To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the question

After checking them out, I still don't see more than "majority minority" groups being represented. I also think the idea of enforcing equality on an unequal populus is a ridiculus idea. Especially because disadvantage is not linked to race as strongly as it is to income.

Did you know that the largest and poorest race-assiciated poverty group in the US are rural whites?

Please keep in mind that this forum -is- about opinion, and I have not throughouly researched the standing laws as I would for a formal debate.

Portal Star wrote:

After checking them out, I still don't see more than "majority minority" groups being represented. I also think the idea of enforcing equality on an unequal populus is a ridiculus idea. Especially because disadvantage is not linked to race as strongly as it is to income.

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.

Portal Star wrote:

Did you know that the largest and poorest race-assiciated poverty group in the US are rural whites?

Yep. So what?

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.

Portal Star wrote:

Please keep in mind that this forum -is- about opinion, and I have not throughouly researched the standing laws as I would for a formal debate.

Surely you would not give the same consideration to an uninformed opinion as you would to an informed one, would you?

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.

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.

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.-

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.

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?

It is still discrimination, but it would be more accurately decide who needed help than affirmative action does. Yes, wealth is a much stronger predictor for success and disadvantage than race is.

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.

Hah, if you can call that still human.

Sure, poverty is only one of many different predictors of disadvantage, but it is a strong one that is clear to interpret.

Being black may not change but if being black is keeping you (or your ancestors) from getting a job/education, that would be clearly reflected in your income.

Also, the perception of race changes, while poverty is closer to being a fixed constant of disadvantage.

On an interesting side note, poverty wouldn't be as strongly linked to future success if it weren't for public school funding being tied to property values.

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.
If you have knowledge to any ends relevant to the conversation, I am glad to hear it - but I'm just saying that wasn't my aim.

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.