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

I realise the purpose of AA is to give equal opprotunity. Minorities do not have this due to current racism in America. However, as Booker T. Washington and I have previously proven, SES and racism are directly corrilated. Again, to kill racism you need to chop out at the roots (SES) not cut down the trunk (What AA would do). If you cut down the trunk you may have a much smaller tree, but it still has the potential to grow to greater heights. AA would give minorites more or less opprotunity, but the roots of racism, SES would not be rooted out. It still would have the potential to grow. As my opponent has stated, previous laws concerning banning racism have not been completely effective because 'quite obviously the point here is that while this discrimination is in fact illegal, PEOPLE ARE BIASED ANYWAY as the example regarding names proves' as my opponent has stated. With AA people would still beleive to have reason for racism and their racist bias would either grow or consistantly need to be choped down. However, SAA roots out the cause of racism, kills it, and ensures equal opprotunity for all. My opponent next points out that Jews and Asians, once discriminated against races, now provide the US with high SES professions. May I respectfully remind my opponent that Asians, as I have previously proven (refer back), were once barred from all decent jobs due to racism. It has been progressively, not imedietly, that they have obtained high SES and, in effect, ended racial prejudice against them. My opponent has before stated that there are mulitple laws that assist the poor already. Firstly, I would like to point out that there are multiple laws, already proven in my debate, that fight against racism. Furthermore, the laws that help the poor only help the poor stay poor. Social mobility is a phenominal acomplishment. However, because it is so difficult to acheive it proves how tyranical the elitist can be. They often are prevented from success not because they aren't smart enough, not because they aren't hard working enough, but because, as my opponent has stated, 'These limited opportunities happen to be based on nothing but sheer bad luck in terms of what kind of life people were born into.' SAA is a law that attempts to eliminate much of or eliminate completely the unfair advantage of birth. It would be unfair to whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, or any other race to be born in a situation where there is so little likelyhood they will succeed. Being a minority is not a disadvantage in itself, but being born into low SES or being steryotyped as an ineffective or even dangerous member of society due to generalsations concerning your race is. The wealthy, capable black man my opponent keeps refering to is obviosly a victum of racism. To eliminate racism one must chop out the roots. If AA instead of SAA is put into action, people will 'STILL BE BIASED ANYWAYS' and still deny him the job. However, if the roots are cut out the ideal of racism will be proven false and therefore die. Furthermore, including the poor white man in SAA will end racism. Impoverished people, regardless of their race, would be given equal opprotunity. Race would not be a focous or factor. You are looked upon not as black or white, but as a human being. That truly was MLK's dream. Finally, with all respect, race in and of itself does not create a culture. Social conditions create a culture. Integrating people with ideals, beleifs, and talents assosiated with low SES would create far more diversity than only being intrested in the integration of race in and of itself. I have already adiquetly proven this (refer back) As I have previously stated, there are always exceptions. Not every wealthy voter, no matter what race he is, will vote directly based on SES. In fact, the point that there is still variation among black voters within various classes further proves that social condtion, not race, is responsible for beleifs because the same can be said for members of all races concerning their voting habits. If it is true, as my opponent has stated, that diversity in color and sex for the sake of diversity in color and sex, is the central focus of AA, than my opponent has concerned that AA truly is a racist ideology. MLK dreamed of a day where no one would be judged by the color of their skin. AA clearly assumes MLK's dream is somewhat false and therefore can be bended. SAA has a firm loyalty to Dr. King's dream to not only judge others based on who they are but to help others based on their need regardless of race. My opponent beleives that SAA would not work because it would create a racist society. However, as I have previously stated, SAA is not concerned with the color of your skin, but on the degree of your need. If 'Color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White' they are not color blind. They see white as superior to black. However, sometimes such events occur not because of racism but because perhaps the white worker may legidimatley be a better employee than the black man. If this is the case than those accusing others of racism are racist themselves. They cannot understand that being nondiscrimniatory requires one to subject members of all races to the same laws. If one violates a law or works poorly, whether they be white or black, they will be punished in the same manner as if a member of another race had done the same thing. I would like to thank my opponent for an enjoyable, challenging, and eye opening debate. I had a run for my money in this debate and complement my opponent on his or her intellegence and talent. I wish my opponent the best of luck in the voting period. To my opponent: thank you and good luck.