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

Thanks, Pro... And so back to the debate... Pro begins his round by talking about how Asians were once a discriminated against minority, though are now considered a 'model minority' due to their economic and educational prestige. However, you'll notice that this does not really address any of my arguments or AA at all. Yes, Asians have risen above oppression and indeed set a great standard for other oppressed people to follow. What does that have to do with Affirmative Action and why race should not play a part? Even though today Asians are considered a model minority, there is still Affirmative Action in their favor. As I've stated in previous rounds, AA has many intended uses and purposes. One of them is to ensure diversity which leads to innovation and other advantages in the workplace. A benefit of a diverse workforce is the ability to tap into the many talents which employees from different backgrounds, perspectives, abilities and disabilities bring to the workplace [1]. As such, some would consider AA beneficial as it would ensure all kinds of demographics get a chance to participate to maximize the experience and/or product of the company. Pro's next point is that Affirmative Action is supposed to rectify situations of historical oppression. He rightfully notes that people from all colors and backgrounds have been oppressed in the past. Why then, he asks, is AA not offered to people of ALL color and races. The thing is, Pro is not exactly portraying AA in a clear light. White people DO benefit from Affirmative Action. For one thing, AA is supposed to ensure that people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to be included. In theory, this applies to white people as well if for some reason a situation arose where they somehow needed an edge. For another, once again AA doesn't exist solely to help the minorities. The whole point is for *everyone* to be positively impacted by their inclusion and thus contribution. Even if AA exists in some cases just for minorities to set an example for the young people in society, positively impacting one person from that group can affect the positive impact they might have on the future. In other words, while Affirmative Action does indeed attempt to rectify past injustice which may have led to a lack of opportunity, it serves a much wider and useful purpose. I mentioned several times in the last round that Pro has failed to respond to my evidence that people with "black names" are specifically not given call backs for job interviews. That shows that there is blatant evidence against that minority group today. So, even though many white groups (or Asian) may have been discriminated against in the past, there is not evidence - or Pro has not presented evidence - that the discrimination from then affects the way the group is viewed in society today. On the other hand, we can see that blacks and Hispanics, for instance, are still wrongly racially profiled to the point where their opportunities are limited. Since Asians are now considered a "model race," then AA doesn't need to be in their favor most of the time. Similarly, "White America" generally runs everything; only eight black people have EVER been the CEO of a Fortune 500 company [2]. Thus white people are not inherently discriminated against in business, politics, etc. -- hence why AA is not necessary (in most cases) for whites. So, economic welfare exists for the impoverished (regardless of race!), and Affirmative Action exists to include people from various groups. Again, I think Pro's scope of Affirmative Action's aims are very limited. He continues, "The purpose of AA, or at least the purpose I perceive, is to give those that are disadvantaged a greater chance to succeed." The purpose, however, extends far beyond that: it aims to break down the wall of occupational segregation that excluded racial minorities and women from entire occupational sectors throughout American history [3]. This, in turn, affects not only those individuals and groups of individuals but everyone in society. It also ensures that people are not specifically excluded on the basis of things like race or sex. Diversity is desirable and may not be achieved if left to chance. Additoinally, AA is useful in helping to continue fighting stereotypes or other misconceptions about gender and race. So again - how are any of these benefits regarding AA applicable if based on income? If we take the above goals and repercussions, applying them to income does not make a lot of sense. For instance, suppose I said giving AA (ensuring access to opportunities) was given based on income. The people in most need may then only be (or for the most part significantly be) minorities like blacks and Hispanics. In that case, WHITES are underrepresented and not given certain opportunities. How would Pro make up for that disparity in representation - the thing AA tries to address in the first place? Further, if the main goals of AA include tapping into the many talents of people from different cultures, perspectives, abilities and disabilities, then if income is the basis this will not be achieved. Pro writes, "The only justifiable reason for AA is because those concerned are incredibly disadvantaged." However, based on my explanation of AA, that's just not true. As I've said, AA can and does positively impact everyone in society - not just those who receive the boost. Pro also says, "[AA based on income] will strongly limit the way elitists can oppress the poor and minorities." Well first, not all poor people are minorities, and second, I've already explained how the poor (including minorities) receive government aid for opportunities via welfare and other financial assistance. AA exists on an individual basis to ensure diversity in a particular sphere; not to give an entire demographic a free pass to important positions. Pro's final point of the round is that social conditions create an individual's thought - not the color of his skin. He notes that people vote not based on race, but on social environment. That's generally true. However, that still does not address any of the statements I made regarding the aims and benefits of AA. Keep in mind that we're not talking about voting patterns here. We're talking about representation. Pro seems to think that affirmative action exists solely to give minorities an edge because they're typically impoverished. His point is that not all minorities are impoverished therefore giving them an edge won't do much because they come from the same background as their peers (a privileged one). However, I've been trying to point out that AA exists not to help those black individuals affected achieve higher social status (or wealth), but rather to serve as a public symbol of the abolition of racism (or sexism). For instance, Hillary Clinton ran for President in 2008. She is certainly not poor; she was a Senator and the former First Lady (before that, a lawyer -- far from impoverished). However, if she had been elected President, her status would have made a statement and/or impact for women everywhere. It doesn't matter that she is wealthy and powerful. What matters is that she represents a women in power. This helps show that women (or minorities) are CAPABLE, and therefore discrimination is unnecessary and unwarranted; individuals should be judged not on race or sex. The point is that AA therefore helps ensure certain people are given the opportunity to succeed regardless of race or sex, which will not only impact the results and dynamic of power, but also serve as a good example and stance against discrimination for the rest of society. That's all for now -- back to Pro and good luck :) [1] http://www.zeromillion.com... [2] http://www.blackentrepreneurprofile.com... [3] http://bostonreview.net...