Affirmative Action is Justifiable and Constitutional

“A government (or private) program designed to redress historic injustices against specific groups by making special efforts to provide members of these groups with access to educational and employment opportunities.” How do you plan to achieve this product if not favoring one group over another group? The only way Affirmative Action makes “special efforts” towards certain individuals that were affected by past grievances is to discriminate based upon color, race, or sex. The con believes that the color, race, or sex of the individual should not matter at all in regard to positions at companies or academic enrollment. All that should matter is the merits of the individual. There have been many a times when Affirmative Action lowers the standards for certain races. One such example was given in the past round regarding the discrimination against Asian Americans. Furthering this point, there was a Princeton study on the topic stating that, “African Americans received a "bonus" of 230 points… Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points… Asian Americans are penalized by 50 points. (1)” Another study conducted at a “high society institution”, the University of Maryland Medical School, in 2000 shows that blacks were heavily favored based on the color of their skin in comparison with white and Asian applicants. The study states, “blacks with college G.P.A.’s of B or B+ and MCAT scores in the bottom half of all test takers had a 70 percent chance of admission; for whites and Asians of similar credentials, the chance was 2 percent. (2)” This lowering of standards actually interferes and curbs the educational growth of individuals favored based on their race and not on their merits. Thomas Sowell explains, “Instead of having to take sop courses in order to survive at institutions where the pace is too much for them, they can take solid courses elsewhere that will prepare them for a worthwhile occupation or give them a solid foundation for postgraduate work. (3)” This theory was confirmed by statistics published by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center stating, “White and Asian students completed their programs at similar rates -- 62 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively -- while Hispanic and black students graduated at rates of 45.8 percent and 38 percent, respectively. (4)” One of the reasons for this graduation rate is the policies of Affirmative Action. Another negative of Affirmative Action is the stigma that surrounds the recipients. There is a certain stigma that will follow everyone who receives any aid based on their color, race, or sex. This stigma is, are these individuals actually qualified for the positions they are given? I believe this stigma disadvantages the direct parties Affirmative Action wishes to help. It delegitimizes the legitimately qualified individuals because the policies focus on such stupid qualities such as race, color, or sex in regard to how well someone can do a job. Now to the constitutional argument against Affirmative Action. The con concedes that the fourteenth amendment does not apply. What the con meant to write was the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments constitutionally prohibit Affirmative Action. The fifteenth amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” I believe that the writing directly contradicts Affirmative Action which favors individuals based on their race or color and not on their merits. The nineteenth amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” I believe the same argument could be made that the constitution directly prohibits discrimination based on sex which is what some Affirmative Action programs do. The pro has correctly assessed that racism is a key factor of Affirmative Action. What the con argues is that there is no systemic racism or sexism in the United States besides the policies of Affirmative Action. There are only small, individual cases besides Affirmative Action which the con will always denounce. Affirmative Action is the exact opposite of what any civil rights advocate argues for. It is favoring one individual over another based on the uncontrollable qualities of one person. This is immoral because the race, sex, or color of an individual should never matter in regard to a job position or enrollment in academia. The only thing that should matter is the merits of the individual. The con calls for a return to a society based on meritocracy and not one which is based on simplistic ideas such as which race, color, or sex an individual is. I hope the pro and the con can at least agree on this last point. Thank you. (1) http://www.latimes.com... (2) http://archive.frontpagemag.com... (3) http://www.jewishworldreview.com... (4) https://www.insidehighered.com...