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

[Anonymous]

I grew up in an upper-middle class area, and the neighbors were all engineers, Ph.D.'s, accountants, and economists. Why should the black children in the neighborhood get a "leg-up" over high-achieving poor whites in Brooklyn (or wherever) when it comes to getting into a competitive college?

Affirmative action should be based on a combination of better-than-average-grades and family income. This could be accomplished by giving "special chance" points to the top 5% in every school who ALSO has a family income of less than $100,000. In the inner-city and poor rural areas, just about everyone is from a sub-$100,000 family, so the top 5% get the special-chance points. Thus, in a crappy DC public school with 400 graduating seniors, about 20 would get the AA points. In a wealthy Bethesda W school, perhaps only 1 or 2 would (because a high family income would disqualify the others).

In addition, kids qualifying for special-chance points would get the equivalent of tuition of the state's 4-year public university. End result is the exceptional kids from lower-middle-class (or poorer) families get the leg up in admission AND tuition support. Race would not be a factor (although since black families earn less than whites, on average, they would still benefit disproptionately).

[Anonymous]

There is already Affirmative Action that is income based -- if your income is high enough, you're all but guaranteed a spot in a top school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is already Affirmative Action that is income based -- if your income is high enough, you're all but guaranteed a spot in a top school.

LOL ITA

But to OP's point, I also agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in an upper-middle class area, and the neighbors were all engineers, Ph.D.'s, accountants, and economists. Why should the black children in the neighborhood get a "leg-up" over high-achieving poor whites in Brooklyn (or wherever) when it comes to getting into a competitive college?

Affirmative action should be based on a combination of better-than-average-grades and family income. This could be accomplished by giving "special chance" points to the top 5% in every school who ALSO has a family income of less than $100,000. In the inner-city and poor rural areas, just about everyone is from a sub-$100,000 family, so the top 5% get the special-chance points. Thus, in a crappy DC public school with 400 graduating seniors, about 20 would get the AA points. In a wealthy Bethesda W school, perhaps only 1 or 2 would (because a high family income would disqualify the others).

In addition, kids qualifying for special-chance points would get the equivalent of tuition of the state's 4-year public university. End result is the exceptional kids from lower-middle-class (or poorer) families get the leg up in admission AND tuition support. Race would not be a factor (although since black families earn less than whites, on average, they would still benefit disproptionately).

Couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely, needs-based programs are a great idea. Race-based affirmative action is racist, pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

No. Absolutely not.

Poor white people, poor white trash as we call them in my house growing up, still have all the advantages of being white.

It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

OP, enough.

Leave it to the education experts to wade through. Education should never be a political issue and maybe the states need to deal with their own special issues complying with the federal regulations already on them.

We already have politics over income levels as an barrier to higher education and it breaks my heart.

Enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, enough.

Leave it to the education experts to wade through. Education should never be a political issue and maybe the states need to deal with their own special issues complying with the federal regulations already on them.

We already have politics over income levels as an barrier to higher education and it breaks my heart.

Enough.

Affirmative action inextricably links education with politics. I agree with you that we should not play political games with education. I'd be in favor of abolishing affirmative action from education altogether. Education should be a merit-based process. The color of your skin should not matter. The fact that someone is Asian should not cause them to lose a spot to a black person.

[Anonymous]

I can see adding an economic aspect to it but we aren’t even close when it comes to racial equality. The lingering effects of systematic racism will take a long time to diminish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in an upper-middle class area, and the neighbors were all engineers, Ph.D.'s, accountants, and economists. Why should the black children in the neighborhood get a "leg-up" over high-achieving poor whites in Brooklyn (or wherever) when it comes to getting into a competitive college?

Affirmative action should be based on a combination of better-than-average-grades and family income. This could be accomplished by giving "special chance" points to the top 5% in every school who ALSO has a family income of less than $100,000. In the inner-city and poor rural areas, just about everyone is from a sub-$100,000 family, so the top 5% get the special-chance points. Thus, in a crappy DC public school with 400 graduating seniors, about 20 would get the AA points. In a wealthy Bethesda W school, perhaps only 1 or 2 would (because a high family income would disqualify the others).

In addition, kids qualifying for special-chance points would get the equivalent of tuition of the state's 4-year public university. End result is the exceptional kids from lower-middle-class (or poorer) families get the leg up in admission AND tuition support. Race would not be a factor (although since black families earn less than whites, on average, they would still benefit disproptionately).

Affirmative Action was sold to us as giving the school/job opportunity to a black person over a white person of equal merit to make up for historical discriminatory practices. While by definition this was a racist practice, we as a nation supported it as a reasonable accommodation to address past wrongs. This was in the 70s.
Nearly 50 years later we see what AA is in practice. A rank racist practice giving jobs and educational slots to vastly less qualified individuals based solely on race to discriminate against Asians and whites.

Like Marxism... what sounds great on paper in practice results in vile and odious policy. Worse it’s addictive because it makes those who practice it feel good about themselves (a dopaminergic response) thus stimulating them to perpetuate and expand the practice perpetrating ever greater harms upon society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Absolutely not.

Poor white people, poor white trash as we call them in my house growing up, still have all the advantages of being white.

It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

But, you were raised to be very tolerant, right, pp?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Absolutely not.

Poor white people, poor white trash as we call them in my house growing up, still have all the advantages of being white.

It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

JUst curious what you called the poor black trash in your house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in an upper-middle class area, and the neighbors were all engineers, Ph.D.'s, accountants, and economists. Why should the black children in the neighborhood get a "leg-up" over high-achieving poor whites in Brooklyn (or wherever) when it comes to getting into a competitive college?

Affirmative action should be based on a combination of better-than-average-grades and family income. This could be accomplished by giving "special chance" points to the top 5% in every school who ALSO has a family income of less than $100,000. In the inner-city and poor rural areas, just about everyone is from a sub-$100,000 family, so the top 5% get the special-chance points. Thus, in a crappy DC public school with 400 graduating seniors, about 20 would get the AA points. In a wealthy Bethesda W school, perhaps only 1 or 2 would (because a high family income would disqualify the others).

In addition, kids qualifying for special-chance points would get the equivalent of tuition of the state's 4-year public university. End result is the exceptional kids from lower-middle-class (or poorer) families get the leg up in admission AND tuition support. Race would not be a factor (although since black families earn less than whites, on average, they would still benefit disproptionately).

Affirmative Action was sold to us as giving the school/job opportunity to a black person over a white person of equal merit to make up for historical discriminatory practices. While by definition this was a racist practice, we as a nation supported it as a reasonable accommodation to address past wrongs. This was in the 70s.
Nearly 50 years later we see what AA is in practice. A rank racist practice giving jobs and educational slots to vastly less qualified individuals based solely on race to discriminate against Asians and whites.

Like Marxism... what sounds great on paper in practice results in vile and odious policy. Worse it’s addictive because it makes those who practice it feel good about themselves (a dopaminergic response) thus stimulating them to perpetuate and expand the practice perpetrating ever greater harms upon society.

OP here. And that is what is so brilliant (taking a bow!) about my plan. It takes race completely out of the picture, yet at the same time, a poor black kid from a bad neighborhood who is smarter than average or works harder than average (or both) gets a leg up. As it should be. But concurrent with that, a so-so black kid in a middle-class neighborhood should not get preferential treatment over a poor whole kid in a impoverished WV town who is among the top 5% in his class.

[Anonymous]

You clearly didn’t read the 1619 Project. Learn some history. Get over yourself. Black people aren’t taking anything away from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can see adding an economic aspect to it but we aren’t even close when it comes to racial equality. The lingering effects of systematic racism will take a long time to diminish.

So you're saying that we should continue to favor blacks over poor, disadvantaged whites until blacks mas a whole achieve "racial equality?"

And how is that measured? When blacks have the same net worth as whites? That will be impossible as long as blacks continue to have a 75% out-of-wedlock birth rate. You can't ignore personal behavior that leads to poverty, and say "let's keep giving mediocre blacks from middle class families preferential treatment over high-achieving poor whites until the average net worth of blacks is the same as whites."