Socio economics are steeped in racism. I haven't the time, or care, to educate you on this because an internet argument rarely changes hearts, which in this scenario is needed to change minds. I hope that you don't let your minimization of racial bias affect your future practice of medicine or your humanity. Best of luck to you "TheDelusionist"
ad hominem. classic tactic. anyway, racism contributes to modern day socioeconomic issues sure. but the underlying current problem that is most pernicious is socioeconomics and the ****ty culture of drugs, violence, and single motherhood that go along with it. Racism is an important root cause. But the core issue is economic upliftment via instilling better core values via education and allowing businesses to create jobs via a tax friendly environment and good policing.
Racism caused a lot of this but isn't the root cause perpetuator. You can eliminate racism but the poor cultural practices of the these communities will keep them poor forever, much like the situation of Appalachian whites. Carribean blacks are also descendents of brutal slavery but have a culture, on average, that prioritizes achievement more. Immigrant blacks from subsaharan African sometimes come from places with a legacy of European and Arab subjugation and genocide often more pernicious than that of American slavery.
Lowering standards based on race is silly. Use socioeconomics if you want a better system. That will indirectly capture race because URMs are disproportionately poor but also help poor Whites, such as those from rural Appalachia, suffering similar poor life expectancies, rates of substance abuse, and broken families, as their urban black counterparts.
The issue of socioeconomics is fraud and lying and that yes someone who has it poor and black does have it a harder than someone who is poor and white. But no system is perfect. I would rather have a system that helps all of the poor and destitute than one that selectively helps based on race, leaves a ton of the poor out, and ends up being mostly used by the rich among the minorities anyway.
Ask your friends at ivy league schools who are URMs what their parents do. Often, it is children of Nigerian doctor couples, Jamaican engineers, or the fully White conquistador descendant Hispanics from wealthy backgrounds from the getgo. It is disprortionately not those facing the legacy of racism at its fullest affecting their socioeconomics.
And even for those groups, once again, racism shluld be eliminated over time and is an issue. But the root cause of perpetuation of poor socioeconomics is ****ty cultural practices, as are for the generationally poor white rural counterparts. Lowering standards based on race is not the answer. Socioeconomics is an imperfect but better answer.
Ask those of untouchable caste from India, Bosnian war refugees, etc where their affirmative action in America is. And before you go and say they don't deserve it because they weren't slaves in America specifically, well neither were those Caribbean and recent immigrant blacks and white Hispanics who most take advantage of American affirmative action.
Socioeconomics is the single best predictor for a legacy and continuation of prejudice against a group. Focus on that. And the sad thing is reversing that prejudice even entirely doesn't change the legacy of the ****ty culture of that oppression, the root cause perpetrator. Make the neighborhoods safe, give kids free meals and after school activities to keep them from gangs and drugs, use needle exchanges programs, create a tax friendly and safe environment for businesses to invest and create jobs that will bring upliftment.
This current affirmative action system is a worse way to go about getting closer to the solution of equity than a socioeconomic one.
The best solution is better childhood education, nutrition, access to after school activities, etc. It's funny because I am not against many liberal proposals of giving free stuff to kids to give them a fair shot. I am heavily against our racially based affirmative action system. The funniest part is those simply using personal attacks and then citing papers that I subsequently showcase directly contradict their rationale. Anyway, if propaganda and personal attacks are what make for common argumentation in this space, I think I will stop. One thing about your post is correct. It is pointless arguing further.
