Portal Star wrote:joefromchicago wrote:So you'd be more comfortable with affirmative action based on income rather than minority status?
Absolutely. I would still disagree with it on the terms that I disagree with socialist government policies, but I would be much more comfortable with it. At least it would be more fair and true to the claims of what affirmative action is said to do.
Why is it more "fair" to give a benefit to a poor student than to a minority student? What is it about wealth that is more relevant to education than race?
Portal Star wrote:So, the argument that we are assisting certain general color/heritage groups over other skin colors due to an increased disadvantage doesn't hold up statistically. Poor and disadvantaged is poor and disadvantaged, regardless of skin color. You can more clearly calculate how poor and disadvantaged someone is by something as simple as their tax return than you can by their race.
There are many different kinds of "disadvantage:" poverty is only one. And a poor person can get richer. A black person can't get whiter.
Unless, of course, that black person is Michael Jackson.
Portal Star wrote:Of course not, but I want you to understand that I am not talking about standing law here so much as social morality and its relation to the concept of affirmative action. I'm talking about what -should be- more than what -is.-
I'm quite happy to keep this on a purely non-legal basis.
Portal Star wrote:And, as a side note, if true diversity were really the goal of universities implementing affirmative action policies (that's my college's claim) they would lower their foreign tuition rates.
A noble goal.