Freiheit Reich wrote:Sure, the person born with the silver spoon in his mouth has an advantage. It is not fair for the govt. to try to punish him for this fact. The govt's job is to have equal policies for everybody with admissions. Best merits and ability to pay wins.
The legitimacy of your statement rather depends on the definition of fairness to which one subscribes. You seem to accept the assertion that certain individuals possess unearned advantages over others as a result of privilege. This does not contradict the sociological studies confirming that socioeconomic status is almost always hereditary - at least in the context of the United States. Rich people, generally speaking, will produce rich offspring, while poor people, generally speaking, will produce poor offspring. Is it fair that the circumstances of one's birth should determine their access to institutions of higher learning? To careers? This doesn't even take into consideration the issues of proportional representation and diversity.
Lastly, how do we know that the children of privilege possess more merit than the children of destitution when the latter probably have yet to realize their full potential on account of their lower socioeconomic status? Wouldn't it be fairer to assume that the children of destitution possess more merit than their test scores and grades demonstrate because the full extent of their merit is concealed by their lack of access to basic social institutions? For all we know, the poor students could have been and could be far more accomplished than the wealthy students when set on a level playing field.
Freiheit Reich wrote:A poor person could have studied at the library (which is free) and worked hard in school (also free). If he didn't than that was his choice. It is not the govts. job to show compassion and sympathy and punish the wealthier applicant to favor the poorer one.
This presumes that the neighborhood in question actually possesses an adequate library, and that the student in question had acquired the knowledge to access the institution in question. A repository of information is, after all, only useful in so far as it may be reasonably employed in the intellectual improvement of the self. This also presumes, without justification, that the neighborhood in question could boast educational facilities as reputable as those of more affluent neighborhoods. In the United States, this assertion is quite laughable when one considers that schools are, by and large, funded locally. Affluent neighborhoods can provide better quality education because the affluent possess the economic capital necessary to invest in education. This is not the case for destitute neighborhoods. Finally, who mentioned punishment?
Freiheit Reich wrote:Besides, we were talking about race, not income. There are wealthy and middle class blacks. Race has nothing to do with wealth. If you tell me more blacks are poor I will point to Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordon, Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Hank Aaron, Dave Winfield, Kobe Bryant, and Dr. Walter Williams (among hundreds of famous and successful blacks I can name). The fact they are black did not stop them from becoming wealthy.
The existence of wealthy and middle-class blacks does not negate the statistical fact that blacks tend to be disproportionately impoverished as a result of unequal access to social institutions that promote the accumulation of wealth and other forms of social capital. I never argued that it was impossible for blacks to succeed, but rather that the current conditions within our society make it more difficult for them to do succeed compared to their white peers.
