August Tournament - United States should ban Affirmative Action

Thank you salam.morcos for the argument. I will present my rebuttals now. Argument 1: Affirmative Action Works 1. Salam, in his first argument, gives evidence of Affirmative Action helping minorities get hired. What he does not do, is give statistics of how they progressed in the job or how they performed. This information is critical in determining whether A.A. really helped the beneficiaries or not. Thus, Salam’s case does not conflict with my Argument 3 (B) and my Argument 5. 2. Economic growth, not affirmative action, was responsible for increased diversity in the job field. “[E]stablishing how much credit affirmative action can take is hard, when growth also brings progress and some of the good--for example the confidence-boosting effect of creating prominent role models for a benighted group--is intangible.” (1) Also, “Malays are three times richer in Singapore, where they do not get preferences, than in next-door Malaysia, where they do. At the same time, the downside of affirmative action has become all too apparent." (1) Singapore’s GDP annual growth rate is also higher than Malaysia’s. (2) 3. Salam’s own study identifies effective alternatives to A.A.: “Efforts to moderate managerial bias through diversity training and diversity evaluations are least effective at increasing the share of white women, black women, and black men in management. Efforts to attack social isolation through mentoring and networking show modest effects. Efforts to establish responsibility for diversity lead to the broadest increases in managerial diversity. Moreover, organizations that establish responsibility see better effects from diversity training and evaluations, networking, and mentoring.” Moreover, A.A. programs aren’t effective for all groups in all areas: “Note that the coefficient for black women is not significant here. When we introduced industry interactions, we discovered that in manufacturing (computers, electronics, transportation), affirmative action plans had negative effects on black women...Employers who sign a government contract, and thereby become subject to affirmative action regulation, do not see increases in managerial diversity as a direct result.” 4. Salam uses my own evidence to show that discrimination has gotten better over time. “The percentage of women in the law profession has gone from 5 percent to 20 percent since 1970,” black participation in the workforce is up 50% since 1970, 5x as many African Americans now hold managerial posts.” (6) This only reinforces my claim that affirmative action is an outdated policy. 5. Not all beneficiaries of A.A. are truly disadvantaged: "Although the groups covered by affirmative action tend to be poorer than their neighbours, the individuals who benefit are often not. One American federal-contracting programme favours businesses owned by ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ people. Such people can be 87 times richer than the average American family and still be deemed ‘disadvantaged’ if their skin is the right colour." This study shows that while people may not be economically disadvantaged, those that are of a previously discriminated race can still get Affirmative Action benefits, which completely nullifies the notion that A.A. is for the disadvantaged. Argument 2: Reducing Discrimination 1. The Declaration of Independence does not in fact, state that everyone should be socio-economically equal. “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” (3) What the Declaration does say, is that all people are created equal, on a moral and legal standpoint. This does not mean that the people have equal outcomes per se, or even equal opportunities. Equality from the angle Salam is looking at, is not what the Declaration is representing. 2. I would also like to point out that Salam’s evidence in his second argument are dated 1997 and 1999 respectively, from a study in 2006. This means that there was likely progress made in the meantime, and that discrimination is not as big of a problem today as it once was. 3. Affirmative Action has been around for approximately 55 years. Salam’s data continues to show that problems in key areas still exist, and therefore A.A. isn’t solving these problems that it was designed to address. A.A. cannot be necessary anymore if, after 55 years, there are still problems that needed addressing when A.A. was first enacted; it has already done what good it can. 4. The Biernat and Kobrynowicz study that Salam uses says: ““We predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for low- than high-status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based.” (4) The angle which his source is portraying this quote is actually different from how it is represented in the original source. What the study says is that white people have lower expectations for black people, and that when black people achieve more, white people attribute their success more to luck instead of skill. Therefore, it is not true to use the quote in the way Salam did, that black people are held to stricter levels of competence, but rather African Americans must work harder to show that, when they perform highly, they are able to do so because of their skill and ability, rather than being fortunate. If this is true, this important question comes to mind: will Affirmative Action solve this problem? A.A. is not a racial education program; it inputs positive discrimination into the hiring process. Therefore, A.A. is not actively rebutting stereotypes that are creating the problems explained in the study. Moreover, in my case, A.A. actually increases the stigma that minority groups succeed for reasons other than their ability and talent, which worsens the problems Biernat and Kobrynowicz are trying to address. Argument 3: Affirmative Action relating to Police 1. Salam did not actually present any empirical research showing how big of an issue of racial mismatch between the community and the police force is in the U.S., nor does he have evidence arguing that diversification would actually work to solve these issues. In New York City, the police department is just as “diverse” as the community, yet the Eric Garner killing sparked protests and massive civil unrest (5). 2. Salam’s evidence that says, “The police force should reflect the racial diversity of the community,” suggests that police officers should be hired as a mirror of the community. This is not the case, as everyone in said city relies on the police force to protect them and their community from criminals. Therefore, officers should be hired based upon their qualifications and the ability to perform well in their line of work, without regard to race or gender. 3. Affirmative Action isn’t really promoting true diversity. It represents an unjust system that undermines meritocracy to hire people based upon race and gender, not ability and talent. "Although the groups covered by affirmative action tend to be poorer than their neighbours, the individuals who benefit are often not. One American federal-contracting programme favours businesses owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged” people. Such people can be 87 times richer than the average American family and still be deemed “disadvantaged” if their skin is the right colour." This evidence also pertains to the subject of unjust hiring without regard to meritocracy. (1) Conclusion I stand with my claims from the rebuttal; the harms outweigh the benefits, A.A. increases racial stigma, it is a system that is no longer needed, and it doesn’t address the things it was designed to. Thank you, and vote Pro! Sources 1) http://www.economist.com... 2) http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 3) http://www.archives.gov... 4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5) http://nypost.com... 6) My First Argument (4)