Socioeconomic status DEFINITELY should be included in the consideration of who AA should help, but I don't think we're quite to a level of progress yet where we can preclude race from the equation. I wish we were.
Sands
I agree with this and if AA actually worked this way, you'd hear no complaints from me. The reality is, however, the overwhelming majority of AA recipients are blacks/hispanics/native amerians from middle/upper middle class backgrounds (I know you're rolling your eyes and thinking 'duh'...but you'll see the point soon). Now, while I don't pretend race isn't a factor even in a wealthy minority's life -- it'd be silly to argue otherwise -- it's important to consider the implications of AA policy. It's a flawed policy and, quite honestly, a wrong one.
If it continues the way it exists now, AA will, over the long term, create a permanent minority upper middle class -- which will lead to further social stratification in minority communities. Think about it....AA in no way benefits nor is targeted toward poor minorities. The main beneficiaries of it are blacks/hispanics/native americans living in predominantly white suburbs. The chances of these people going into minority communities and working toward lifting them out of poverty is, on average, very slim. And considering that AA was originally implemented to help those who'd never received a break in their lives and to correct years of racism, how is it achieving that goal when it helps those who have already won their share of the American dream? The inner cities are products of extreme racism....how's AA helping people from there? Or rural Mississippi or Texas? It simply isn't achieving its purpose.
So AA doesn't help those who need the help most. And while, again, race remains a factor in anyone's life who isn't white, I think those from relatively well-off backgrounds are equipped with the economic tools to combat discrimination.