Here lies the problem.
If the anecdotal evidence from this thread is anything to go by, the major benefitors of AA are middle class African-Americans. Now granted that this demographic may be relatively small compared to the wider African-American community, but the point is this. AA does not help the poor kids in the 'ghetto'.
Why?
Because, those kids are statistically unlikely to finish High School or at least to do degree that will prepare them sufficiently for Higher Education. Thus AA becomes a privilege not for all African Americans but for the small percentage that don't have to deal with the same crappy start to life as other poorer Americans. If that is the case, then AA benefits people that have by in large beaten or have not been exposed to the kind of poverty that has been discussed in this thread. Consequently middle class African American experience is probably a lot closer to any other racial subset of middle America, than it is with poor African-Americans; or poor whites for that matter.
If you really want to get rid of systemic poverty in African American communities, you don't do so by giving lift ups to a different demographic. If we apply AA in concert with the pyramid of needs, it becomes apparent that we are putting the cart before the course.
If poverty and a lack of education is widespread within African American communities, then we need to deal with those issues first. You cannot jump to Higher Education, without first establishing that the general population has sufficient literacy and maths skills, aka they have obtained a certain level of intermediate level of education. AA misses this because it only deals with the very end point, it does not deal with the massive issues at the lower end of the hierarchy of needs.
Thus I would argue that AA benefits a certain demographic of the African-American community, but it does not have any positive affect to the people that REALLY DO need URGENT help.
Finally maybe I should say a little a bit about myself, to put my learning experience in context.
I am currently studying law as a J.D student at the University of Melbourne Australia. In terms of applicants my LSAT test was significantly lower than many of the other candidates. But I got in because I was fortunate enough that at the time that demand for J.D positions was low (most law degrees in Australia are undergraduate, thus the new system is still foreign to us Aussies).
Anyway I readily admit that I am not the smartest guy in the room. And many of the people around me are geniuses. To get marks remotely anywhere near my more talented colleges, I have to work my ass off.
Because my marks were at the time (not good enough at the time) for a summer internship, and therefore I am not eligible for big commercial firms; I am volunteering at a local community legal centre, I have provided pro-bono research for a barrister, and I am competing in the various legal competitions.
Why am I doing this? I know that I am competing against colleagues with much better marks, and therefore at any job interview I have to bring something else to the table. I know that finding a job will not be as easy as others, but I would never ask for any special privileges because I went to a crap state school, whilst most of my colleagues went to the finest private schools in Melbourne. I want a job and I am willing to work my ass off. Period.
Finally, one of my mates (remember Aussie slang not the literal meaning) in the course, is part Aboriginal and under the University of Melbourne guidelines he is granted some privileges that I am not granted. Throughout the course he has at times shown an attitude of can't be ****ed, or alternately "what is the easier way of doing things?" I would stay up till 1 am going over a problem, while he would leave at 8 pm because he is tired.
However things have recently changed. My friend just got back from a term studying overseas and suddenly he has gotten very serious about his studies. Why is this so? We'll unlike Australia, in the Netherlands the Dutch University would have considered him as an Australian and would have not given a rats arse about his Aboriginal background. Thus he had to work as hard as any of the other students. There was no free passes. Upon arriving back to Australia, I think that this high standard has had a positive impact on him.
Moral of the story. Nothing in life is easy, especially in the professions like law, and there is nothing more rewarding than the sweet outcome of success especially when you and you alone busted your balls to achieve it. I would argue, that such an outcome is important in terms of self worth, ambition, ego and career. Thus outcomes not based on merit, virtue or tenacity can be corrosive to ones self worth and sense of achievement; something that is applicable to all people regardless of sex or skin colour.
P.S my apologies for such a long winded post.