Affirmative Action

[benn10]

I personally disagree with it. I have trouble with the thought of an individual with inferior academic records taking what would have been my spot in a school to "correct" disadvantages faced by his or her people. Respectfully, I shouldn't face repercussions for past discriminations that I personally did not commit. (And of course, affirmative action is not solely based on race. I'm just using it as an example.)

What do you guys think?

[xshady121]

I'll wait to see what directino this thread goes in .

[Machu505]

I see the purpose of affirmative action as a means of preventing the need for it in the future. It aids in letting someone who would otherwise be destined to poverty escape their bonds and ensure the next generation a decent livelihood. Affirmative action isn't a system I view to be reparations on the white man for his father's sins at all, and I think framing it in such a manner would be a misrepresentation of its purpose.

For example, you have a white boy who has lived in luxury his entire life and could afford to go to college anywhere he pleases based on his financial means alone. On the other hand, you have a black boy from the projects who's worked hard all his life to succeed. The black boy makes lower grades than the white boy. Who "deserves" that spot more?

I say the black boy. It's been pretty much proven that a person's economic status will affect their grades and their ability to learn, and thus we have to get folks out of poverty. Basing college acceptance exclusively on grades will only retain the status quo of class stratification.

[bard]

I don't see anything wrong with basing college acceptance on grades alone.

[DCfreak]

For example, you have a white boy who has lived in luxury his entire life and could afford to go to college anywhere he pleases based on his financial means alone. On the other hand, you have a black boy from the projects who's worked hard all his life to succeed. The black boy makes lower grades than the white boy. Who "deserves" that spot more?

I say the black boy. It's been pretty much proven that a person's economic status will affect their grades and their ability to learn, and thus we have to get folks out of poverty. Basing college acceptance exclusively on grades will only retain the status quo of class stratification.


This example makes a great argument for why it is still around, but what about all of the white middle class boys that are struggling to pay for college and are completely ignored because they are "lucky" enough to be white (IE the majority of my friends and me)?


I personally believe that AA was great to help minorities break a cycle of poverty in the 1970s, but 40 years later it needs to be scaled back much more than it currently is.

[Machu505]

This example makes a great argument for why it is still around, but what about all of the white middle class boys that are struggling to pay for college and are completely ignored because they are "lucky" enough to be white (IE the majority of my friends and me)?


I personally believe that AA was great to help minorities break a cycle of poverty in the 1970s, but 40 years later it needs to be scaled back much more than it currently is.

All I can tell you is to work hard. I personally find claims that minorities are stealing away spots in colleges from white people to be grossly exaggerated, but in the case of middle class white folks such as you and me, that's the best advice I can give.

[Theseventhson]

Subscribing.

[ETGsynth]

I see the purpose of affirmative action as a means of preventing the need for it in the future. It aids in letting someone who would otherwise be destined to poverty escape their bonds and ensure the next generation a decent livelihood. Affirmative action isn't a system I view to be reparations on the white man for his father's sins at all, and I think framing it in such a manner would be a misrepresentation of its purpose.

For example, you have a white boy who has lived in luxury his entire life and could afford to go to college anywhere he pleases based on his financial means alone. On the other hand, you have a black boy from the projects who's worked hard all his life to succeed. The black boy makes lower grades than the white boy. Who "deserves" that spot more?

I say the black boy. It's been pretty much proven that a person's economic status will affect their grades and their ability to learn, and thus we have to get folks out of poverty. Basing college acceptance exclusively on grades will only retain the status quo of class stratification.

This.

All I can tell you is to work hard. I personally find claims that minorities are stealing away spots in colleges from white people to be grossly exaggerated, but in the case of middle class white folks such as you and me, that's the best advice I can give.

And This.

[loveisdead]

Matt has said most of what I would've.

I also don't think we're at a point in society where racism wouldn't apply in who some schools accept/deny.

[ZzyzxScarecrow]

I see the purpose of affirmative action as a means of preventing the need for it in the future. It aids in letting someone who would otherwise be destined to poverty escape their bonds and ensure the next generation a decent livelihood. Affirmative action isn't a system I view to be reparations on the white man for his father's sins at all, and I think framing it in such a manner would be a misrepresentation of its purpose.

For example, you have a white boy who has lived in luxury his entire life and could afford to go to college anywhere he pleases based on his financial means alone. On the other hand, you have a black boy from the projects who's worked hard all his life to succeed. The black boy makes lower grades than the white boy. Who "deserves" that spot more?

I say the black boy. It's been pretty much proven that a person's economic status will affect their grades and their ability to learn, and thus we have to get folks out of poverty. Basing college acceptance exclusively on grades will only retain the status quo of class stratification.
Are you sure you're only 15?

[Theseventhson]

Are you sure you're only 15?

He's the most awesome 15 year old ever.

[ZzyzxScarecrow]

He's the most awesome 15 year old ever.
Haha seems that way

[caveBEAR]

Oh, good. There hasn't been a thread promising to bring the stupid in a while.

:popcorn:


(Matt pretty much sums up my views on it as well)

[GeeBee]

I have no opinion. Also, Jews.

Chew on that.

[Machu505]

Are you sure you're only 15?

He's the most awesome 15 year old ever.

Haha seems that way

I also look damn good in a cowboy hat.

[zion the lion]

Goddamn I dont know which one is matt.

[Theseventhson]

Goddamn I dont know which one is matt.

Machu

[zion the lion]

Machu

Oh okay the little one. Yeah that makes sense.

And the little one isnt a mean nickname its a cute one...an endearing one, if you will.

[caveBEAR]

Oh okay the little one. Yeah that makes sense.

And the little one isnt a mean nickname its a cute one...an endearing one, if you will.

I like how you've started explaining yourself before anyone even has a chance to quote you.

Quite productive.

[caveBEAR]

Also, Jews.

gone.

[Theseventhson]

I guess you can't laugh at yourself.

[ReadyForAction]

Affirmative action is designed to keep women competing against the minorities while the white man injects aids into chicken nuggets.

[caveBEAR]

Affirmative action is designed to keep women competing against the minorities while the white man injects aids into chicken nuggets.

:yawn:

[Theseventhson]

Affirmative action is designed to keep women competing against the minorities while the white man injects aids into chicken nuggets.

But everybody eats chicken nuggets, except those pussy vegetarians.

[ReadyForAction]

:yawn:

But everybody eats chicken nuggets, except those pussy vegetarians.

so I take it neither of you are fans of 30 Rock?

[zion the lion]

I like how you've started explaining yourself before anyone even has a chance to quote you.

Quite productive.

I've decided to just start going the whole 9 yards and explaining myself right off the bat that way I dont have to later. Like when I call you Boo-boo or Yogi you didnt know what the hell I was talking about (and you still might not know) but now I'm becoming a confusion killer...

[perceptrons]

I've decided to just start going the whole 9 yards and explaining myself right off the bat that way I dont have to later. Like when I call you Boo-boo or Yogi you didnt know what the hell I was talking about (and you still might not know) but now I'm becoming a confusion killer...
Unless you have some extremely convoluted reasoning behind it, which I wouldn't be shocked by at all, I'm fairly sure anyone could make the connection.

[caveBEAR]

so I take it neither of you are fans of 30 Rock?

Not really, and if that's the A-game they're bringing to the table, I don't think I'm missing much.

[TK]

I see the purpose of affirmative action as a means of preventing the need for it in the future. It aids in letting someone who would otherwise be destined to poverty escape their bonds and ensure the next generation a decent livelihood. Affirmative action isn't a system I view to be reparations on the white man for his father's sins at all, and I think framing it in such a manner would be a misrepresentation of its purpose.

For example, you have a white boy who has lived in luxury his entire life and could afford to go to college anywhere he pleases based on his financial means alone. On the other hand, you have a black boy from the projects who's worked hard all his life to succeed. The black boy makes lower grades than the white boy. Who "deserves" that spot more?

I say the black boy. It's been pretty much proven that a person's economic status will affect their grades and their ability to learn, and thus we have to get folks out of poverty. Basing college acceptance exclusively on grades will only retain the status quo of class stratification.

What about when you have a white male coming from poverty and a black male coming from a life of luxury? It should be based on socioeconomics, not race. I come from a household with a single mom with four kids who only makes 40,000 a year. While I was not living in poverty, I most certainly did not live in luxury. I've worked hard to maintain a high GPA and have two jobs to help pay for tuition but I know first hand people who have lower GPA's than myself have gotten financial aid. When there's race-based scholarships, I find that ridiculous. It should be based on person's income, not their ethnicity.

[caveBEAR]

Unless you have some extremely convoluted reasoning behind it, which I wouldn't be shocked by at all, I'm fairly sure anyone could make the connection.

It's the beer thing, right?

[caveBEAR]

What about when you have a white male coming from poverty and a black male coming from a life of luxury? It should be based on socioeconomics, not race. I come from a household with a single mom with four kids who only makes 40,000 a year. While I was not living in poverty, I most certainly did not live in luxury. I've worked hard to maintain a high GPA and have two jobs to help pay for tuition but I know first hand people who have lower GPA's than myself have gotten financial aid. When there's race-based scholarships, I find that ridiculous. It should be based on person's income, not their ethnicity.

I'm alright with the 'poor white boy loses position to rich black boy', seeing as the 'poor black boy loses position to rich white boy' is much more common.

[zion the lion]

Unless you have some extremely convoluted reasoning behind it, which I wouldn't be shocked by at all, I'm fairly sure anyone could make the connection.

I think the first time I called him it though I was insulting him so it didnt come out as a term of endearment as it was meant to (and it was truly meant to be...some guys just dont like being called boo-boo for some reason).

[ohitsmark]

Chris Rock said it best...

"I don’t think I should get a job over a white person if I scored a lower mark on the test but if there’s a tie, fuck them."

[FueledByFrodo]

I have no opinion. Also, Jews.

Chew on that.

Fuckin' Jews.

I hate Jews.

I'm sorry on behalf of all of us. :bluesad:

[Machu505]

What about when you have a white male coming from poverty and a black male coming from a life of luxury? It should be based on socioeconomics, not race. I come from a household with a single mom with four kids who only makes 40,000 a year. While I was not living in poverty, I most certainly did not live in luxury. I've worked hard to maintain a high GPA and have two jobs to help pay for tuition but I know first hand people who have lower GPA's than myself have gotten financial aid. When there's race-based scholarships, I find that ridiculous. It should be based on person's income, not their ethnicity.

That scenario rarely, if ever, happens. Even when you say it ought to be based on socioeconomics, it'll more often than not yield the same results as a race-based system.

[caveBEAR]

That scenario rarely, if ever, happens. Even when you say it ought to be based on socioeconomics, it'll more often than not yield the same results as a race-based system.

I always love how far-fetched the anti-affirmative action examples generally are.

[TK]

I'm alright with the 'poor white boy loses position to rich black boy', seeing as the 'poor black boy loses position to rich white boy' is much more common.

How is it much more common? I'm not disagreeing persay, but I'm just wondering what you're basing it on? Especially when looking at it from a higher educational standpoint only.

[TK]

That scenario rarely, if ever, happens. Even when you say it ought to be based on socioeconomics, it'll more often than not yield the same results as a race-based system.

From an higher education stand point only, if socioeconomics yields the same results with the exception of higher class minorities being excluded and the lower class majority being included, what is bad about it?

[caveBEAR]

How is it much more common? I'm not disagreeing persay, but I'm just wondering what you're basing it on? Especially when looking at it from a higher educational standpoint only.

There's many more black kids in poverty than white kids. Especially in 'ghetto' or 'slum' areas which can be very difficult to get out of. The 'rich black child' isn't as common as the 'rich white child'.

[Machu505]

From an higher education stand point only, if socioeconomics yields the same results with the exception of higher class minorities being excluded and the lower class majority being included, what is bad about it?
Absolutely nothing, because it's like calling a peacock an acorn. It's still a peacock. In fact, I'm all for it.

[caveBEAR]

it's like calling a peacock an acorn. It's still a peacock.

Ha ha ha, I like this.

[p93]

I think the problem lies with how much it costs for tuition/textbooks in the US for anyone. Anyone who isn't a National Merit Scholar anyway.
I'd love to see the argument for why textbooks cost so much.

[caveBEAR]

I think the problem lies with how much it costs for tuition/textbooks in the US for anyone. Anyone who isn't a National Merit Scholar anyway.
I'd love to see the argument for why textbooks cost so much.

KNOWLEDGE ISN'T FREE!!!


(Except for on the internet and in libraries)

[caveBEAR]

why include race at all?
why not just base it on family income?
wouldn't that be the fairest way to treat both the commonly occurring poor black kid and the less-common poor white kid while still trying to level the playing field?

i have no idea if i'm for affirmative action or not, I just know that making it based on income makes more sense to me.. however, I'm not well informed about the subject.

That actually sounds kind of rational.

Am I missing something or is he kind of on to something here?

EDIT: What the fuck? Where did that post go? 'John is a cult'? More like 'John isn't real'.

[benn10]

Affirmative action is designed to keep women competing against the minorities while the white man injects aids into chicken nuggets.

Agreed.


I also think that it's kind of hypocritical to combat the effects of discrimination with more discrimination.

[benn10]

I'd love to see the argument for why textbooks cost so much.

Supply and demand, baby.

[drevans18]

What about when you have a white male coming from poverty and a black male coming from a life of luxury? It should be based on socioeconomics, not race. I come from a household with a single mom with four kids who only makes 40,000 a year. While I was not living in poverty, I most certainly did not live in luxury. I've worked hard to maintain a high GPA and have two jobs to help pay for tuition but I know first hand people who have lower GPA's than myself have gotten financial aid. When there's race-based scholarships, I find that ridiculous. It should be based on person's income, not their ethnicity.

i agree with the first bolded part, not the second. i think it should be based on socio-economics, but not completely neglect race. i dont think it should be solely based on income. then you're fighting another completely different monster. where would you draw the line there? i'm just presenting you with another thought, not trying to be a dick. like look, i'm half black. i go to college. neither of my parents work or have worked for the past say 4 years, and we have never lived in luxury. we're a middle class family. i went to a good high school, and did fairly well. but i definitely dont think affirmative action helped me get in.

[drevans18]

I think the problem lies with how much it costs for tuition/textbooks in the US for anyone. Anyone who isn't a National Merit Scholar anyway.
I'd love to see the argument for why textbooks cost so much.

because they can. you need to buy textbooks... so they can get away with it. but it sucks to have to pay tuition, and on top of that spend $1000/semester on books.

[caveBEAR]

Agreed.


I also think that it's kind of hypocritical to combat the effects of discrimination with more discrimination.

Yeah man, white people have had it rough in this country. Remember the slavery? And the internment camps? And the anti-immigration laws in Arizona.


Oh, wait.

[John is a cult]

That actually sounds kind of rational.

Am I missing something or is he kind of on to something here?

EDIT: What the fuck? Where did that post go? 'John is a cult'? More like 'John isn't real'.

what the heck!
my post is gone! :[

[caveBEAR]

what the heck!
my post is gone! :[

I got rid of it. I don't need anyone getting close to my post count.

;-)

I'd re-post it, it brought up a pretty good view/side/point.

[Debut_Fin]

Fuckin' Jews.

How do they work?

[benn10]

Yeah man, white people have had it rough in this country. Remember the slavery? And the internment camps? And the anti-immigration laws in Arizona.


Oh, wait.

And whose fault were those events? Not mine. Not anyone's. (Save for a handful of racist Arizonans, and some senior citizens from the WWII-Internment era.)

I give everyone their fair chance. I shouldn't in any way be crippled (figuratively) because their ancestors were discriminated against.

[caveBEAR]

And whose fault were those events? Not mine. Not anyone's. (Save for a handful of racist Arizonans, and some senior citizens from the WWII-Internment era.)

I give everyone their fair chance. I shouldn't in any way be crippled (figuratively) because their ancestors were discriminated against.

The point was that the 'discrimination' people bitch about with affirmative action is nothing compared to the very real discrimination minorities face when rich white people are left in charge with no one regulating them.

I give everyone their fair chance.

Awesome for you, but you're not every person in positions of power in America.

How do they work?

This site doesn't have a smiley grand enough to express how much this made me laugh, so here's a Santa smiley;
:santa:

[DCfreak]

There's many more black kids in poverty than white kids. Especially in 'ghetto' or 'slum' areas which can be very difficult to get out of. The 'rich black child' isn't as common as the 'rich white child'.


They aren't always farfetched, I know a friend that had a very poor family but got a 34 on his ACT and had a high enough GPA to get into Beloit, an expensive private school in Wisconsin. He eventually had to draw loans because his family could not pick up any financial aid. Would he have got financial aid if he was black? Maybe not, but most likely.

Also this happens alot with finding jobs, not just school. I know someone who thought he finally found his first real job in this shitty market after spending a full day doing orientation to be told the next day that they decided to go in a different direciton. When he asked a friend who worked there why he wasn't hired, they had apparently hired someone else who was less qualified, but was a minority.

Back in highschool it was hard for some of my friends to find jobs at the local crappy fastfood places. Every single one in town had to have a quota for both females and race minorities. Its hard to get fired by these places, but they keep on some horrible workers just because they fill that needed quota.

Reverse discrimination is evereywhere. Is AA a terrible thing? No, it does help right many of the social injustices that minorites face, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have negative effects.

Edit: whoops apparently quoted the wrong thing.

[caveBEAR]

They aren't always farfetched, I know a friend that had a very poor family but got a 34 on his ACT and had a high enough GPA to get into Beloit, an expensive private school in Wisconsin. He eventually had to draw loans because his family could not pick up any financial aid. Would he have got financial aid if he was black? Maybe not, but most likely.

Also this happens alot with finding jobs, not just school. I know someone who thought he finally found his first real job in this shitty market after spending a full day doing orientation to be told the next day that they decided to go in a different direciton. When he asked a friend who worked there why he wasn't hired, they had apparently hired someone else who was less qualified, but was a minority.

Back in highschool it was hard for some of my friends to find jobs at the local crappy fastfood places. Every single one in town had to have a quota for both females and race minorities. Its hard to get fired by these places, but they keep on some horrible workers just because they fill that needed quota.

Reverse discrimination is evereywhere. Is AA a terrible thing? No, it does help right many of the social injustices that minorites face, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have negative effects.

Edit: whoops apparently quoted the wrong thing.

I agree with most of that, but usually the stories have very defined circumstances that don't seem commonplace, and the knee-jerk reaction to reverse-discrimination from affirmative actions is to just scrap it, which, in most likeliness, be worse than the problems affirmative action creates.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see what's so wrong with making it based on one's SES. That's more effective public policy.

[caveBEAR]

I don't see what's so wrong with making it based on one's SES. That's more effective public policy.

What's wrong with that? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT!? It would be REFORM! The worst thing in the world!

[saysmydoctor]

Mission change makes me nauseous.

[Scrandon]

I don't see what's so wrong with making it based on one's SES. That's more effective public policy.

They already do that for grants and scholarships, and I think that's about as far as they need to go.

[saysmydoctor]

They already do that for grants and scholarships, and I think that's about as far as they need to go.
Yeah, because they're working so effectively.

And regardless that's not affirmative action, which is what we're talking about.

[Skadrist]

I do think it is still necessary.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/17/white-people-95000-richer-black

A $95,000 question: why are whites five times richer than blacks in the US?

• Study finds gaping racial divide in household assets
• Economic policies blamed for growing inequality


A huge wealth gap has opened up between black and white people in the US over the past quarter of a century – a difference sufficient to put two children through university – because of racial discrimination and economic policies that favour the affluent.
A typical white family is now five times richer than its African-American counterpart of the same class, according to a report released today by Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
White families typically have assets worth $100,000 (£69,000), up from $22,000 in the mid-1980s. African-American families' assets stand at just $5,000, up from around $2,000.
A quarter of black families have no assets at all. The study monitored more than 2,000 families since 1984.
"We walk that through essentially a generation and what we see is that the racial wealth gap has galloped, it's escalated to $95,000," said Tom Shapiro, one of the authors of the report by the university's Institute on Assets and Social Policy.
"That's primarily because the whites in the sample were able to accumulate financial assets from their $22,000 all the way to $100,000 and the African-Americans' wealth essentially flatlined."
The survey does not include housing equity, because it is not readily accessible and is rarely realised as cash. But if property were included it would further widen the wealth divide.
Shapiro says the gap remains wide even between blacks and whites of similar classes and with similar jobs and incomes.
"How do we explain the wealth gap among equally-achieving African-American and white families? The same ratio holds up even among low income groups. Finding ways to accumulate financial resources for all low and moderate income families in the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa) has been a huge challenge and that challenge keeps getting steeper and steeper.
"But there are greater opportunities and less challenges for low and moderate income families if they're white in comparison to if they're African-American or Hispanic," he said.
America has long lived with vast inequality, although 40 years ago the disparity was lower than in Britain.
Today, the richest 1% of the US population owns close to 40% of its wealth. The top 25% of US households own 87%.
The rest is divided up among middle and low income Americans. In that competition white people come out far ahead.
Only one in 10 African-Americans owns any shares. A third do not have a pension plan, and among those who do the value is on average a fifth of plans held by whites.
Shapiro says one of the most disturbing aspects of the study is that wealth among the highest-income African-Americans has actually fallen in recent years, dropping from a peak of $25,000 to about $18,000, while among white counterparts of similar class and income it has surged to around $240,000.
In 1984, high-income black Americans had more assets than middle-income whites. That is no longer true.
"I'm a pretty jaded and cynical researcher in some way, but this was shocking, quite frankly, a really important dynamic," said Shapiro. "This represents a broken chain of achievement. In the United States context, when we are thinking about racial equality and the economy we have focused for a long time on equal opportunity.
"Equal opportunity assumes that some people who have that opportunity are going to have pretty high achievements in terms of their jobs, their work, their income, their home ownership.
"The assumption in a democracy is that merit and achievement are going to be rewarded and the rewards here are financial assets. We should see some rough parity and we don't."
The report attributes part of the cause to the "powerful role of persistent discrimination in housing, credit and labour markets. African-Americans and Hispanics were at least twice as likely to receive high-cost home mortgages as whites with similar incomes," the report says.
Although many black families have moved up to better-paying jobs, they begin with fewer assets, such as inheritance, on which to build wealth. They are also more likely to have gone into debt to pay for university loans.
"African-Americans, before the 1960s, first by law and then by custom, were not really allowed to own businesses. They had very little access to credit. There was a very low artificial ceiling on the wealth that could be accumulated. Hence there was very little, if anything, that could be passed along to help their children get to college, to help their children buy their first homes, or as an inheritance when they die," said Shapiro.
Since the 1980s, US administrations have also geared the tax system to the advantage of the better off. Taxes on unearned income, such as shares and inheritance, fell sharply and are much lower than taxes on pay.
"The more income and wealth people had, the less it was taxable," said Shapiro.
There were also social factors, the study found. "In African-American families there is a much larger extended network of kin as well as other obligations. From other work we've done we know that there's more call on the resources of relatively well-off African-American families; that they lend money that's not given back; they help cousins go to school. They help brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, with all kinds of legal and family problems," said Shapiro.

[samsara]

Dang

[John is a cult]

I do think it is still necessary.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/17/white-people-95000-richer-black

A $95,000 question: why are whites five times richer than blacks in the US?

• Study finds gaping racial divide in household assets
• Economic policies blamed for growing inequality


A huge wealth gap has opened up between black and white people in the US over the past quarter of a century – a difference sufficient to put two children through university – because of racial discrimination and economic policies that favour the affluent.
A typical white family is now five times richer than its African-American counterpart of the same class, according to a report released today by Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
White families typically have assets worth $100,000 (£69,000), up from $22,000 in the mid-1980s. African-American families' assets stand at just $5,000, up from around $2,000.
A quarter of black families have no assets at all. The study monitored more than 2,000 families since 1984.
"We walk that through essentially a generation and what we see is that the racial wealth gap has galloped, it's escalated to $95,000," said Tom Shapiro, one of the authors of the report by the university's Institute on Assets and Social Policy.
"That's primarily because the whites in the sample were able to accumulate financial assets from their $22,000 all the way to $100,000 and the African-Americans' wealth essentially flatlined."
The survey does not include housing equity, because it is not readily accessible and is rarely realised as cash. But if property were included it would further widen the wealth divide.
Shapiro says the gap remains wide even between blacks and whites of similar classes and with similar jobs and incomes.
"How do we explain the wealth gap among equally-achieving African-American and white families? The same ratio holds up even among low income groups. Finding ways to accumulate financial resources for all low and moderate income families in the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa) has been a huge challenge and that challenge keeps getting steeper and steeper.
"But there are greater opportunities and less challenges for low and moderate income families if they're white in comparison to if they're African-American or Hispanic," he said.
America has long lived with vast inequality, although 40 years ago the disparity was lower than in Britain.
Today, the richest 1% of the US population owns close to 40% of its wealth. The top 25% of US households own 87%.
The rest is divided up among middle and low income Americans. In that competition white people come out far ahead.
Only one in 10 African-Americans owns any shares. A third do not have a pension plan, and among those who do the value is on average a fifth of plans held by whites.
Shapiro says one of the most disturbing aspects of the study is that wealth among the highest-income African-Americans has actually fallen in recent years, dropping from a peak of $25,000 to about $18,000, while among white counterparts of similar class and income it has surged to around $240,000.
In 1984, high-income black Americans had more assets than middle-income whites. That is no longer true.
"I'm a pretty jaded and cynical researcher in some way, but this was shocking, quite frankly, a really important dynamic," said Shapiro. "This represents a broken chain of achievement. In the United States context, when we are thinking about racial equality and the economy we have focused for a long time on equal opportunity.
"Equal opportunity assumes that some people who have that opportunity are going to have pretty high achievements in terms of their jobs, their work, their income, their home ownership.
"The assumption in a democracy is that merit and achievement are going to be rewarded and the rewards here are financial assets. We should see some rough parity and we don't."
The report attributes part of the cause to the "powerful role of persistent discrimination in housing, credit and labour markets. African-Americans and Hispanics were at least twice as likely to receive high-cost home mortgages as whites with similar incomes," the report says.
Although many black families have moved up to better-paying jobs, they begin with fewer assets, such as inheritance, on which to build wealth. They are also more likely to have gone into debt to pay for university loans.
"African-Americans, before the 1960s, first by law and then by custom, were not really allowed to own businesses. They had very little access to credit. There was a very low artificial ceiling on the wealth that could be accumulated. Hence there was very little, if anything, that could be passed along to help their children get to college, to help their children buy their first homes, or as an inheritance when they die," said Shapiro.
Since the 1980s, US administrations have also geared the tax system to the advantage of the better off. Taxes on unearned income, such as shares and inheritance, fell sharply and are much lower than taxes on pay.
"The more income and wealth people had, the less it was taxable," said Shapiro.
There were also social factors, the study found. "In African-American families there is a much larger extended network of kin as well as other obligations. From other work we've done we know that there's more call on the resources of relatively well-off African-American families; that they lend money that's not given back; they help cousins go to school. They help brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, with all kinds of legal and family problems," said Shapiro.

tl;dr

but seriously... basing it off of SES would do the exact same thing the current AA does except.. help more people who need the help.. and stop helping the people who don't need the help.

[zion the lion]

And whose fault were those events? Not mine. Not anyone's. (Save for a handful of racist Arizonans, and some senior citizens from the WWII-Internment era.)

I give everyone their fair chance. I shouldn't in any way be crippled (figuratively) because their ancestors were discriminated against.

What about the race riots in 1919 that was clearly somebody's fault. And The Birth of a Nation becoming a fucking hit like it did and fueling the fire for the KKK...thats not nobody's fault and its not like it was just a few people it was a lot a people and discrimination was a gigantic problem...stop downplaying it you jackass.

[benn10]

What about the race riots in 1919 that was clearly somebody's fault. And The Birth of a Nation becoming a fucking hit like it did and fueling the fire for the KKK...thats not nobody's fault and its not like it was just a few people it was a lot a people and discrimination was a gigantic problem...stop downplaying it you jackass.

I'm not downplaying. I'm simply not claiming responsibility. Quit being such an asshole.

[golferpunk1]

From Dictionary.com:

Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

AA is racism. I agree with those who have said financial aid should be based only on household income. Also I would ask to those who have said that the 'rich white kid' is so much more common that the 'rich black kid,' how many of those rich white kids to you think even apply for financial aid? My guess would be very little so your point is mute.

[caveBEAR]

From Dictionary.com:

Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

AA is racism. I agree with those who have said financial aid should be based only on household income. Also I would ask to those who have said that the 'rich white kid' is so much more common that the 'rich black kid,' how many of those rich white kids to you think even apply for financial aid? My guess would be very little so your point is mute.

AA tends to involve itself more in the makeup of students attending the college, not financial aid. The 'rich white kid' is generally in a much better position to earn better grades and easier access to colleges than the 'poor black kid'.

As well, it's 'moot', not mute.

[golferpunk1]

AA tends to involve itself more in the makeup of students attending the college, not financial aid. The 'rich white kid' is generally in a much better position to earn better grades and easier access to colleges than the 'poor black kid'.

As well, it's 'moot', not mute.
I wondered about that word as I typed it. Thanks.

[caveBEAR]

I wondered about that word as I typed it. Thanks.

So you wondered about your wording of 'mute' over 'moot', but you didn't wonder about your misunderstanding of affirmative action?

Hmm.

[caveBEAR]

gone

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, I got infraction points for this post. Classic.

[golferpunk1]

So you wondered about your wording of 'mute' over 'moot', but you didn't wonder about your misunderstanding of affirmative action?

Hmm.
I don't misunderstand AA. I stand by what I posted.

[caveBEAR]

I don't misunderstand AA. I stand by what I posted.

You equated affirmative action to financial aid, and said that since rich white kids don't apply for financial aid that affirmative action was 'mute'.

Oh, my bad, you totally understand it. :rolleyes:

[loveisdead]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, I got infraction points for this post. Classic.

I didn't give them to you but you deserved them.

[caveBEAR]

I didn't give them to you but you deserved them.

Really? I love the Jews...

:-(

[loveisdead]

Really? I love the Jews...

:-(

I know but that kinda stuff has never and will never be tolerated here. Even if you were joking.

[caveBEAR]

I know but that kinda stuff has never and will never be tolerated here. Even if you were joking.

Fair enough. I just deleted it.

[golferpunk1]

You equated affirmative action to financial aid, and said that since rich white kids don't apply for financial aid that affirmative action was 'mute'.

Oh, my bad, you totally understand it. :rolleyes:
I talked about financial aid because that seemed to be the focus of the thread (at least as far as I read). I didn't equate financial aid to affirmative action because that doesn't even make sense. You can't dispute the fact that that AA does affect financial aid though so I don't know what your problem is. I'm not arguing with what you said in your post because what you said is true. The fact that you keep bringing up my misuse of a word instead of constructive arguments is just proof of how immature you are. I acknowledged my mistake and even thanked you for the correction.

[caveBEAR]

I talked about financial aid because that seemed to be the focus of the thread (at least as far as I read). I didn't equate financial aid to affirmative action because that doesn't even make sense. You can't dispute the fact that that AA does affect financial aid though so I don't know what your problem is. I'm not arguing with what you said in your post because what you said is true. The fact that you keep bringing up my misuse of a word instead of constructive arguments is just proof of how immature you are. I acknowledged my mistake and even thanked you for the correction.

Then perhaps I misunderstood you. What is being rendered moot by financial aid?

[<*)))><]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, I got infraction points for this post. Classic.
Your welcome.

[caveBEAR]

Your welcome.

You're.

[Theseventhson]

I'm sorry on behalf of all of us. :bluesad:

I'm a Jew, too, just a self-hatin' one.

[caveBEAR]

I'm a Jew, too, just a self-hatin' one.

Ha ha ha, did you get infraction points? Yours was just as bad as mine.

[Theseventhson]

Ha ha ha, did you get infraction points? Yours was just as bad as mine.

Yeah. They expire in like a week, though.

[loveisdead]

Alright enough about the infraction points. You guys got them. Let's move on.

[caveBEAR]

Alright enough about the infraction points. You guys got them. Let's move on.

Ha ha ha, sorry.

Back to Affirmative Action...

[captivewear]

I think the original idea of Affirmative Action was good. Equal interviewing and rights to get a job no matter the color of your skin.
But in reality I think it shows just how bad this country still is. If we need a law to tell us that a Black man can be just as good (or better) then a White man (or whoever) at a job then we are in bad shape. Frankly if I wasn't hired at a company because of teh way I look or the color of my skin then why the hell would you want to work for a company like that? If they won't hire you cause your Black then just think about the problems you'd have down the road at that company. Personally I think that Affirmative Action is an insult to all minorities in America. It is 2010 and we are still struggling with racism, homophobes, religious propaganda in politics, the Tea Party movement that is ruining America's values and brainwashing this country and idiots like Rand Paul saying that he would end the Civil Rights Act that would makes it illegal to not allow minorities, handicaps, and the disabled to enter a public or private place. This guy is a freakin joke!

[caveBEAR]

I think the original idea of Affirmative Action was good. Equal interviewing and rights to get a job no matter the color of your skin.
But in reality I think it shows just how bad this country still is. If we need a law to tell us that a Black man can be just as good (or better) then a White man (or whoever) at a job then we are in bad shape. Frankly if I wasn't hired at a company because of teh way I look or the color of my skin then why the hell would you want to work for a company like that? If they won't hire you cause your Black then just think about the problems you'd have down the road at that company. Personally I think that Affirmative Action is an insult to all minorities in America. It is 2010 and we are still struggling with racism, homophobes, religious propaganda in politics, the Tea Party movement that is ruining America's values and brainwashing this country and idiots like Rand Paul saying that he would end the Civil Rights Act that would makes it illegal to not allow minorities, handicaps, and the disabled to enter a public or private place. This guy is a freakin joke!

I wouldn't lump Rand Paul in with some of the other groups you mentioned. His beliefs may be ass-backwards for 2010, but they do fall in line with the Libertarian 'don't tell me to do with my property' rhetoric. I don't sense as much scathing racism from him as you do some of the other groups.

Doesn't excuse his views, however.

[captivewear]

I wouldn't lump Rand Paul in with some of the other groups you mentioned. His beliefs may be ass-backwards for 2010, but they do fall in line with the Libertarian 'don't tell me to do with my property' rhetoric. I don't sense as much scathing racism from him as you do some of the other groups.

Doesn't excuse his views, however.
Man you are the only person that ever replys back to my post haha.

[open mind]

because past injustices effect the present i back affirmative action.

[Machu505]

Since the idea that affirmative action is intended as a punishment to white people is still being brought up, let me point this out:

It's not.

[benn10]

Since the idea that affirmative action is intended as a punishment to white people is still being brought up, let me point this out:

It's not.

It's not intended as a punishment, but it's inarguably discriminatory toward white people.

[GeeBee]

It's not intended as a punishment, but it's inarguably discriminatory toward white people.

Yeah, white people just can't catch a break in this country.

[caveBEAR]

It's not intended as a punishment, but it's inarguably discriminatory toward white people.

:rolleyes:

[benn10]

Yeah, white people just can't catch a break in this country.

Yeah. Your stereotyping of all caucasians as well-off doesn't help.

[caveBEAR]

Yeah. Your stereotyping of all caucasians as well-off doesn't help.

Ha ha ha ha, should have known someone named after a Cartoon Network show wouldn't get it.

He's not saying all white people are better off, he's not stupid. What he is saying is that (generally) the people in positions of power (management, corporate, political, etc.) are white, and the history of white people in power over other races is not a nice story.

If you think it's gotten any better in the year 2010, look up 'Tea Party Protest Signs'. Look for the one where they misspell the n-word. Classic.

[benn10]

Ha ha ha ha, should have known someone named after a Cartoon Network show wouldn't get it.

He's not saying all white people are better off, he's not stupid. What he is saying is that (generally) the people in positions of power (management, corporate, political, etc.) are white, and the history of white people in power over other races is not a nice story.

If you think it's gotten any better in the year 2010, look up 'Tea Party Protest Signs'. Look for the one where they misspell the n-word. Classic.

No shit sherlock. He's GENERALIZING. You enter some dangerous territory when you start to do that.

[caveBEAR]

No shit sherlock. He's GENERALIZING. You enter some dangerous territory when you start to do that.

Hi, kettle? It's the pot. Newsflash: you're black, too.

[GeeBee]

Yeah. Your stereotyping of all caucasians as well-off doesn't help.

No shit sherlock. He's GENERALIZING. You enter some dangerous territory when you start to do that.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that by-and-large whites DON'T have an advantage over minorities in this country? GTFO.

[GeeBee]

Hi, kettle? It's the pot. Newsflash: you're black, too.

Don't generalize.

[caveBEAR]

Don't generalize.

Sorry, let me correct it;

Hi, kettle? It's the pot. Newsflash: you're a dark ashen hue, as well.

[TheWonderYears]

Affirmative Action leads to diversity at college. Diversity is good.

[benn10]

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that by-and-large whites DON'T have an advantage over minorities in this country? GTFO.

I never said that.

[Machu505]

Affirmative Action leads to diversity at college. Diversity is good.

At universities like MIT, I think more white people would contribute to that haha.

[GeeBee]

I never said that.
Then you had no point.

[benn10]

Then you had no point.

What made you think I thought that whites in general don't have an advantage over minorities?

[GeeBee]

What made you think I thought that whites in general don't have an advantage over minorities?

These:
Yeah. Your stereotyping of all caucasians as well-off doesn't help.

No shit sherlock. He's GENERALIZING. You enter some dangerous territory when you start to do that.

So at long fucking last, what IS your point? Am I wrong to assume whites generally have it better off in this country? Why?

[benn10]

These:




So at long fucking last, what IS your point? Am I wrong to assume whites generally have it better off in this country? Why?

Again, I never said that the average white-American is worse off than the average minority.

[caveBEAR]

Again, I never said that the average white-American is worse off than the average minority.

No, but when Geebee sarcastically stated;
Yeah, white people just can't catch a break in this country.
you had a hissy about generalizations. You apparently had no point to make (but seeing his remark was in response to your comment on Affirmative Actions being discriminatory to white folks, I beg to differ), so I'm going to have to wager you are on your period. I can't think of any other reason you'd have a problem with his remark.

[benn10]

No, but when Geebee sarcastically stated;

you had a hissy about generalizations. You apparently had no point to make (but seeing his remark was in response to your comment on Affirmative Actions being discriminatory to white folks, I beg to differ), so I'm going to have to wager you are on your period. I can't think of any other reason you'd have a problem with his remark.

Don't be a douche.

[caveBEAR]

Don't be a douche.

Have a point.

[saysmydoctor]

Don't be a douche first.

:shrug:

(Jk)

[benn10]

Have a point.

There are quite a few lower-class whites. When they encounter situations where race-based affirmative action is in place, they're fucked. Race-based affirmative action more or less assumes that all whites are homogenous, and does not take into account their socioeconomic status. Thus, when a minority and a white in the same socioeconomic status, say, apply for a job where AA is in play, given that the white has equal or slightly more favorable credentials, the minority will receive the job solely based on his or her race. The white is arguably as disadvantaged as the minority, not because of his race, but because of his financial situation. If minorities are financially disadvantaged, and there are many non-minorities who are equally as disadvantaged, affirmative action (when necessary) should be based on income, as to avoid the moral hazard of discriminating on the basis of race.

It's difficult to make an argument when some pricks are reading into what I said before I could even establish a point. But then again, that's what I get for engaging in an argument on the Internet.

And again, I in no way stated that whites are generally worse-off than minorities. Don't take meaning out of something that isn't there.

[perceptrons]

There is more to a disadvantage in life than poor socioeconomic status.

[Love As Arson]

There should be affirmative action based on class. however, race and class are intrinsically linked due to governmental policies that disproportionately placed African-Americans at an economic disadvantage.