Affirmative Action should be based on Socio-Economic Status and not race or religion

Thanks, Pro, for the debate. == INTRODUCTION == Affirmative action refers to positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded [1]. Pro's suggestion is to factor in socio-economic status in determining who receives preferential treatment - i.e. extra help for admissions. However, considering one's socio-economic status has nothing to do with affirmative action and in fact undermines or negates the entire concept. The purpose of such action is to be more inclusive toward individuals who come from backgrounds which have been specifically excluded due to factors they cannot control (like gender, race or nationality), and which have nothing to do with their abilities to perform the job or attend the school. To help negate the resolution, I'll focus on combating Pro's individual arguments. == DEBATE == To help prove his point, Pro has included a statistic noting that more women are enrolled in colleges than males. However, the same source notes that it wasn't until 2004 that women earned more than half of the degrees. Additionally, the source notes that one reason for the disparity is the fact that many guys choose to enter blue collar professions or technical schools as opposed to women. Moreover, there is still a huge difference in pay gaps. According to the Census Bureau, women on average earn 77 cents to each dollar paid to male counterparts with the same qualifications and doing the same work [2]. The source also notes a report by the American Association of University Women called "How Schools Short-Change Girls," which compiled reams of research on other gender inequities in the educational system [3]. So, quite obviously there are still some disparities on the gender-front in terms of treating female students and employees with the same regard shown to males, meaning Pro's declaration that women have surpassed the need for special attention is false. Now let's consider how factoring in the lower socio-economic classes are relevant. Pro pointed out that many lower class individuals are white; however, the National Poverty Center reports that poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average [4]. So, in considering minority status one may subsequently be considering socio-economic status as well. As Pro rightly pointed out, there are ties between class and race. The problem is that it becomes much harder to prove that poor people have been specifically and intentionally kept out of academic and employment spheres on the basis of their wealth, whereas there's lots of evidence indicating and explaining how certain minorities and women have been specifically excluded. Further, helping minorities and women achieve success sets a great precedent and example for those following in their footsteps. Numerous studies prove that just SEEING someone you can relate to - i.e. who looks like you (race or gender) succeeding uplifts individuals to aspire the same effects. If a poor white man is given some help, it doesn't have the same impact on society as a whole. Pro also brings up the fact that many whites have been discriminated against in history as well, such as racial slurs against the Irish stemming back to the 1800s. However, Affirmative Action advocates would argue that the Irish were not brought from Ireland to be slaves, and not specifically oppressed into the deep 20th century as blacks were. Moreover, let's look at facts from *today* as opposed to the 1800s. Does Pro have any evidence or indication of anti-Irish or anti-white discrimination on a mass scale? A study conducted at the University of Chicago found that people with "black-sounding" names such as Lakisha and Jamal are 50 percent less likely to be interviewed for a job compared to people with "white-sounding" names such as Emily or Greg [5]. This proves that an impoverished individual with a "white" name stands a better chance at employment than a minority even if they are poor. Pro continues to talk about oppression and poverty, and points out that there are some minorities who are not impoverished and therefore should not be considered in affirmative action by being given an edge. While that's true, the same can be said about poor people -- Many poor people are able to work around financial barriers and achieve success as well. For example, I do not qualify for any type of aid because of how much money my parents make. Meanwhile, students at my college taking on the same burdens are given a substantial amount of help due to programs like Welfare and Financial Aid which make it possible for them to attend school at little to no cost. In short, impoverished individuals are given a significant amount of help that is not afforded to those who fall above the poverty line (like myself). Worse, I'm sure that I wouldn't even fall above that line, but because my PARENTS fall above that line I am automatically punished (and forced to pay the full amount for school, take out loans, etc.) without any help from my folks, whereas the poor people are given other aid from the government (i.e. my parents' tax dollars... in other words, my parents are helping them more than me lol). So, since the poor are already catered to in terms of financial assistance, then I fail to see how expanding affirmative action would be helpful or useful. Financial aid helps the impoverished people receive a necessary education and things of that nature. However, suppose a white woman and black woman received the same education and had the same opportunities (thanks to economic government programs). Upon graduation, they both apply for jobs. The study I provided shows why affirmative action based on race becomes fare more relevant and useful than affirmative action based on socio-economic status. By Pro's suggestion, the person who is worse off financially should get the job. What problem does that rectify in society? That poor people have been discriminated against? It seems that poor people aren't blatantly discriminated against but are instead just disadvantaged due to their financial situations. However, as I said, economic programs already rectify that problem. Does Pro have any evidence that a person who is less wealthy is discriminated against on job interviews? Or how about any proof of blatant discrimination at all? There is plenty of proof that racism is still alive and well. A Princeton University study found that black men who had never been in trouble with the law were about half as likely as whites with similar backgrounds to get a job offer or a callback... In other words, otherwise similarly qualified white men with a prison record receive the same or higher number of job offers as equally qualified black men who have never even been arrested [6]! Without a policy that holds universities and employers accountable for admission based on racism, we can assume that said racism will obviously infiltrate the employment sector meaning specific races (or a specific sex) will continue to be held down and oppressed. On the contrary, there is no evidence that poor people are specifically doomed to be held down and oppressed due to bigotry. Again, poor people lack opportunities based on monetary inadequacies. Because other aspects of the government help them attain those opportunities, then we have no reason to assume that a poor white person has a smaller opportunity to advance than a black person as my last source indicates. == REFERENCES == [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.nwlc.org... [3] http://www.aauw.org... [4] http://www.npc.umich.edu... [5] http://edition.cnn.com... [6] http://www.therationalradical.com...