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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]
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.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics