Even if everything you say is true (that some races are poorer than other races) how does that counter what I said?
The strategy I'm talking about gives to poor and disadvantaged people regardless of their race, so if a ton of blacks are poor then they will receive the majority of the benefits.
But as an additional benefit middle and upper class minorities won't get advantages they don't need. You also won't require people to "prove" their ethnicity to be granted these benefits (or discriminated against because they aren't for example "black enough").
Here is a fun question: Exactly how black do you have to be to get affirmative action right now? Do they have like a colour wheel? How does that even work?
You missed the part of his comment that did counter some of what you said.
You said: "Affirmative action should exist; but it should be entirely based on parental income, growing up in a poor area, or other disadvantaged indicators. Not race, not ethnicity, and not gender. These things don't prove you're poor or disadvantaged." which seems quite reasonable.
He said: "Also, helping people who are affected by institutional racism is not racist, it is an attempt to correct for existing racism."
Your statement doesn't seem to acknowledge things in society contributing to future problems.
So he is saying that you have to counter current institutional *isms which still exists today. Otherwise the current biases of today will just contribute to the population of disadvantaged people of tomorrow. I think you need both approaches. Kind of a PID controller kind of solution to the problem.
Countering institutional racism is reactive. It isn't passive like affirmative action is. I think he is describing facilitating courts to allow the discriminated to sue the discriminators, and given sufficient evidence charge them with racial discrimination.
I do agree with him though, you don't repay racisms of the past and present with more racism in the opposite direction.
I'm not really sure how affirmative would be a passive policy vs. a reactive one, would you be able to elaborate on that?
Also, use of the legal system to remedy institutional and societal problems has really only been effective to introduce marginal change in the face of existing problems, so its not an overall solution to the problem, just a small part.
> I do agree with him though, you don't repay racisms of the past and present with more racism in the opposite direction.
This would of course assume that it is possible to be institutionally racist against the predominant white culture in the US, which is not possible. In that sense, a policy such as affirmative action is not racist and instead is a policy that combats racism.
> I'm not really sure how affirmative would be a passive policy vs. a reactive one, would you be able to elaborate on that?
Having a quota of minorities is passive because it's a fire and forget rule that must be met. That is still being racist, because you are discriminating applicants success based on ethnicity.
Reactive laws is really just judicial. You can't write a fire and forget rule of law and have it be anything but a passive manipulator of public policy, it doesn't have reactionary change based on circumstances like courts do.
> Also, use of the legal system to remedy institutional and societal problems has really only been effective to introduce marginal change in the face of existing problems, so its not an overall solution to the problem, just a small part.
You don't solve the hostile behaviors of cultures and groups by being racist. You solve it by criminalizing their racism and punishing those who are bigoted.
> This would of course assume that it is possible to be institutionally racist against the predominant white culture in the US, which is not possible. In that sense, a policy such as affirmative action is not racist and instead is a policy that combats racism.
I'd argue the MLB is institutionally racist against white people. There is a tremendous cultural racism thinking it requires high melanin skin content (not even necessarily African heritage) to be good in basketball. And that is a permeating cultural force that a lot of people don't argue against, they just "assume black people are better at basketball". Or how Asians are better at math because they are Asian, and not because they had strict parents who lauded over their studies.
There is plenty of institutional anti-white racism. White people can't be "street" or ideas like "white people can't dance". They are institutional, not of white culture, but other cultures. It doesn't mean it isn't racist if the majority population isn't in the culture that purports it.
I'm not saying there isn't tremendous institutional racism and sexism in the US. I'm just saying inverse bigotry that replaces merit with skin color, ethnicity, or gender is inherently wrong. When ethnic minorities and women experience less math, science, and intellectual learning, you go where they aren't getting that and give it to them, you don't take what is inherently not racial and make it so.
The strategy I'm talking about gives to poor and disadvantaged people regardless of their race, so if a ton of blacks are poor then they will receive the majority of the benefits.
But as an additional benefit middle and upper class minorities won't get advantages they don't need. You also won't require people to "prove" their ethnicity to be granted these benefits (or discriminated against because they aren't for example "black enough").
Here is a fun question: Exactly how black do you have to be to get affirmative action right now? Do they have like a colour wheel? How does that even work?