AA: More harm than good?

[..................................1]

African Americans, whether wealthy or poor, have experienced a long history of discrimination and systemic racism in America.  Class has nothing to do with this debate. Wealthy blacks remain to be black, African American, and therefore a member of a highly disadvantaged group of people in America.  Rich or poor, black is black.  Although wealth provides greater opportunities for individuals of all races, the wealthy black man is still viewed as a black man, an inferior being in American history.  This is why AA is necessary: to provide equitable opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.

[Kirk Lazarus]

Never mind, not arguing this anymore. Galt is thoroughly convinced of his/her correctness, and is ignoring posts to the contrary by engaging in a bit of shotgun semantics. That's fine, glad you are so strongly convicted.

Shotgun semantics? Strawman?

Give me a break. Every single person engaged in this thread knows that you've made a poor argument.

You give this broad assertion that being a wealthy minority is less disadvantageous than being poor. You've been asked to provide some support for the assertion, but you resort to either 1) unpersuasive anecdotal evidence that you don't even put into context for a comparative purpose or establish that is even supports your position or 2) circular reasoning (Wealthy minorities have more advantages than poor whites because they are wealthy minorities).

Neither explanation makes a whole lot of sense.

[NYU2011]

wow, i'm not even going to enter this debate after this post, but if you think being a wealthy black is more disadvantageous than being a poor white you are nuts.

I bet if you took a poll no more than 5% at most of wealthy blacks would trade it all to be a poor white, while about 95% of poor whites would trade their life for a wealthy black.  Do I have proof of this, no. 

The only proof I can give you that being a wealthy black is much better than being a poor white is: OPEN YOUR EYES.

[imdashep]

Galt/TM: the reason why I refuse to participate in this thread is that I was not there for the initial stages, and was only making a point that IMO (a point which has yet to be countered) it is much more advantageous with regards to applying for law school to be a rich URM than a poor ORM. Bottom line. You continue to make enjoyable rants to stroke your intellectual egos, and will gladly engage in a debate on this matter if you want to pm me (and we can discuss via messanger or email). I think arguing about these matters in general on an internet forum is not only a waste of time, but leads to the grandstanding and porous logic that has been used so far.

[imdashep]

Well if you want to go with that analogy, I don't feel like playing in games that are below my level. 

Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game. I prefer playing basketball at the rec center or a school gym, and avoid streetball type situations. Just not something I consider a worthwhile expenditure of time.

[imdashep]

Well if you want to go with that analogy, I don't feel like playing in games that are below my level. 

Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game.Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game

yeah i suspect it's not your type of game.  see you later.

Was there a point to your post, other than to get the last word and be obnoxiously dismissive?

[imdashep]

Woof, classic

[imdashep]

The exceptions though prove there is a problem with the system. You ask what would be wrong with giving preference to the black candidate; well, I think that constitutes racism. Give it to the candidate most deserving. I don't think race should be a tiebreaker, nor a bonus system. Obviously we all want to get to a point where everyone has a good chance of success, no matter race or socioeconomic status. But I feel for many reasons that AA hurts not only qualified people who are bypassed, but unqualified people who are selected.

You state anecdotal evidence, and it's certainly compelling. That needs to stop, but I don't believe AA is the best way to go about it.

[filet o' fish]

Never mind, not arguing this anymore. Galt is thoroughly convinced of his/her correctness, and is ignoring posts to the contrary by engaging in a bit of shotgun semantics. That's fine, glad you are so strongly convicted.

                                         

[Outlaw22]

wow, i'm not even going to enter this debate after this post, but if you think being a wealthy black is more disadvantageous than being a poor white you are nuts.

I bet if you took a poll no more than 5% at most of wealthy blacks would trade it all to be a poor white, while about 95% of poor whites would trade their life for a wealthy black.  Do I have proof of this, no. 

The only proof I can give you that being a wealthy black is much better than being a poor white is: OPEN YOUR EYES.

Whoa... so because someone wouldn't trade a part of their identity if they could, proves that they experience less discrimination/ oppression than the group they could trade with?? LOL at that. 

I'm gay and I wouldn't "trade it all" to be straight. Neither would about 95% of the openly gay community. That does not mean it's easier to be gay than straight in our society or that gays experience less discrimination/oppression. It's the same for any part of your identity - race included. Not wanting to "trade" who you are is a pretty pathetic way to make an argument about this.