Affirmative Action

I will now offer a rebuttal to your three main arguments, as posted in Round 3. Half Truths Please notice that Pro states that because I used "what if scenarios", I cannot effectively argue that "The point of the debate is, should affirmative action programs be legal? And if not, why not? " I'm afraid this is taken out of context. When I wrote that quoted phrase, it was preceded by: "While it is true that quota based systems are currently illegal in the United States, this is not the point. " The point I was making in my previous argument was that although affirmative action programs like I used in my hypothetical examples are not currently in effect here in the United States, like they are in India, this was not the point. The point was not whether or not they are in place, it was should they be in place. And if not, why not? That's my argument. I hold that affirmative action programs are racist and sexist by nature, and I am trying to prove that as a reason for affirmative action being illegal. Whether or not it is currently legal, here or elsewhere, is purely secondary. Secondly, the title of the debate is "Affirmative Action". But that isn't the "resolution" of the debate. If Pro did not understand that, I'm sorry. But the fact is, I as Con am attempting to prove, as best as possible, that affirmative action is not a beneficial program to be administered, whether by corporate programs or government programs, for the reasons which I present. Pro is, as I understand it, attempting to prove that affirmative action is a beneficial program. That is the resolution. My hypothetical example of affirmative action programs being administered was simply an example of what can be the case, assuming that such programs exist. Corporate Programs My opponent says, in reference to me, that: "In R2 he states that private enterprise ought to determine the need for affirmative action, and then in R3, he attempts to link the citing of how the fourteenth amendment was used in a court decision involving College admissions to imply that affirmative action is unconstitutional in hiring and promotional practices by private enterprise. " Pro makes it sound as if I agree with corporate alternative action programs if they are administered by private enterprise, which is certainly not the case. She goes on to say that I "viewed voluntary AA favorably" until she refuted me, using this quote from my argument as proof: "Because if I have a competitor who manufactures the same product, and he doesn't care what sex his workers are, as long as they're good at their job, then he has an advantage over me. The reason is because my competitor has access to a greater supply of quality workers than I do, and I have limited myself to only a certain portion of the labor market. " This is, again taken out of context. in fact, one could argue that Pro is taking my words and twisting them around. Please view the entire paragraph in Round 2 where this quote came from. You will see that this had nothing to do with AA, private or otherwise. What I was saying that in the private marketplace for labor, any potential employer who discriminates against (or for) any class of employee, whether by race or sex, puts upon himself a limit to whom he can hire. Again we must go back to the definition of AA, as outlined in Round 1, and agreed to by both me and Pro: "Affirmative Action- The encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, especially in employment" My case in Rounds 1, 2, 3, and now 4, are the same: Businesses should not discriminate for or against any worker based on race, sex or anything else. The only requirement should be that the worker does their job well. It doesn't matter whether there is a "diverse work environment" or not. Even pushing for something like a "diverse work environment" is essentially racist! After all, if we say "this business has 40% white workers, 30% women workers and 30% black and Hispanic and Asian workers. This business is diverse", than we are effectively discriminating by making it an issue when it doesn't need to be an issue. The point is, my opponent is saying that I think it's okay for a business to have a private AA plan. But what I'm pushing for is a complete abstinence of acknowledgement of such things altogether. I mean, what difference does it make if someone is black or white or whatever? Why make this an issue? Why can't we be people first, and why can't we hire people based on their capabilities as workers, rather than based on the color of their skin? Now, I know, people do discriminate against others, because some people are racists, and that certainly is a problem. But we who aren't racists don't need to be combating racism with racism. What we need to do is let the free market run its course, because as I have demonstrated, people who discriminate against potential employees are instantly punished in the marketplace, as opposed to those who do not discriminate. Another argument I have is the way my opponent uses the term "qualified candidates" in relation to job applicants, without so much as offering a definition. As in the sentence: "Affirmative action encourages the public advertisement of jobs to identify qualified candidates in places where employers might not otherwise look. " What do you mean, Pro when you use the term "qualified candidates" in this sentence? Do you mean people who are qualified for the job based on their skill as a worker, or based on the fact that they fit within the requirements of the affirmative action plan (and if both, which is more important)? As for Pro's argument about affirmative action programs not hiring "unqualified candidates" over "qualified" white males, I must ask, what exactly are you referencing here? If this is an affirmative action program that meets our definition, then doesn't it mean that women and minorities will receive preference over white males, even when it comes down to matters of qualification. And if not, that is, women and minorities are not given preference over white males if the white males are more qualified for the position, then this could only mean that preference is given to whoever is most qualified for the position. In that case, why have an affirmative action program in place at all? You wouldn't be encouraging the "increased representation of women and minorities" you would be encouraging the increased representation of whomever was most qualified. Such a program does not really sound like it meets our definition of "affirmative action" at all. This can only mean one of two things: 1. Such a program does not meet the our definition of affirmative action, and therefore does not warrant discussion here in our debate, or 2. Pro is incorrect when she says that such affirmative action programs do not ever hire "unqualified candidates over "qualified" white males. Moving on to Pro's next argument, where she again quotes my own words from section two in my previous argument, she states: "In con's section 2. Corporate Programs he also states, "Because under the definition of affirmative action, as set forth in the debate, an employer would encourage increased hiring of women and minority groups, when the laws that the EEOC is required to uphold do not allow this. " First of all that quote is a dependant clause, a fragmented sentence, as it does not make sense on it's own, but aside from that, the point he was trying to make is misleading. "An employer would encourage. .. . is an idea that there is no law against! For an employer to practice the encouragement of hiring individuals, who are not of the race or gender of the most common type of applicants is not illegal. It is illegal to discriminate, it is not illegal to encourage. " Here, we have a strong bent on the fact that affirmative action is only encouraging increased hiring of women and minority groups. Pro, what do you think "encourage" means? Does it simply mean that you'll be on the lookout for women and minorities to hire as long as their just as good as "qualified" white males? I doubt it. Again, such an effort would be futile because employers are looking for the best employees anyway. Thus, again, I feel that "encourage" means something more along the lines of going out of one's way to search for. This would certainly make the most sense. Economic Incentives Please notice that Pro did not offer a rebuttal to my piece on the Small Business Administration. Therefore, my point still stands unless she attempts to take it on in her next argument. Conclusion Affirmative action is a way of discriminating against white males in favor of women and minorities, in ways that should otherwise be illegal under the Equal Opportunity Act. I have done my best to show that while Pro's intentions are good, the idea that one can encourage without discriminating in employment is something that sounds good in theory, but does not work well in practice. Pro has attempted to show that affirmative action creates equal opportunity for all, and does so through the administration of private corporate programs, which she has not proven that they do not take part in discrimination.