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

Pro begins the final round by repeating the same argument: that in order to get rid of racism, you need to cut down "the root" a.k.a. SES. I have negated this concept several times. For a final occasion, I'll repeat: * Not all minorities are poor; AA helps minorities regardless of class. * Even if poor minorities were put on the same economic playing field, racism will still occur -- proof lies in my example regarding black names not getting call-backs regardless of their qualifications or SES. Pro exclaims, "SAA roots out the cause of racism, kills it, and ensures equal opprotunity for all." This is simply not true. Even if minorities were more economically able, racism can and probably would still occur. Racism is rooted in a lot more than class; proof is that there are many poor white people and yet there is not a problem with white racism in this country. Once again, let's see what elevating people based on class does directly for racism: nothing. It also does nothing to eliminate or reduce poverty on a grand scale. Further, let's not forget that all throughout this debate Pro has ignored one important factor in affirmative action - sexism. AA policies address sexism, but Pro's suggestion of using SES for AA completely ignores this. In fact, Pro's *only* point in defense of his SAA policy is that many people who are poor happen to be minorities, thus it *may* help decrease racism... very unlikely. This is a highly idealistic policy that negates the idea that AA cannot possibly empower an entire impoverished race. Instead, it works on an individual scale, helping a few individuals flourish whereas they might not have had the opportunity otherwise (based on race), and hope that their experience positively impacts minorities in the future - i.e. President Obama's presidency may inspire young blacks to have lofty goals as well. Under Pro's policy, using SES means AA could easily help someone who is male or white -- two groups that certainly don't need help via AA. Pro notes that impoverished people come from all backgrounds and deserve help - including white males. However, some women and minorities rely on AA for inclusion or equality even if they are given financial help from the government (unlike their white male counterparts). That is precisely why AA > SAA. To continue, Pro notes, "May I respectfully remind my opponent that Asians, as I have previously proven 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." Of course this ignores everything I said about Asians and their success in the previous rounds. To repeat, the comparison between blacks and Asians is flawed -- Blacks have a 375 year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination -- many Asians who immigrated to North America included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks -- meaning there is not a level playing field whatsoever for comparison. Pro has completely ignored this reality and chose not to address it. Black racism is deeply ingrained in American society, and social, economic and cultural factors place the two minorities worlds apart. Besides, what does SAA have to do with Asians? So far he's proven that Asians were discriminated against (based on race) yet prevailed. Since SAA doesn't exist, that means they improved their lives without it. So, this example doesn't exactly help prove his point that SAA is the answer to improve racial tensions and sentiments. Instead, we can see that Asians have been sucessful over blacks for precisely the reasons I said: they did not have the same history or standing when first arriving in America. Instead, they were educated, and were able to use that education to create opportunity that led to their success. Now racial tensions against Asians are minimal in the professional sphere. AA seeks to ensure women and educated minorities are able to display their talents and hopefully ahve the same turn-around as Asians. Again, AA often gives preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people whose position is in part due to oppression or slavery in particular [1]. Moving on, Pro continues to misrepresent the aims of AA. For instance, he writes "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." This is FALSE. Being born into a minority inherently gives you a disadvantage in a prejudiced society. This is something Pro is ignoring or perhaps just glossing over in order to give his suggestion merit. However, the fact is that being born a minority is indeed another hurdle in addition to being born poor which I have outlined and explained in this debate. Nevertheless, Pro keeps insisting that SAA will eliminate racism. To repeat, this policy would not give preferential treatment to blacks (or women!), so how can that directly address sexism or racism in particular? This would only make sense if it was employed on such a grand scale that nearly ALL impoverished blacks were given opportunities. However, that is simply far from realistic. In reality, AA only helps ensure that qualified individuals are not prohibited because of their race. That doesn't mean giving unqualified individuals opportunities just because they're black or poor. There are several types of AA including tie-breaker, appointment and outreach. The outreach sect specifically seeks to give minorities in particular advice and other tools to help them find success. Again, since Pro's point is that many minorities are impoverished, then his cause (reducing impoverished minorities) will be directly impacted via AA as it stands now. Many poor minorities will receive special help or attention that can help them make decisions about a path (i.e. promoting education) and perhaps even selectively helped because of their race thereby leaving one less poor minority. However, the issue of racism under Pro's suggestion still is not directly rectified. Again, a poor white person could easily be helped (or helped more often - exemplifying more blatant racism in the system), which simply leaves less resources for the minorities whom AA is supposed to directly address. AA is supposed to address the reality that many people are excluded BECAUSE of racism. That concept would not be relevant regarding SAA. With SAA, people would be given an edge just because they are poor. The result could very possibly still be an all-white environment. Pro goes to great lengths to make it seem as if class is the only important factor in diversity, but that is obviously not true. Moreover, this once again ignores that seeing minorities or women in particular succeed is a specific aim of AA. Pro essentially wants racism and sexism out of the equation, though those are specifically what AA seeks to address. Finally, Pro brings up the issue of "color blind" policies which I've explained (and Pro seemingly agrees) are near impossible. In short, Pro criticizes AA as a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality. However, AA was never proposed as a cure-all solution to inequality. Rather, it was intended only to redress discrimination in hiring and academic admissions. In assessing the value of AA, the question is this: does AA help counteract the continuing injustice caused by discrimination? The research record suggests, unequivocally, that it does [2]. Thanks, Pro, for this great debate. [1] Jaffrelot, Christopher. India's Silent Revolution: The rise of lower castes in northern India (2003). pp. 321. [2] http://www.understandingprejudice.org...