4 ms·
The problem with this approach is it gives benefits to people on the basis of race rather than social disadvantage. So you have the difficult situation (for ex
by philk 17y ago
The problem with this approach is it gives benefits to people on the basis of race rather than social disadvantage.
So you have the difficult situation (for example) of explaining why a black person from a wealthy background benefits from affirmative action, and on the flip side you wind up with poor white people who miss out.
At the same time, anyone from the group that benefits from affirmative action who is successful will carry the stigma of being the recipient of an unfair advantage.
If you want to address disadvantaged groups you should do so in a color blind fashion - ie provide benefits based on socioeconomic status, rather than skin color.
- maxklein 17y agoBut is the problem not racial? As in - if you took too poor people, one black and one white, one speaking 'white', another speaking 'black', cleaned them up and sent them out looking for jobs, would one have an advantage over the other? I think the point of affirmative action is not to make poor people rich, it's to negate a disadvantage a certain skin color may have. This disadvantage may extend into the upper strata of society. If it's to correct a disadvantage based of a color of skin, to me it seems to make sense to use the color of skin as the indicator. And from what I understand, anyone in the U.S can basically call themselves 'Black'. So if the advantage were so great, any white person can just call themselves black and gain those same advantages.