I don't have the tolerance for your bs that others do.
Of course you don't. I press you for the tough answers you can't deliver.
First, I have posted to any number of people on this thread, if not you specifically, that the income disparity between the whites and people of color with the notable exception of Asians has remained considerable even with the civil rights legislation of the 60's. In fact, over the past thiry years, there have been years where increases in minority income have not kept up with that of whites.
Okay, I see then -- your position is that the difference is one of income, and that you measure the disparity in terms of income.
This convoluted reasoning leads to an entire series of questions for which the answers are total nonsense:
a) Take medical school as an example (only because the demand for slots is much higher than the supply). What do you do about wealthy whites? Shouldn't we just ban wealthy whites from medical school until all blacks who want to be doctors have been admitted?
b) What about wealthy blacks? Do we allow them to have a double-whammy advantage over middle-class whites, or pursuant to (a) above, they get a skin-color-only advantage even though they're black?
c) If we're talking about income disparity, if a black has wealth, do they give up their skin-color advantage?
d) What do we do about poor whites? If the central difference is, in fact, about income, shouldn't we also give poor whites preferential treatment? And should it be preferential over wealthy blacks, or just middle class blacks.
This list could go on ad infinitem. The bottom line is that AA creates a "slippery slope" that is endless in its inherent unfairness. |
