Ahh, the best way to offset one's own pure speculation is to accuse the other of pure speculation. Great argumentative style!
Whoa, you keep repeating what I say, and then trying to turn the tables. That doesnt work. I'll rewind here so you can understand what the issue is.The point was acknowledge that a wealthy URM has an advantage over a disadvantaged ORM. The gap between these two groups is irrelevant; if there is one, why should it exist, since clearly the wealthy URM will have an advantage already by their wealth, and hence why should an AA policy further increase that? You present a hypothetical exception, or make claims about flaming. There has been a reasoned debate until you entered with the rhetoric, and frankly that doesn't it (either here or in law school, as you probably should know). Feel free to respond to the issues, rather than just spewing whatever you feel like.
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.
Page created in 0.316 seconds with 19 queries.