The importance of affirmative action in reducing poverty

I agree with JFU, most affirmative action programs are based on race, but this creates unfairness and inequities too. Even though while generally, due to historic reasons whites are generally wealthier than blacks, that does not mean that all white people are wealthy and all black people are poor. In the situation where affirmative action is based on race, it makes it even harder for a poor white or asian person to succeed, since not only have they been born with lower status in life, schools and jobs to which they apply actively select against them, in favor of a person of a minority race. I think in this way affirmative action is flawed, and was more important in a time when people were more racist, and were less likely to accept someone of a different race, affirmative action was necessary to balance out the prejudices and incentivize diversification. Now racism isn't as much an issue, so affirmative action does the opposite, it encourages basing acceptance for schools or work based off race not merit.

I agree with what you said Griffin, because I think that while some races are more privileged in American society in comparison to others, it is important that race is not the only divider we use to separate those eligible for affirmative action, and the income of the family in question should definitely play a role. However, it's hard to deny that institutionalized racism is still present in current American society, and affirmative action is a necessary system to combat that evil and move towards progress as more marginalized groups achieve success as a result of the affirmative action process that will help society as a whole move to be more accepting of said minority group and respect them for having the same potential for success as Caucasian or Asian people. Additionally, I think in the case of a poor student who is technically less eligible than a wealthier student both in contention for one spot at a university, the poor student should usually be taken over the affluent one, race aside. A big goal in society to reduce poverty should be to make sure that future families and occupied jobs are ones that produce a strong stream of income, such as engineering or medicine. A wealthy child from a family of doctors will not create a whole new wealthy family upon achieving his success, but rather only reach individual affluence. Someone coming from a poor family can start a whole new family upon achieving success therefore reducing the number of those in poverty and adding to the number of those in our middle or upper class.

I agree with Erik that, while affirmative action is a temporary fix to an enormous and pressing problem but, as most have agreed, should be income-based rather than race-based, the root of the problem is the disparity between the elementary and middle school education of the lower, middle, and upper classes. I believe that, as the wealth gap has progressed so far as to keep 40% of the wealth in 1% of the population, it is necessary for the government to get involved in improving the American education system. That means proper funding and access to resources so that kids from lower income families are able to academically advance themselves to have the opportunity of pursuing higher education. Additionally, these schools need assistance in augmenting their graduation rates and helping students to stay in school rather than drop out to work to support their families. This might be solved with funds to give working students a stipend in return for the continuation of their education. Another option would be to offer adult education classes after school is out to help the income earners of a family find a stable and productive career. I think that affirmative action is a currently necessary temporary fix to a problem long ingrained in our education systems.

Yes, opposing affirmative action as unfair to the rich people who might be denied acceptance for a poorer student with fewer qualifications seems unreasonable. Poorer students often have better work ethics than richer students, even those with better academic performance, due to them often needing to work past issues at home. This work ethic is especially important in college, where studying hard and working together become even more important than they were in high school. Students who have had to work for what they have will have developed a better mental state in terms of working hard than those who haven't had to.
Also, while wealthier and more academically distinguished students may lose spots for reasons out of their control, poorer students were placed at a disadvantage for reasons out of their control, so it is reasonable to try to account for that.

Andrew, I think you've made some amazing points. I agree with Erik, too, that educational equality can't start at the college level, after acceptances based on merit. It's sad to note, though, the state has no way to limit how hands-on or effective private schools are so that their students are at the same level as those from public schools. I do, however, think we should shy away from discussing how deserving students are of higher education. Who's to decide whether intelligence or creativity or work ethic is the be-all end-all of success in college?

Affirmative action is still necessary and important policy which will help bridge the wealth gap. Minorities are still disportionately under paid and below the poverty line. Affirmative action is still necessary since it will take several generations to address historically engrained discrimination. Also, even wealthy minorities are discriminated against. There are very few minorities that are the CEOs of large companies, even though there are many qualified minorities available to take these jobs.