Affirmative Action

Like I said before, we agree on the basis of what affirmative action is, although I'm going to have to disagree with my opponent's position for a few reasons. I'll begin simply by saying affirmative action stretches farther outside the workplace and school than anyone reading this debate probably imagines; personally, I was shocked to find out what I'm about to present in this case. == Content == o Arguments (Pro Case) o Refutation o Conclusion o Sources ========== o Arguments (Pro Case) 1. Affirmative Action continues to be necessary to compensate for past discrimination. A. Discrimination in Housing continues to disadvantage minorities in America With respect to housing, black homebuyers and renters experience continued discrimination, an increase since the 1990s, although down a bit from the 1980s. African-Americans continue to be less likely than whites to own homes: 47.9% percent compared to 75.8%. When they do own homes, they are likely to live in high-poverty neighborhoods with lower home values than those in comparable white neighborhoods. This means a lower property tax for funding public schools and less wealth accumulation from rising home values. A direct effect of residential segregation is that it generally places minority job seekers beyond the reach of employment growth and opportunity. Moreover, black homeowners are more likely than their white counterparts to get subprime home purchase loans and to pay higher refinancing loans. To pour salt into the wound, housing discrimination laws, designed to prevent these very situations, have been woefully under-enforced. [1] B. Intergenerational wealth transfer to this date perpetuates the vestiges of slavery. In The Mother of All Racial Preferences, noted anti-racist Tim Wise sums up the issue of intergenerational wealth as follows: White baby boomers are benefiting from the largest transfer of wealth in American history as they inherit their parents' estates. Some of that wealth dates back to the years of slavery, when Blacks were forced to work for free while their white owners and the American economy accumulated the benefits of their toil. Another large category of the transferred wealth is land, much of it stolen by the American government from Native Americans and Mexicans and sold for a pittance to white settlers. For the average white family, however, some of the largest sources of wealth are the result of racial preferences in government policies that were started in the 20th century. [2] 2. Poverty rates are disparagingly higher in minorities. In 2000, after a decade of remarkable economic prosperity, the poverty rate among African Americans and Latinos taken together was still 2.6 times greater than that for white Americans. [3] A few simple numbers illustrate this point. Whites have a median net worth in the United States that is ten times greater than blacks. While 11 percent of whites live below the poverty line, 27 percent of blacks struggle with poverty. [4] The implication of all of the above is as follows: we have a timeline that allows us to continue to live in the 17th and 18th centuries with the inadequacies afforded to minorities by slavery. Because of intergenerational wealth transfer, we see that the poverty blacks were freed into after the civil war was absolutely destitute. As they began buying homes, naturally, they would move into low-value neighborhoods that are affordable on their daunt budgets. Given that they would all flock to the same neighborhoods in search of a roof under their heads, minorities would congregate in these valueless areas, property wise. Moreover, a low property value means low property taxes. These taxes fund schools; since the schools are so underfunded, you have a distraught learning environment with unmotivated teachers and inadequate resources- a recipe for failure. It is only fair that we give these kids who don't have the tools necessary to perform at a par level the ability to at least get a shot at the big time- affirmative action provides this equal opportunity. The story of Cedric Jennings Jr. in "A Hope in the Unseen" by Ron Suskind best illustrates this story, and rather dramatically might I add. o Refutation 1. Turn this argument Pro. This is not simply discrimination; it is reverse discrimination. It solves for the problems of the past by identifying the clearly racially based discrepancies across the socio-economic spectrum and giving preference to them. In the future after such menacing disparities are overcome, affirmative action will slowly fade into the history books. 2. Cross apply refutation 1; moreover, practically speaking my opponent has shown no tangible harms to any businesses. If you look around you today, you would see that the US has the highest economic consumption in so many respects on the planet. Housing; financial reserve; GDP; etc. [5] 3. Cross-apply the Pro case; look at it analogically. If whites are pole vaulting with a 10 foot pole and and minorities are pole vaulting with a 5 foot pole, I would *probably* lower the bar for minorities. o Conclusion Con has not provided any tangible harms from affirmative action; one thing I personally dislike about affirmative action is that it does basically call itself out as a racist policy. But it proves itself to be necessary. We look to the pro case for the problems in society, and the solution is ultimately affirmative action. With that, we'll return to con. o Sources [1] Reginald Shuford, (Sr. Attorney, Racial Justice Program, ACLU), CAMPBELL LAW REVIEW, Spr. 2009, 520-521. [2] Reginald Shuford, (Sr. Attorney, Racial Justice Program, ACLU), CAMPBELL LAW REVIEW, Spr. 2009, 519-520. [3] Alan Jenkins, (Dir. , The Opportunity Agenda), POVERTY: OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS SERIES, 2008, 109-110. [4] Mike Magee, (Sr. Fellow in Health Policy, Center for Aging Services Technology), HOME-CENTERED HEALTH CARE, 2007, 82. [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...