« on: August 10, 2005, 11:59:16 AM »
I don't think it has, actually, which is why I don't support it. I think shortly after it was implemented it moved a very small number of minorities into elite positions in our society, but I think today's AA recipients are overwhelmingly the descendents of those people. So I'm not convinced it's moving us toward diversity at all...Rather, I think the long term effect will be more stratification in minority communities and the creation of a permanent, AA-engineered minority upper middle class.
What do you mean by "stratification in minority communities"? And what's wrong with a permanent minority upper middle class? I don't deny that AA primarily aids elite people of color integrate elite white institutions. No doubt it does. AA is not a revolutionary measure. But it's still better than nothing.
I should have clarified that. Actually, instead of "permanent" I should have used the word "fixed." That's what I mean by stratification -- i.e., that AA is helping ensure class positions in minority communities become fixed and is basically creating an AA aristocracy. A permanent minority upper middle class is a great thing, but a modern day aristocracy? Not so much...
I reach this conclusion for (mostly) 2 reasons:
1) The standard of living for poorer minorities is getting worse, not better, making it that much more difficult for them to move up in the world;
2) AA makes no pretention of even reaching out to disadvantaged minorities. As you said, it helps elite minorites become a part of elite white institutions.
So, here's my way of looking at it: If you're "elite," you do not need assistance by definition. From my perspective, there's really no other conclusion I can reach. Also, if the only justification for contiuning a policy is "it's better than nothing," that policy is ready for the ash heap.
I say this not to berate you or start a fight, but rather to show how we're looking at the same facts and reaching vastly different conclusions.