Affirmative Action

I will now proceed with my counter-argument. 1. Half-truth arguments. Pro is correct when she says the majority of my arguments are based on what-if scenarios. My reason for doing this is to show how affirmative action programs are detrimental to society at large, even though I provided no physical evidence of such. Part of the reason for this is because there are few, if any, government-mandated affirmative action programs in operation within the United States. But that does not mean that there are none at all. For example, in Wikipedia, it says: "Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of government jobs, political positions, and school vacancies must be reserved for members of a certain group. In some other regions where quotas are not used, minority group members are given preference or special consideration in selection processes. " (Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org...) While it is true that quota based systems are currently illegal in the United States, this is not the point. The point of the debate is, should affirmative action programs be legal? And if not, why not? Pro states that affirmative action programs within the government are not common. This is true, corporate programs are much more prevalent. I did not "imply" that those types of programs are in place, my example was purely hypothetical as a case against such mandatory government programs, should they ever be considered for implementation. 2. Corporate Programs According to the article that Pro cited from the ABA, "The majority of corporate affirmative action programs are voluntary attempts to improve workforce diversity. They are unaffected by thorny constitutional issues, such as those raised by the lawsuit against the University of Michigan, which plague university admissions programs. Jennifer Gratz, a white student, alleges the university's affirmative action program denied her admission based on her race, even through she was qualified. Terry Pell, senior counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, makes a clear distinction between the Michigan case and voluntary corporate affirmative action. The Washington D. C. -based public interest law firm is suing the university on behalf of Ms. Gratz. He argues that the purpose of the university program is irrelevant, because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. "If affirmative action is illegal and unconstitutional, it doesn't matter whether it serves a purpose," Pell said. " Here is a link to a copy of the 14th Amendment. . https://www.law.cornell.edu... . If the actions of the University of Michigan are constitutionally prohibited under this Amendment, then similar corporate programs must also be prohibited. Pro attempts to make the claim that voluntary affirmative action programs are implemented by employers, with strong support that stems from the desire of a diverse workplace. "It is still "affirmative action" whether it is mandated by the government, or practiced voluntarily. " What is the crucial problem with this? Well, remember the definition of affirmative action that we previously agreed upon when beginning the debate? Allow me reprint it here: "Affirmative Action- The encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, especially in employment" Now, take a look at the page for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (. https://www.eeoc.gov...). Please note that this is one of Pro's cited sources. The first paragraph states: "The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. " The paragraph above states quite plainly that companies are not allowed to discriminate against job applicants based on sex or race. But if an employer wishes to set up their own affirmative action program, in an attempt to maintain a state of "workplace diversity", then he is violating the law. Why? 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. Pro brings up another interesting point. Based on another cited source, a page from the Department of Labor (. https://www.dol.gov...), the government requires certain companies to form an affirmative action plan, in order to receive contracts from the government. Notice two key sentences: "Each Government contractor with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each of its establishments. " "A written affirmative action program helps the contractor identify and analyze potential problems in the participation and utilization of women and minorities in the contractor's workforce. " According to this information, a company must have an affirmative action program in place to receive government contracts. This means that the government is encouraging the preference of hiring women and minority groups, at least to the point where the company in question has some sort of "workplace equality". This is, however, in violation of the laws regarding equal employment, where a company is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex or race in hiring decisions. By encouraging the development of an affirmative action program, the government is encouraging violation of its other laws. From this, I come to a small number of possible conclusions: 1. The government laws contradict one another. 2. The government likes to make special exceptions for their business partners. 3. Some other reason that I haven't thought of. 3. Economic Incentives My opponent is correct about there being a lack of affirmative action programs that operate on economic incentives, instead of mandatory compliance. At least not in the formal sense, or in the manner of the hypothetical example that I presented. But one could argue that there are other types of economic incentives that show preference to women and minorities. Take the company receiving government contracts for example. Pro showed that they would have to draw up an affirmative action plan for their company to receive contract opportunities. This is a good example of economic incentive. In this case, the government is giving business opportunities to companies that participate in affirmative action, versus not giving any to those that don't. A second good example of economic incentive would be the work of the Small Business Administration. Under the Small Business Act, aid is given to "Socially Disadvantaged Individuals", in the form of grants, loans, and contract preferences. In fact, there is a process that one can go through to have their business branded as "Women Owned" (WOB) or "Minority Owned" (MOB). It can be argued that this is a form of affirmative action, although not in employment, it is giving preferential treatment to WOBs and MOBs over regular small businesses, as far as aid is concerned. (Source: . http://womeninbusiness.about.com...) Conclusion I believe that my counterargument in this round has helped to strengthen my position, that affirmative action programs, of any kind, are grounded in principles of discrimination, and that discrimination is necessary to make them work. I have attempted to prove that such programs can and do exist, and that their existence is detrimental to society at large. This concludes my argument for Round Three. I will enjoy my opponent's next argument.