Is affirmative action meritocratic?


Median black household wealth is 16 times less of the median white household, Google if you doubt it.

I don’t see how the fact that there is a variance in wealth between white people is a counter point. Of course there is variance.

I am talking about the median income. Which is lower for black people. Which happen s to Ben the group that was oppressed for centuries in that country. Do you think it is a coincidence?


It showed how your logic is flawed. One group having a lower median income does not mean it is structurally disadvantaged.

Do you even read my posts?


you basically said that you don’t think the fact that they were oppressed affects their status today.


I said they are were oppressed in the past but no longer are.


S you disagree they are structurally disadvantaged? Which is what I said .


Nakas go back and read his posts he’s made it really, really clear. Yes, he does disagree.He said they’re not structurally disadvantaged, and your argument about the average household doesn’t apply because it can also apply to people of any race. Being poor does not mean you’re structurally disadvantaged. It’s correlation not causation.


because they are,

Its not meritocratic, because it doesn’t go by merit, it goes by gender and race, both elements of an individual that we dont deem to impact on credentials or their merit, about 99% of the time. Hell, i would be far more ok with affirmative action if it picked underprivileged people based off their attributes or potential, at least then it would actually be meritocratic.


Which is what I pointed out in previous posts and he said I was misreading him.

Also again yes there is variance of income but if people with a particular skin colour have 16 times less MEDIAN household wealth (gooogle it ) from another skin colour it surely means something, it’s a massive outlier.

Many people explain it in terms of structural disadvantage, what’s your and @Cameron explanation?


You could make arbitrary groups with 100 times the difference. It does not mean squat.

What current structure disadvantage them?

They were disadvantaged in the past plus problems today that come from the communities themselves.


Yes and that thing is what you’re suggesting because reasons.

We’re not arguing that your statistic is wrong stop fixating on it. We’re arguing there isn’t evidence that there’s a structural disadvantage for minorities. What disadvantages do they have under the law? or even societally? We all have equall opportunity, aside from AA, which is ONLY for minorities, a structural disadvantage for white blokes (not saying it’s unfair or wrong, but that’s what it is)

My explanation would be very long, but TL;DR it’s down to the fact that minorities migrated more recently, thus often lack inherited wealth, the culture within many minority communities disocourages moving away from said culture, preventing change from where they are now, and factors like fatherlessness, which is highly detrimental to personal growth, is higher in the black community in particular.


I think that we’re missing the point here, which is to help people. Affirmative action harms its own ‘beneficiaries’ by placing them in environments they cannot hope to succeed in.

Affirmative action does not increase the number of successful blacks and hispanics in college—it increases the number of unsuccessful black and hispanics in college.

Black students who could barely maintain a B average in high school are far more likely to flunk out than an Asian student with straight A’s. And yes, studies show the disparities are this large.

Blacks and hispanics deserving of a good college education suffer equally. Ivy-league affirmative action beneficiaries, who would otherwise be at mid-tier universities, will not only attain poor grades, but deprive those mid-tier universities of highly qualified minority students. In a ripple-effect, groups supposedly benefitting from affirmative action coalesce at the bottom of their respective classes. At every level of the education system, the average performance of minorities benefiting from affirmative action drops.

In a 2015 Supreme Court case about affirmative action on the University of Texas at Austin’s campus, it was disclosed that the average black student accepted into the University scored 52nd percentile on the SAT compared to 89th percentile for whites— an incredible disparity. Across the US, half of black college students rank in the bottom fifth of their class. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to abandon pursuit of a STEM doctorate.

Advocates of affirmative action rely on the supposition that if affirmative action policies are cancelled, blacks and hispanics will vanish from colleges. Such an idea can easily be discarded when schools that have rolled back affirmative action are examined. At UCLA, black and hispanic enrollment did drop— however black and hispanic students still received degrees—actually graduated—at the same rate.

UCLA received more capable minority students, many probably because they despised the stigma of ‘diversity acceptee,’ a terrible thing to be labeled. Many capable and successful minorities have been unfairly dismissed as there just because they are ‘diverse’. So long as affirmative action is in place, that stereotype will remain highly damaging, and in some cases, even true.

Affirmative action is not the solution to fixing inequality. It fails in its objective to provide more minorities with beneficial education, and instead of healing racial divides, widens them. To borrow the language of the Progressive left, affirmative action is a prime example of institutional racism.
The solution to diversifying the upper echelons of society is obvious: actually improve the broken educational apparatus, so that regardless of race or financial status, the opportunity to thrive in a top university exists.

TL;DR: Affirmative action doesn’t help minorities. It thrusts many unprepared applicants into places they aren’t fit to be, increases dropout rates and drains decent universities of good minority students.


“Affirmative action is representative of a new form of discrimination, where the effort to provide equal opportunities to minorities has crossed the border from necessary and sufficient to simply hypocritical. In an attempt to compensate for historical discriminatory practices, our well-intentioned institutions and social engineers have simply swung the pendulum back over and slapped a new name on it.”


The way I see it, AA is little more than a bandage for issues of socio-economic inequality. It was meant to directly combat the racial bias in employment, education, and housing. However, as that bias slowly decreased, AA’s influence didn’t decrease with it. Instead, it was used as an excuse to not focus on the actual issues pertaining to socio-economic inequalities.


I used to be immovably against governmental policy regarding minorities in society however as I read all the more generally I understood it is certain, in any case we don’t live in a world with equivalent chances so AA is expected to make everything fair…