<p>The reason that AA was implemented was to give African Americans (and other minorities) a socioeconomic “boost” to make up for the lack of opportunities they suffered during the early-mid 1900s (and of course before then too). The purpose of AA was not to give minorities an unfair advantage, but to make up for years of disadvantage. </p>
<p>Nowadays, although I can’t say that there’s no racial discrimination at all in society, there is far less than there was in the 1960s. Those who are disadvantaged in society today are not those who are of a certain ethnic background, but those who are, well, poor. Therefore, AA should be changed to favor the socioeconomically inhibited, not the “racially” inhibited. (Yes, that’s supposed to be satirical).</p>
<p>There is a considerably higher percentage of minorities who are below the poverty line than whites, but there are also a lot of African Americans, Hispanic Americans who are quite wealthy and who should not be benefiting from AA. Similarly, there are many Asian Americans and white Americans who live in poverty and whose opportunities for advancement are almost nonexistent. I’m a white Jew and my family is lower middle class. There’s no rationale for an affluent African American who has gone to private school all his life to be given preferential treatment over me. A lower middle class Hispanic American should be given the same chances as me, and an Asian American living below the poverty line should be given a better chance as me. Why should anything else matter? </p>
<p>If I were a minority I would be insulted to be given preferential treatment based on my race–it’s tantamount to saying that minorities are inferior to whites, which is the same racism that AA was established to counter in the first place.</p>