Throughout history, many groups of individuals have been denied opportunities due to various forms of discrimination. Today, our society recognizes that these people are at a serious disadvantage. Laws and programs have been instituted to help rectify these results. Among these many laws and programs, affirmative action is among the most important. It allows resources to be allocated to help disadvantaged people or individuals from previously segregated communities. However, there is much debate surrounding the idea of ​​who is disadvantaged and how to determine who fits that term. This debate serves as the basis for the arguments of Richard D. Kahlenberg and Nicole Hannah-Jones in their discussion of two types of affirmative action and their effectiveness in public institutions of higher education. As the article makes clear, these two individuals agree that affirmative action is necessary to remedy the destructive results of segregation, but where their arguments differ is on how it should be implemented. Richard D. Kahlenberg, in his article "Income-Based Affirmative Action," argues that racial affirmative action is not enough to help disadvantaged students and that socioeconomic affirmative action would better solve the problems of class inequality than that based on race. On the other hand, Nicole Hannah-Jones, in her article titled “Class Action: A Challenge to the Idea that Income Can Integrate America's Campuses,” disagrees with the idea that positive socio-economic action economic would make it possible to better resolve the problems of class inequality than that based on class equality. on race because “race and class are not the same thing.” After analyzing the quality of both arguments, we can conclude that Nicole Hannah-Jones presents stronger arguments in this debate on the two types of affirmative action. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an original essay The main reason why Nicole Hannah-Jones' argument is more effective is her ability to recognize the opposition's concerns and to recognize their argument while using it to justify their own argument. In his essay, Kahlenberg mentions the benefits of socio-economic affirmative action. This is clearly demonstrated when he states "that the country's 146 most selective institutions could almost quadruple the representation of students from the lowest socio-economic half (to 38 percent, up from 10 percent currently) and that graduation rates would remain unchanged.” While this could be seen as a positive outcome, Kahlenberg fails to recognize that poor students are not the only ones who are privileged. This “does not change the fact that African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately excluded from selective colleges and college in general.” This reasoning is successfully defended by Hannah-Jones when she states: “The bottom line is race and class, they are not the same thing. There are many ways to be unequal, but race is still the worst – it’s always who you don’t want to be. Hannah-Jones' argument is clearly more effective in this example because of her ability to recognize the opposition's concern - that poor students are disadvantaged - and use it to justify her own argument that being poor is not the same as being a racial minority. and that positive socio-economic action could not »..