There are a number of points you address in your argument and I would like to address them step by step:

1. "We have had 50 years of affirmative action, and poverty among minorities is increasing recently." (I don't know how to make the cool gray text appear?) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this statement. Poverty is increasing amongst EVERYONE recently, due to the economic environment we are currently facing. Obviously the nature of this recession is such that it hits the most vulnerable populations the hardest which are sadly disproportionally made up of minorities. But to then imply that increased economic disparities is the result of affirmative action seems like an unsubstantiated claim.

2. "Call me a racist..." I hate this saying! In my opinion, people constantly misuse this term in both contexts, either by saying "X is so racist" or as you just did, "Call me a racist but..." I feel like it is so often misplaced, and used in an antagonistic manner. To call someone or something racist is an extremely loaded and charged term; using the word in such a flippant manner often, in my opinion, makes the rest of the conversation unproductive. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points you have made above, but to "call you a racist" would be outlandish, and I think it's important to really consider the impact of such language before we say it.

3. "That there is a terrible cultural problem in the inner city. There seems to be a lack of self respect among the citizens." Interestedly, a few years back, Bill Crosby received a lot of backlash from the black community in regards to statements he made, saying to the effect that some black parents are shirking their responsibility to their children due to the lack of value they put into education. Similarly, after the election of President Barack Obama, many well-educated members of the black community said statements to the effect that (regardless of politics) it was refreshing to have such a well-spoken, intelligent black man in a prominent position that their children could inspire to be like, particularly because black men are so rarely shown in that light (which in and of itself is extremely problematic, particularly because there are SO MANY well-educated, intelligent black professionals out there, but they are so rarely even talked about!).

That being said, it is an indisputable fact that regardless of educational attainment or economic status, POC will be denied jobs, promotions, racially profiled etc, based solely on the color of their skin. Today it is often done in more subtle ways- say in the anxiety of a manager to hire a POC of color even though they have the proper qualifications. The question then becomes, why and to what degree is this occurring? Yes, there is a problem in a POC automatically assuming that X Y or Z happened to them solely because they are a POC (because that is not always true), but the fact that there is still a necessity for such thoughts speaks to the larger problem within our society. We cannot close our eyes to the existence of 'white privilege' (which in my personal opinion, is the real problem in society today); how by virtue of being white one is presented with a security that no other racial group in this country- black, hispanic/latino, asian, native america etc has. Thus to imply that all a POC has to do is 'work harder' and they will suddenly be considered as 'equal' as their white counterparts is both naive and destructive. By the same token, to stake all of the problems of one life on the color of their skin tone is retroactive, non-productive, and equally destructive. Every community must look inward and see how their actions are contributing to the problem; pointing the finger at one community is ridiculous and frustrating. Therefore, as you note the 'terrible cultural problem and lack of self-respect' that exists, it is important to also remember that if one is told through subtle, cultural cues every day that they are somehow of less worth than others based on their skin-color, after awhile they will begin to believe that, and it will of course affect both their performance and their expectations for themselves. Those cultural cues need to stop, and the only way that can even begin to happen is if we acknowledge their existence!!! (I wish I could underline that sentence, because honestly it is the most important thing I have said in this whole argument) It's crucial you don't take that as an excuse however, but rather as an additional layer to consider, to help you reconsider your argument, because I do agree that within the black community (and I can only speak in regards to the black community personally), we need to redefine our definition of success, and stop aiding in the perpetuation of these negative stereotypes (such as, say calling another black person an 'Oreo' for speaking properly).

A very simple example of this actually takes us back to the argument of affirmative action. One glaring criticism of the system is that it actually doesn't truly help the people it seeks most to help and there is some truth to this; if one takes a brief look at many elite institutions, a sizable percentage of their black students are not african americans but rather African immigrants and first-generation Africans; children who have not been affected by the legacy of slavery in the same way. A simple reason for that discrepancy is this; such students fulfill the diversity quotient while being, in their own right and regardless of their race, good candidates for the school. The question then becomes why? One interesting explanation for this is that, while there are many many many problems in many African countries (because honestly, way less people immigrate just for the hell of it) racism has never been one of them; while the thief is black so is the politician (often times that can be the same thing... :) but I digress); the driver is black but so is his client, the wealthy doctor. There are many determinants for success in such countries, but race is not one of them. Thus, such children grow up in an environment where they aren't conscious of their race because it has never been a factor, and many studies show this has a positive psychological affect.

With all that said, the question then becomes how does affirmative action fit into this discussion? As a POC, I myself have always struggled with my feelings towards it; one subtle negative result of affirmative action is that people like Abigail Fisher can go around and make the implication that a black student did not get into the school based on their merit; that the only reason they got into the school was because of their race. That argument is extremely insulting, because it constantly calls into question the intelligence of the student, and such arguments perpetuate the necessity of students of color to prove that they deserve to go to their school. Personally, I am not going to speculate as to the amount that my race played a factor in my admission to my university, but I do know that, had I not been a student of color, my academic and extra-curricular qualifications would still have made me a good candidate for the institutions I applied to, and it is exhausting and frustrating to have to constantly feel the need to prove that to others.

Secondly, I do firmly believe that diversity should be a factor in admissions, because multiple studies have shown time and time again that interacting with different viewpoints makes one a better, more open-minded person. However, the way affirmative action is currently constructed, it turns this into a dirty thing, and that in itself is no longer productive; the general perception is that one is let in on the basis of their race NOT their qualifications, and this is a very destructive idea. Nevertheless, I believe it should be considered within admissions, just as socioeconomic status should be considered in admissions, or athletic prowess, or geographic diversity, or sexual diversity. A university has the responsibility to insure that each incoming class is made up a diverse group of people who will challenge other's viewpoints--> we need to go back to viewing that as a positive thing. Also, it is just practical. The fact of the matter is, is that every year the number of academically qualified candidates for an institution goes up, while the amount of spots available stays the same. This necessitates the use of more arbitrary measures in filling up those spots and I think that a commitment to diversity is as good of a measure as any and a better measure than most.

The ironic thing about this whole argument is that while we debate the impact of affirmative action in institutions of higher learning, the majority of those said institutions have student bodies where over half of the population is white.

"I see affirmative action as a band-aid on a grievous wound. It's almost insulting to all involved, and hangs over the head of those that have become competitive for college admission despite racism and poverty." (seriously how DO you do the little gray text things indicating a quote? Is that on the help page or something? Anyway...) I 100% agree. There are so many issues with affirmative action; its obvious we need a better system but how do we attain this?

"Also, legacy admissions are vile"

You know, I actually don't really mind legacy admissions that much, even though I myself am not one. The dirty little secret is that institutions are also businesses, they exist to make money on some level. Legacies are more likely to donate. Donations mean more resources for the school like better technology or renovated dorms. Sure, everyone wonders why George W Bush, bless him, got into an Ivy League institution, but if that meant say, better food in the cafeteria, I'll take it. It's no different then preferential admission to children of say, celebrities. All of them, in my view are necessary evils.

On a completely random side note, did you know that I recently found out that my school holds a separate pre-orientation for the families of super wealthy students, in an effort to woo them to donate? If that is not the most elitist, twisted thing I have ever heard, I don't know what is. I mean sure, donations are necessary things, but come on.

...however, when your neighborhood is poor, your primary school is not of quality. It's a systemic and accepted second-classicism that damns poor black kids to a place from where we debate if affirmative action really is a solution.

While no one desires to send their kids to an inner city, under-performing school, the numbers actually tell a story that doesn't support your premise. Children of engaged parents tend to do well in life no matter what school they attended. Parents turn out to be so much more important to a child's development, both academically and socially, than a school ever could be. But unfortunately, in our society, you're a racist if you go by the numbers in this case.

Off topic, but diversity is a bullshit argument vis-a-vis affirmative action. We shouldn't be afraid to call affirmative action what it is: indirect reparations, and there's nothing wrong with that. Its attempting to right an egregious wrong. But we also shouldn't be afraid to scrap it in the face of all the empirical evidence that says its failed. Diversity was never the original goal of affirmative action, and it shouldn't be the de facto goal now that its the only one that the Court allows. It should be replaced by a new, more creative system that doesn't carry the same baggage of the last decades. I don't have a clue what that would look like, but ideas are needed in this regard; the status quo isn't good enough.