Get Rid of Affirmative Action

Many thanks Pro for the debate, and congratulations on finishing his first one! In this debate, I have argued, with supporting evidence from the actual Dept of Labor regulations, and the founding executive order that created Affirmative Action, that the policy does the following:Requires applicants for federal contracts to agree not to discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." [1]Any action by any recipient of federal funding that does not fulfill this promise is not behaving in accordance with the Affirmative Action policy, and is subject to loss of contract and possible court sanction. [2]In this Debate, Pro has conceded that:Affirmative Action is critical to opening advancement opportunities for women, minorities and veterans. (By arguing that minority enrollment in universities plummets when Affirmative Action is implemented by the University.) Institutions and Contractors face the potential for serious consequences when they violate even the spirit of the Affirmative Action regulations, proving that the system is self-correcting. (This includes court action, according to Pro.)Persistent, entrenched stereotypes and prejudices continue to survive, in spite of all of the progress of the past half century.If Affirmative Action were banned, women and minority participation in our economy would "plummet."Throughout this debate, Pro has illustrated the entrenched, almost unconscious prejudice that justifies the need for Affirmative Action.Pro drops my statement that the Affirmative Action law seeks to limit discrimination against "qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans."Pro suggests that Affirmative Action, in restricting the use of (specifically) race-based, discrimination in hiring, itself brings racial discrimination into the subject. He uses this logic to argue that trying to use racial discrimination to limit racial discrimination is absurd. This is tantamount to arguing that abstaining from alcohol as a way to combat alcoholism is absurd because it uses an "alcohol-based" strategy to stop alcoholism. Or trying to say that avoiding junk food as a means to get healthy is trying to use a "junk food" plan to improve your health. The fact is, banning racial discrimination is not racial discrimination. Pro also makes the strange argument that limiting discrimination and bigotry represents a form of discrimination against white men. This assumes that bigotry is a necessary part of being a white man.In conclusion, Pro has conceded almost all of the critical debate premises. I have supported my contention that Affirmative Action is substantially different than the simplistic caricature that opponents portray it as. More importantly, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of Proof, and has not shown that the only recourse to Affirmative Action's flaws is to ban it rather than simply improve it. Pro has also failed to explain how it would be repealed, but has argued that repeal would have serious and negative impacts on our nation. This is a major concession. Pro has also never explained why Affirmative Action's policy: "For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans." ... is a bad thing for America. He has said that mistakes have occurred, but not why this goal, as stated in the law, is a bad thing. [1]http://www.dol.gov... [2]http://www.dol.gov...