowing that his only chance to attain a middle-class life would be if he got an academic scholarship to college, and having to work part-time during the school year to help bring in money, should get out of his privileged bubble?

Yeah, right.

Wow. Proud Boy material right here.

So tell me, oh ye liberal who calls everyone a racist.....what was possibly racist about my comment above? It was taken from a real-life example.

You, OTOH, are resistant to acknowledging that the poor white kid deserves the chance he earned.

“Real life example”? Sounded more like a steaming heap of racist stereotypes.

Yes, real life - with the result of a life- changing experience for a hard-working, intelligent, and motivated poor white kid WHO DESERVED THAT CHANCE.

But you still haven't said what's racist in my post, or what supposed racist stereotypes you are reading into it. And be careful....your answer will reveal your own racism. So, do tell.

Year? Location? Which street corner? How did you measure motivation and intelligence?

What's with all these questions, and what do they have to do with race?

But to answer, since I'm curious as to how you'll twist this around to make it racist: the year was 1940-something; the location NYC; the precise street corner, who knows....somewhere in a poor section of East New York. As far as measuring motivation, the boy who comes straight home to study until dinner rather than play stickball and do boyish pranks because he wants to ace his Regents exam and get to college is MORE MOTIVATED to get to college than the kids playing stickball and doing pranks. (Watch....the liberal will argue that point.) And as far as intelligence, the boy who took calculus and physics in high school while his classmates struggled through algebra and biology is more intelligent.

That impoverished boy DESERVES the chance he earned - to go to college and get to the middle-class - rather than having it taken away from him by someone with poorer grades, lower admission scores, and, quite possible, more family money. The fact that he DID get to college, and his hard work and scholastic achievements and sacrifice paid off, is precisely before it was before the days of AA. Now if the AA policies were changed to being SES-based, he'd still get in. But as it stands now, he likely would have been "bumped" for a lower-achieving kid of the "correct" color.

But what about the rich white kid who was also motivated and intelligent and only scored a tiny bit higher than the poor kid? Why should the poor kid steal the rich kid's spot?

Yes, the poor kid should get the leg up - and the same applies whether he's competng against an affluent white kid or an affluent black kid. Race should not matter. (It only seems to matter to leftists, who think blacks should get an advantage regardless of their financial circumstances.)

Because...that's what affirmative action should be all about: giving a leg up to disadvantaged kids who, without the benefit of affluent parents and superior schools, beat the odds to exceed academically - and thus would have a path to the middle class except for the fact that current AA policies give the advantage to the wealthy or even middle-income black kid.

It's time to abolish race-based AA. Blacks have been given preferential treatment over whites for two generations now, based strictly on skin color, and that's enough. It's time to go straight to an income-based system. For those black kids still enveloped in poverty, the "new" AA policy would still give them the advantage, based on SES.

And to liberals here who insist that a black child of middle-income, college-educated parents should get an advantage over a poor white child with superior grades, shame on you. YOU are the ones who are racist, seeing everything through the prism of race and assuming, for some bigoted reason, that black = poor.

-OP

+ a million