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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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."

THANK YOU. I'm the poster who has been challenging you for days on your original idea to completely eliminate the race aspect. While I don't agree on the specifics (short time limit) but I really appreciate you opening up to acknowledge that Jim Crow and other racism still has lingering effects today.

I would love to have a race-neutral system but I don't think we are there yet. Just look at this thread.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

I did reflect on it all and acknowledge that racism had more of an impact on those in Jim Crow states, and given the relatively recent nature of it, has had lasting impact we still see today. It IS a compromise, though, because it order to make a special allowance based on race for those in Jim Crow states, white people would be negatively impacted - and poor whites deserve a chance too. That is why I believe we need a time-limit.

But even that would have negative impact on those states. I, for example, would move my family (if I lived in the South, which I don't, and was in a sub-$100K HH) to a northern state, so that my kids would have a chance of winning one of the National Achievement Scholarships. If other whites followed, and I wouldn't blame them, there would be less diversification - as in all races - in the Jim Crow states. That's a negative.

Anyway, this is all an academic argument since I don't think a politician would take it on.

Great. Glad you finally came around.

Yes, the details would need to be sorted out if it ever became a possibility. They were racist laws beyond Jim Crow that affect blacks all over the US (unfair housing policies, discrimination for small business loans, etc.). So, not sure there should be geographic differences.

[Anonymous]

^ should say "There were racist practices", not "laws".

[Anonymous]

Zzzzz.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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."

THANK YOU. I'm the poster who has been challenging you for days on your original idea to completely eliminate the race aspect. While I don't agree on the specifics (short time limit) but I really appreciate you opening up to acknowledge that Jim Crow and other racism still has lingering effects today.

I would love to have a race-neutral system but I don't think we are there yet. Just look at this thread.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

I did reflect on it all and acknowledge that racism had more of an impact on those in Jim Crow states, and given the relatively recent nature of it, has had lasting impact we still see today. It IS a compromise, though, because it order to make a special allowance based on race for those in Jim Crow states, white people would be negatively impacted - and poor whites deserve a chance too. That is why I believe we need a time-limit.

But even that would have negative impact on those states. I, for example, would move my family (if I lived in the South, which I don't, and was in a sub-$100K HH) to a northern state, so that my kids would have a chance of winning one of the National Achievement Scholarships. If other whites followed, and I wouldn't blame them, there would be less diversification - as in all races - in the Jim Crow states. That's a negative.

Anyway, this is all an academic argument since I don't think a politician would take it on.

Great. Glad you finally came around.

Yes, the details would need to be sorted out if it ever became a possibility. They were racist laws beyond Jim Crow that affect blacks all over the US (unfair housing policies, discrimination for small business loans, etc.). So, not sure there should be geographic differences.

Of course there should be geographic differences. Otherwise, you're advocating we go back to favoring blacks over whites, even if they grew up in the north and not impacted by Jim Crow. Given that two, maybe three, generations have passsed since OTHER BLACKS suffered Jim Crow, it's time the "bonus points" were dropped for them.

My mother was a poor public school kid in NY in the 40s, where the classes were primarily Jewish, Italian, and black. In the 50s, she was a NY teacher* where classes were still Jewish, Itslian, and black. Now it's been 65 years, and those black children - who had the same SES as the Jews and Italians - have had kids, and likely those kids have had kids. They've had two full generations to enjoy special preferences, after being in the same classrooms as whites back in 50s NY, and generally from the same SES.

You keep overlooking, or denying, a key unfairness with giving bonus points to kids strictly because they have the "correct" skin color - it penalizes the kids with the "wrong" skin color. For someone who is opposed to racism, you seem very willing to tolerate it when it works against hard-working, motivated, bright white kids.

*This was before AA, so thus her intelligence, good grades, and hard work paid off and she got into free college. Who knows if she would have had that opportunity if black kids were given priority over whites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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."

THANK YOU. I'm the poster who has been challenging you for days on your original idea to completely eliminate the race aspect. While I don't agree on the specifics (short time limit) but I really appreciate you opening up to acknowledge that Jim Crow and other racism still has lingering effects today.

I would love to have a race-neutral system but I don't think we are there yet. Just look at this thread.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

I did reflect on it all and acknowledge that racism had more of an impact on those in Jim Crow states, and given the relatively recent nature of it, has had lasting impact we still see today. It IS a compromise, though, because it order to make a special allowance based on race for those in Jim Crow states, white people would be negatively impacted - and poor whites deserve a chance too. That is why I believe we need a time-limit.

But even that would have negative impact on those states. I, for example, would move my family (if I lived in the South, which I don't, and was in a sub-$100K HH) to a northern state, so that my kids would have a chance of winning one of the National Achievement Scholarships. If other whites followed, and I wouldn't blame them, there would be less diversification - as in all races - in the Jim Crow states. That's a negative.

Anyway, this is all an academic argument since I don't think a politician would take it on.

Great. Glad you finally came around.

Yes, the details would need to be sorted out if it ever became a possibility. They were racist laws beyond Jim Crow that affect blacks all over the US (unfair housing policies, discrimination for small business loans, etc.). So, not sure there should be geographic differences.

Of course there should be geographic differences. Otherwise, you're advocating we go back to favoring blacks over whites, even if they grew up in the north and not impacted by Jim Crow. Given that two, maybe three, generations have passsed since OTHER BLACKS suffered Jim Crow, it's time the "bonus points" were dropped for them.

My mother was a poor public school kid in NY in the 40s, where the classes were primarily Jewish, Italian, and black. In the 50s, she was a NY teacher* where classes were still Jewish, Itslian, and black. Now it's been 65 years, and those black children - who had the same SES as the Jews and Italians - have had kids, and likely those kids have had kids. They've had two full generations to enjoy special preferences, after being in the same classrooms as whites back in 50s NY, and generally from the same SES.

You keep overlooking, or denying, a key unfairness with giving bonus points to kids strictly because they have the "correct" skin color - it penalizes the kids with the "wrong" skin color. For someone who is opposed to racism, you seem very willing to tolerate it when it works against hard-working, motivated, bright white kids.

*This was before AA, so thus her intelligence, good grades, and hard work paid off and she got into free college. Who knows if she would have had that opportunity if black kids were given priority over whites?

1) Guess you missed this point? “They were racist laws beyond Jim Crow that affect blacks all over the US (unfair housing policies, discrimination for small business loans, etc.).”

2) What exactly is the “penalty” for white kids?

3) Are you assuming that the black kids who benefit from a racial preference are not hard-working, motivated, or bright?

4) I’ve said countless times I think adding SES is a good idea. Beyond what’s already done today (first gen kids already get a boost).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

And you know what else? In the 40s, where my great-grandfather owned a little business, he and other Jews were often the only ones willing to hire blacks. Just pointing it out, FWIW.

And you know what else? In the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, where my grandfather owned a hauling businesses, he and other German Catholics were often the only ones willing to hire blacks. Just pointing out that your great-grandfather was not unique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most innovation in the last hundred years was Jewish. If you subtract African labor and Jewish innovation, there's not so much for you to brag about as you apparently think.

And most Jewish people are white.

Ha! What you mean to say is that most Jewish people wish they were white.

Wow! And you people on this thread think it is racist against blacks? Just listen to the sh!t being spewed about Jews.

And yes, the vast majority of Jews in this country ARE white. There are only three races - and Caucasian is one of them.

No American Indian Jews?

Yes, if they are members of "The Tribe."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

Then the problem is that the U..S. has decided that certain enthnicitirs are more deserving of going to college than others. Poor whites children are at the bottom of the list.

We need a time limit on "enthnicity" preferences. One more generation of lowered standards for African-Americans, which I believe would be Generstion #3, and then they need to compete with everyone else in their income bracket and/or SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

Then the problem is that the U..S. has decided that certain enthnicitirs are more deserving of going to college than others. Poor whites children are at the bottom of the list.

We need a time limit on "enthnicity" preferences. One more generation of lowered standards for African-Americans, which I believe would be Generstion #3, and then they need to compete with everyone else in their income bracket and/or SES.

"More deserving"? How about trying to close the HUGE opportunity gap and achievement (which is more relevant than an arbitrary time limit). No one thinks Billy doesn't deserve to go to college. Just that URMs may have additional obstacles (generations old) that may reflect in their test scores.

Anyway, many colleges use a variety of factors, including race, to build a diverse community. They don't admit purely on test scores.

All else being equal, poor white Billy has a better chance than generic middle class Aidan (there is an endless supply of Aidans).

[Anonymous]

I thought everyone puts down multi racial nowadays unless one of those is black, then put down black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

If race is a social construct where does that leave dna evidence?