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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why people don't want to accept what was done to the enslaved people brought here from Africa and the long-lasting effects of that brutality.

50-70 years ago the marriage rate in the black community was high, people owned businesses and did reasonably well, most kids did their best at school and aimed at a college degree, giants like Louis Armstrong rose to fame... what happened?..

This

LBJ's "Great Society," which made the government the "economic husband" for black women who had children without being married. The out-of-wedlock rate is more than 70%! That is horrible, and there's no way for black people, overall, to advance until they acknowledge that their own behavior and choices is contributing to their problems.

Wedlock status?
Are from the 1950's?
Can we talk about inequality of opportunities, centuries of oppression and brutal slavery

Please explain how brutal slavery failed to decimate the black family of 100 years ago and yet caused the epic destruction of the past 50 years.

Yes, please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why people don't want to accept what was done to the enslaved people brought here from Africa and the long-lasting effects of that brutality.

50-70 years ago the marriage rate in the black community was high, people owned businesses and did reasonably well, most kids did their best at school and aimed at a college degree, giants like Louis Armstrong rose to fame... what happened?..

This

LBJ's "Great Society," which made the government the "economic husband" for black women who had children without being married. The out-of-wedlock rate is more than 70%! That is horrible, and there's no way for black people, overall, to advance until they acknowledge that their own behavior and choices is contributing to their problems.

Wedlock status?
Are from the 1950's?
Can we talk about inequality of opportunities, centuries of oppression and brutal slavery

Please explain how brutal slavery failed to decimate the black family of 100 years ago and yet caused the epic destruction of the past 50 years.

Yes, please

Are you purposely ignorant or just trying to win an argument without facts
Please read up on history more. What you were taught in school was not the whole truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Are you purposely ignorant or just trying to win an argument without facts
Please read up on history more. What you were taught in school was not the whole truth

Please enlighten us with facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal judge rules Harvard does not discriminate against Asian Americans in admissions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/federal-judge-rules-harvard-does-not-discriminate-against-asian-americans-in-admissions/2019/10/01/dc106b54-a8a1-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html

Me thinks some have an over-inflated sense of self worth. I hate when people blame affirmative action instead of looking for personal growth.

You’re saying the Asian kids have an over inflated sense of self worth? Or are you talking about the black admits with sub-standard scores and grades?

How do you know that African-American students have lower scores? Or do you believe that Blacks in general are inferior to whites?

You didn’t answer my question. And of course I know that blacks scored the lowest out of five racial categories tracked......the data is publicly available. Roughly fifty points lower on average than Asians and thirty points lower than whites. I don’t think blacks are inferior or superior to any other race....why do you ask? For the record there have been significant racial disparities in standardized test scores since these tests were first administered and although significant research has been conducted as to causation, there have not been any conclusive answers.

Hey dummy....are you going to respond?

[Anonymous]

Not sure why people are talking about slavery and oppression in this thread on how to apply AA.
Affirmative Action is available for people coming from Africa first generation. They have never been slaves. They are immigrants just like everyone else in this country. Why should they benefit from a suffering they have never experienced??? I am first generation American. What do I have to do with slavery?? Why would a recent immigrant from Jamaica (upper middle class kid) or Somalia be entitled to a spot in college over my friend whose parents came from Greece 25 years ago?? This has nothing to do with slavery!

So yes, there is still racism in this country --- but AA is not the answer to it. In fact, it makes the problem worse because people feel cheated and it diminishes the accomplishments of those who truly deserved their scholarships/hire/....

I am sorry if someone's feeling are hurt when some old ladies (black? white?) clutch their purse when your son comes in the store. It sucks but that does not entitle you to anything. First, you have no idea why they are behaving this way: maybe they were just robbed by someone who looked like your son, maybe their gesture has nothing to do with him, maybe they didn't even see him and are reaching out to their purses for some unrelated reasons. You have no ideas. You are just projecting your own prejudices onto these women.
And even if it was true that they are racist who don't see your son as an individual but as the represent of his race (which is BTW what you are doing to them), this alone does not give you or him the right to say that "we" (and by "we" I mean everyone in this country) owe you something because of it.

Income is a different story. Harvard claims to be diverse but less than 5% of their incoming class comes from a middle class/lower middle class background. All the kids there (all colors/all races/all religions) have similar upper-middle class experiences. How is that diverse??
So yes, AA should be income-based. Give kids who don't stand a chance the opportunity to advance. Most of the time, these will actually be black kids but not always. That is the point. It should be obvious that Obama's daughters don't need more help to advance than the white son (white and male!!) of an unemployed factory worker in middle America.

[Anonymous]

Dafuq?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dafuq?

Difuk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people are talking about slavery and oppression in this thread on how to apply AA.
Affirmative Action is available for people coming from Africa first generation. They have never been slaves. They are immigrants just like everyone else in this country. Why should they benefit from a suffering they have never experienced??? I am first generation American. What do I have to do with slavery?? Why would a recent immigrant from Jamaica (upper middle class kid) or Somalia be entitled to a spot in college over my friend whose parents came from Greece 25 years ago?? This has nothing to do with slavery!

So yes, there is still racism in this country --- but AA is not the answer to it. In fact, it makes the problem worse because people feel cheated and it diminishes the accomplishments of those who truly deserved their scholarships/hire/....

I am sorry if someone's feeling are hurt when some old ladies (black? white?) clutch their purse when your son comes in the store. It sucks but that does not entitle you to anything. First, you have no idea why they are behaving this way: maybe they were just robbed by someone who looked like your son, maybe their gesture has nothing to do with him, maybe they didn't even see him and are reaching out to their purses for some unrelated reasons. You have no ideas. You are just projecting your own prejudices onto these women.
And even if it was true that they are racist who don't see your son as an individual but as the represent of his race (which is BTW what you are doing to them), this alone does not give you or him the right to say that "we" (and by "we" I mean everyone in this country) owe you something because of it.

Income is a different story. Harvard claims to be diverse but less than 5% of their incoming class comes from a middle class/lower middle class background. All the kids there (all colors/all races/all religions) have similar upper-middle class experiences. How is that diverse??
So yes, AA should be income-based. Give kids who don't stand a chance the opportunity to advance. Most of the time, these will actually be black kids but not always. That is the point. It should be obvious that Obama's daughters don't need more help to advance than the white son (white and male!!) of an unemployed factory worker in middle America.

Well said, Madam or Sir.

[Anonymous]

Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people are talking about slavery and oppression in this thread on how to apply AA.
Affirmative Action is available for people coming from Africa first generation. They have never been slaves. They are immigrants just like everyone else in this country. Why should they benefit from a suffering they have never experienced??? I am first generation American. What do I have to do with slavery?? Why would a recent immigrant from Jamaica (upper middle class kid) or Somalia be entitled to a spot in college over my friend whose parents came from Greece 25 years ago?? This has nothing to do with slavery!

So yes, there is still racism in this country --- but AA is not the answer to it. In fact, it makes the problem worse because people feel cheated and it diminishes the accomplishments of those who truly deserved their scholarships/hire/....

I am sorry if someone's feeling are hurt when some old ladies (black? white?) clutch their purse when your son comes in the store. It sucks but that does not entitle you to anything. First, you have no idea why they are behaving this way: maybe they were just robbed by someone who looked like your son, maybe their gesture has nothing to do with him, maybe they didn't even see him and are reaching out to their purses for some unrelated reasons. You have no ideas. You are just projecting your own prejudices onto these women.
And even if it was true that they are racist who don't see your son as an individual but as the represent of his race (which is BTW what you are doing to them), this alone does not give you or him the right to say that "we" (and by "we" I mean everyone in this country) owe you something because of it.

Income is a different story. Harvard claims to be diverse but less than 5% of their incoming class comes from a middle class/lower middle class background. All the kids there (all colors/all races/all religions) have similar upper-middle class experiences. How is that diverse??
So yes, AA should be income-based. Give kids who don't stand a chance the opportunity to advance. Most of the time, these will actually be black kids but not always. That is the point. It should be obvious that Obama's daughters don't need more help to advance than the white son (white and male!!) of an unemployed factory worker in middle America.

OP here, and thank you!

The proposal I outlined in my OP is not only an AA policy based on income, but one better: I suggested that we apply it high school by high school so that poor disadvantaged children from black inner-city schools and white steel-mill and coal rural towns would compete against one another - and not affluent kids from Bethesda and McLean. As I've repeatedly said, such a policy would still do what it was purported to do - and that is to give black children who have been disadvantaged a "leg up." The problem, it seems, is that it would also give the same consideration to poor, disadvantaged white children.

Yet, liberals came out of the woodwork screaming racist for my daring to suggest something that might negatively impact the affluent teens of black lawyer, and dentists, and doctors. It seems it is OK, in their eyes, to discriminate FAVORABLY according to skin color - regardless of advantages in life. Just think of all those poor, smart white kids in the Bronx or East New York who got into college BEFORE the advent of AA. Had the racist policy been in place back then, black kids from middle-class areas with much lower grades and scores would have gotten the coveted spots - and the poor whites would have lost out. Why would that be fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

+1.

It's based on the same, outdated and debunked racist theory of skin color being the most important attribute to classify a human being.

[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.

Still feel this way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affects black people today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affects black people today?

Do you think that the behavior of black people doesn't matter to their lives?