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

Pro begins by discussing the fact that many white ethnic groups of the past were discriminated against, yet do not receive special treatment via affirmative action. While that's true, one must look in depth at how various groups were treated throughout history. For one, it's widely disputed among scholars whether or not the Irish were truly rejected from the workforce in America, or if that is just a long-standing historical myth [1]. Nevertheless, while the Irish may have been culturally alienated (as were nearly ALL immigrants during that time period), they were not enslaved in this country like the blacks, nor were they not given equal rights well into the 1960s like the blacks. Similarly, women did not truly begin to emerge in the workforce or public sphere until after the second wave of the feminist movement in the 1970s. Many consider A.A. policies to be responsible for much of the success we've had up until today. Pro writes, "It can be guaranteed that there is a correlation between historical discrimination against ancestors and current socio economic status." I'm willing to bet that the evidence in support of this notion is far from "guaranteed," however, regardless this is an irrelevent fact. The purpose of affirmative action isn't only to help those who have suffered historically, but to give certain people the incentive or opportunity to succeed because of the positive impact it will have on society in the present/future. A key factor in support of AA policies is the fact that certain issues are highlighted at the forefront of discussion when particular leaders are in charge. For instance, when women are engaged in a political dialog, certain issues are discussed and challenged far more often than when it's just men running the show. Examples of these topics include abortion, women's rights, civil rights, and issues that affect the home and family such as education and health care. As such, it's beneficial to society (and women who want and deserve representation in government) to have women in certain positions of power. But I ask - what is the benefit of giving people who may have been financially insecure a position of power? At best, you can argue that they will highlight policies regarding economics, the budget and the poor. However, we already have candidates and people in power who discuss these issues in particular on a daily basis (they're called Democrats, liberals, socialists, etc.). So, here you can see a blatant example of how AA based on gender is appropriate and useful, but affirmative action based on class is not. So far Pro has failed to give sufficient evidence that this endeavor would be useful or necessary for society. Pro continues, "While the poor may not have been discriminated against specifically, they have certainly been oppressed due to being poor and the lack of power thereof." Once again, it's important to note that policies regarding AA do not exist as a form of socialism or politics that demand equality and/or equal opportunity. They exist to rectify injustices of the recent past, or more importantly the current present. Has Pro given us evidence that poor people are discriminated against blatantly? For instance, I showed an example of black people not being called back for job interviews based on their "black sounding" name alone. While it's true that a poor person one may not have the same opportunities to succeed as a rich individual, a poor individual is not automatically dismissed for an interview based on their name or even their current tax bracket. Pro reminds us of the Homestead and Pullman strikes; he says that the poor white man was usually oppressed because of his lack of power, not because of the color of his skin. Again, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. Yes - class wars exist and those of a lower class usually have less power, because they have less wealth and property therefore less influence and control. All of this is true. However, how can ensuring that some poor people are given the opportunity for success help anything in society as a whole? In that case, the poor person would no longer be economically disadvantaged... So basically what Pro is suggesting is just giving certain poor people various opportunities to end the cycle of poverty. But, we must remember that AA is not about helping certain individuals succeed, but about setting an example that influences society and the future as a whole. It's more about social progression than social welfare. Next I'll address some economic discrepancies mentioned by my opponent. He writes, "[Minorities] have historically been discriminated against and due to that discriminatation, they are now disadvantaged." That is not historically accurate. If my opponent is speaking of minorities from, say, Hispanic descent, it's clear that individuals from these various nations are impoverished because of the economic laws of their countries as well as the various levels of industrializtion from each country. South American nations for instance are mostly third-world nations, and as such people from this area do not have a lot of opportunities to succeed. These limited opportunities happen to be based on nothing but sheer bad luck in terms of what kind of life people were born into. However, as Pro mentioned, this unfortunate circumstance applies to people all over the globe. People in Macedonia for instance might be white but just as impoverished. Because we already have programs that aim to help the poor succeed (in terms of giving them the same opportunities to advance via education and such), we must recognize that discrimination surmounts the issue of class. If Person A is rich and black, and Person B is poor and white... but that poor person was able to go to college with the black person thanks to welfare and financial aid... then we still have evidence that Person A is more likely to be excluded from, say, a job admission even though he might be from a higher social class than Person B (based on his race). Again, we do NOT have evidence that poor people are excluded purposely based on class, and that specifically including the impoverished will help society on a large scale. Pro writes, "Affirmative Action based on socioeconomic status would assist all who have been unfairly oppressed." Of course things brings up the obvious point that Pro cannot prove all poor people have been unfairly oppressed. Next Pro says that my example of discriminaton based on race is false because of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting this kind of blatant discrimination. However, quite obviously the point here is that while this discrimination is in fact illegal, PEOPLE ARE BIASED ANYWAY as the example regarding names proves. Moreover, the CRA does not protect against all kinds of discrimination such as discrimination based on gender or sexuality (only sex is specified, which is different from the two former). Pro concludes his argument by talking about how the lower class is more socially disadvantaged than their middle and upper class peers. Of course I've already explained at length why this is irrelevant. Pro says, "Being a minority is not a disadvantage in itself but having low socioeconomic status is." This is falsed based on the evidence I provided indicating blatant racism and sexism. In short, Pro's argument is in agreement with Booker T. Washington's - that racism would end when minorities gain the same socioeconomic as white men. I believe that tangible evidence is necessary for this conclusion. Meanwhile, there is evidence that racism exists beyond class. For instance, famous black jazz musicians were still not allowed to perform or rent rooms from "white only" hotels despite how much money they had during the 40s and 50s. Extend all my arguments for now, and see ya in the next round :) [1] http://tigger.uic.edu...