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

Pro begins, "AA focuses too much on the race and not the reason why the race is in trouble: their SES (socioeconomic status)." As I have said, improving SES is NOT THE PURPOSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. I have listed a plethora of benefits and goals of affirmative action; improving the SES of an entire race is not one of them. Nevertheless, Pro continues to compare groups like blacks (targets for prejudice) to the so-called model minorities of groups like Asians and Jews who were also once discriminated against but rose above. However, this comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against black people in America. Blacks have a 375 year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else. Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. To expect blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that black people face [1]. Pro's concern is that even with AA, racism and discrimination would still exist, because most minorities would still be poor and therefore still discriminated against. While this is a valid concern, one option is to eliminate AA all-together. As I've said, welfare exists to help the poor, and AA exists to encourage diversity (among other goals). We've already established that not all impoverished people are minorities. Therefore, helping poor white guys get ahead will really not address the problems of blatant and inherent racism or sexism which AA seeks to eliminate. Moreover, it will not allow for the opportunities and rewards that diversity ensures. I'm not sure how giving people opportunites based on SES will rectify his presented problem of continued discrimination. If his point has been that most minorities are poor, and we should help the poor, then wouldn't the same sentiment of "You're only here because of reverse racism" still apply? Of course instead of race it'd be SES, but the same stigma of an empowered minority would be attributed to AA and not their individual merits. That's why Pro's example regarding H. Clinton is comical; he says if she were elected due to her sex it would undermine her achievement... yet he favors empowering people based on SES which does the exact same thing. Next, my opponent reminds us that "A black man born into wealth will think similarly, have similar talents, and have a similar culture with other Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic men born into similar circumstances." I have not denied this; however, as I said it ignores many of the other points I keep making. For instance, one of the reasons AA is helpful is to ensure that people aren't being excluded specifically BECAUSE of their race. In other words, if a perfectly capable and wealthy black man went to the job interview with the same credentials (and background, talents, etc.) as a wealthy white man, but doesn't get hired, racism may be to blame. While it's true that diversity is one achieavable goal and benefit of AA, it's not the only one. Once again let's consider the statistic regarding job call-backs for those with black sounding names. A black person who may be just as privileged or cultured as a white applicant can be denied specifically based on his race, which AA seeks to prevent. Also, to clarify, people from impoverished backgrounds don't always vote the same way as Pro has implied. 'What's the Matter With Kansas' illustrates how white people in the south still vote Republican (conservative economics) despite their urban counterparts from the same SES tending to vote Liberal [2]. Throughout the last round, we can see that Pro continues to misrepresent the aims of AA. He writes, "SAA will give those in low SES to not only express their talents, ideas, and beleifs, but will be able to put them into action. Due to a lack of power and money, those with low SES rarely are able to do this." Once again, helping individuals succeed is NOT the goal of AA. Affirmative action seeks to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and businesses from which they have been historically excluded. Granting AA based on SES as Pro suggests does nothing to further AA's agenda. Pro continues, "My opponent beleives that AA will help needy whites as well as minority races. By definition it cannot." You'll notice I never said this -- What I said was that everyone can benefit from these policies, as they ensure diversity which I explained has many positive effects on society and in the workforce. For instance, I think I already explained that when women are in politics, certain topics simply are discussed more - such as childcare, education, abortion and healthcare to name a few. Studies show that without women in these positions of power, important topics like this (which many women are concerned about) often go ignored or stay in the background of political discussion. Ensuring that women are engaged in these dialogs means that women in society have the opportunity to have their voices and concerns heard via the women in power. This is just one example of how AA can help the public at large in addition to the individual minorities (which again is part of the goal on a larger scale). This also negates Pro's point that "Those in favor of AA are more concerned about a diversity in color than in diversity in ideals, talents, and beliefs." Once again we can see that Pro continues to misrepresent the aims of AA. Diversity in color is SPECIFICALLY the point in many of the cases where AA is applied! Diversity of sex is also a specific aim in some cases. Pro continues, "What's worse is they [supporters of AA] actually beleive that color gives an individual certain ideals, talents, and beliefs." I think it has become pretty apparent that Pro simply does not understand the various concepts behind AA which I will continue to address. I have explained how even if a black woman is helped via AA, and said black woman is wealthy (and comes from a similar bg to wealthy whites - with similar talents and beliefs), AA would still be effective. Essentially Pro advocates color-blind policies, though he ignores several blatant realities. For instance, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White [3]. Moreover, without affirmative action, the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body [4]. In other words, policies regarding color are still relavent in today's society - that's why AA exists the way it does. Pro's biggest concern seems to be that AA based on racism will do nothing to cure prejudice in society. However, job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas AA is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what AA does. Consider this analogy: if you gave a healthy person a high dose of vitamins or nutritional supplements, it could have negative or even damaging effects... but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance [1]. Outta characters for now - back to ye. [1] http://www.understandingprejudice.org... [2] http://books.google.com... [3] Ezorsky, G. (1991). Racism and justice: The case for affirmative action. Cornell University Press. [4] Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton University Press.