Will class-based affirmative action cancel out racial/gender bias?

Dean says he supports class-based affirmative action, which I think is a great idea. Poverty affects the type of education one receives and, therefore, the opportunities one might receive in the future.

However, how does Dean's idea for affirmative action deal with the fact that institutional racism/sexism and unconscious/automatic prejudice are still HUGE problems in this country? Both racism and sexism are so ingrained into this culture that most of us don't even realize when our actions are laced with bias.

**On a side note, I ran across several interesting studies that show just how much of a problem it is (yes, even for liberals!).
http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/?query_1=African+AND+American+AND+racism+AND+experiment&dtabs=on&dtfta=on&dtbok=on&sapsy=on&sasoc=on&sasocio=on

can see shades of gray. The ideal in a non-racist society is for all shapes and kinds to be represented on the basis of their precentage as far as numbers (proportionality). The problem I see with this is the possibility that poor people (of all races) will be left out and that race will remain the only important consideration for affirmative action. Another problem with proportionality is this: Asians are "overrepresented" in terms of the "proportions" in colleges etc. so if we are going to maintain proportionality with regards to race we would actually end up preventing highly qualified Asians from attending elite colleges at the rates they do now. I doubt that would be the intent of most affirmative action supporters, this problem applies to whites as well (they are overrepresented), so if we are to allow for an "overrepresentation" of Asians and a proportional representation of every other race, then the only race which wouldn't be represented in proportion would be whites - unless we were to take away spots equally from all races in order to account for the "overrepresentation" of Asians - and that might be considered a blow to other minorities - so where does that leave us?
A lot of people think that "class-based" affirmative action is the answer, but that still doesn't guarantee an increase in minority enrollment and employment. You see there are more poor whites than blacks and if there was no control for race you could end up with 90 slots reserved for low-income individuals all occupied by whites.
Personally I think that affirmative action will simply never be perfectly fair. For the time being I hope that schools continue to base their enrollment on "diversity" considerations instead of explicitly on race. In order to solve this problem we need to have more social justice and social services from the beginning of a childs life so we won't have to "make-up" for their lost opportunities later in life.
I don't want to abandon affirmative action, but its just a part of the social justice platform; we need to expand that platform instead of narrowing it to one issue that can be isolated by Republicans and hammered on. We need to open up so many fronts in this argument that they can't cover all their bases.

I think that the problem for liberals is still that we ... can see shades of gray.

Not always. One of those links caught my eye. It was a study by Prof. Gaertner and since I heard him speak about his research on campus I thought... aha!

In his presentation, Dr. Gaertner talked about how we use cues other than visual and of which we may not even be conscious to figure out which race or group a person might belong to. See if you can bring up that journal article on your computer.

A lot of people think that "class-based" affirmative action is the answer, but that still doesn't guarantee an increase in minority enrollment and employment. You see there are more poor whites than blacks and if there was no control for race you could end up with 90 slots reserved for low-income individuals all occupied by whites. Personally I think that affirmative action will simply never be perfectly fair.

You're probably right about that. Thing is that most of these programs wind up being sorting devices when they shouldn't be that. The majority will always sort out the minority as long as the majority writes the rules.

"if we are to allow for an "overrepresentation" of Asians and a proportional representation of every other race, then the only race which wouldn't be represented in proportion would be whites - unless we were to take away spots equally from all races in order to account for the "overrepresentation" of Asians - and that might be considered a blow to other minorities - so where does that leave us?"

Living in Texas, I hear a lot of complaining about AA. A LOT.

Recently I heard a lot of griping about sports. An issue that kept coming up during all the McNabb controversy after Rush's comments was the small number of black head coaches. Callers said things like, 'when we have an equal number of white players on the field, then we'll have an equal number of black coaches on the sidelines', and 'why is it acceptable to believe blacks are just 'better at' sports, but we can't accept that whites are 'better at' anything'.

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to address these complaints directly and straightforwardly, because from what I can tell there are people here in the South that would vote Dem if it wasn't for race issues!

racial and gender bias (and the others) are not based on income or class. They're based on race and gender (and other things).

Furthermore, AA is not a poverty program.

Since a larger percentage of minorities and unmarried women are poor, class-based and race- or gender-based AA will likely overlap. But unlike AA based on race or gender, the AA based on socio-economic class will have a side benefit of bridge the race or gender gap by allowing all poor people to benefit, not just a small segment.

race and gender discrimination within the same socio-economic classes (like 5th year associates in law firms, and within the armed services). It's hard to deny that race and gender discrimination are irrelevant in those areas. So why can't you have gender and race based AA programs to address it? What's the logic?

In a law firm, where you have black/white, male/female associates making 230K per year, but only the white men make partner, it certainly isn't class-based discrimination that is the problem.

When women hit the glass ceiling that prevents them from getting off the elevator on the executive suite level, class isn't their problem.

In the armed services where everyone, just about, regarldless of race, has come from a working class background, if there are no black generals, the problem isn't class.

Addressing class is important. But expecting class to be a proxy for race or gender is silly.

for wealthy and middle-class people of color. Believe it or not, but they can be the victims of discrimination too.

of discrimination, but are they really suffering more than say, poor white people, should their class be considered in deciding whether affirmative action is appropriate? I think so.
Like I said in my previous post, we can't solve our problems by mandating a certain number off minorities OR a certain precentage of lower-class individuals.
When we look exclusively at numbers we forget that there are people behind them. I think that wealth mitigates the difficulty of being black just as poverty mitigates the privileges of being white. I don't have an answer, or even a suggestion, however; I don't think we should EVER abandon the PRINCIPLE of affirmative action, maybe we should look at different ways of making it work.

and good examples.

I claim no intellectual property rights in that idea, or in its expression.

No, doesn't seem they will.