Affirmative Action

From his record and past debates on the site, I can already tell this will be an educational debate, hopefully for both us and our readers. The ResolutionFor the most part, I accept the way Con frames the resolution, “The United States should adopt laws requiring affirmative action. ” That said, the resolution is still somewhat ambiguous, as it does not designate specifically what kind of affirmative action laws should be required. I don’t think that should be a problem, however, for this debate. I accept the resolution, then, on the caveat that we replace the Wikipedia definition of affirmative action with a more accurate and precise definition. The problem with the Wikipedia definition is that it does not include any relation to the stated purpose of affirmative action, which is to achieve non-discrimination/equal opportunity. I provide two revised definitions, the first from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, the second from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary: 1) “A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination between applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. ” [1]2) “Policies of governments and other institutions, private and public, intended to promote employment, contracting, educational, and other opportunities for members of historically disadvantaged groups. Because they may favor some groups over others, affirmative action policies must be narrowly tailored to meet the institution's legitimate goals, such as remedying the effects of past discrimination or promoting full diversity in a school setting. ” [1]For this debate, these definitions are more accurate than a Wikipedia definition, as they present affirmative action within a legal system, and the resolution provided by Con is explicitly about affirmative action law, not affirmative action as an abstract concept. I prefer definition 2, but accept 1 as well. I still think Con’s analysis of the Wikipedia definition holds: Con writes that “a benefit is conveyed based solely upon membership in a designated group,” and also notes that affirmative action law is still “unsettled. ” I accept these points. I will now proceed to make my case for adopting laws requiring affirmative action. Introduction:As I understand the issue, there are two questions at stake: do we need affirmative action, and does it work? I answer yes to both questions. In this round, I will take up the issue of whether we need it or not. We need affirmative action for the following reasons: 1) for the sake of non-discrimination and equal opportunity, which implies 2) to make up for disadvantages in opportunity that are the result of past discrimination, the sufferings inflicted for generations on others, and 3) in some limited cases and institutional settings, affirmative action for the sake of promoting diversity as a value. I believe that these three (definitely the first one, arguably the latter two) reasons for adopting affirmative action are legitimate concerns of the United States’ legal policy. To argue for affirmative action, then, I will make a case that these stated reasons intersect with United States interests. Non-discrimination and Equal Opportunity:I will begin with the famous phrase, “all men are created equal. ” It was first used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, who held it was “sacred and un-deniable. ” Benjamin Franklin also took up the phrase, claiming it was a truth that was “self-evident. ” It is a central concept in the founding of the United States, and has figured prominently in public policy. [2] Following this “self-evident” truth, I turn to the Fourteenth Amendment, which marked a shift in constitutional law: “No State… shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” [3] For our present purposes, the Equal Protect Clause is significant, as it suggests non-discrimination/equal opportunity as an explicit State interest. Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education explicitly placed non-discrimination on the agenda of public policy. In 1961, Present Kennedy enabled a presidential committee on equal opportunity. [4] Following this was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides further legal reasoning in support of government initiatives/policies supporting equal employment opportunities, i. e. , non-discrimination. [5] The list of Acts and Court decisions goes on and on, the point always the same: non-discrimination/equal opportunity is at the heart of United States legal doctrine, and is therefore in the interests of the United States vis-à-vis public policy. Correcting for Past Discrimination:I argue that it is in the United States interests to correct for disadvantages caused by past discrimination. This argument logically follows from the State interest in non-discrimination and equal opportunity. The question, then, is whether it is enough to make discrimination illegal, or whether further measures are needed to correct for the disadvantages caused by past discrimination. I argue that simply making discrimination illegal is not enough. The reason is simple: a hard look at the undoubted facts reveals that systemic discrimination has not changed as a result of making discrimination illegal. For example, glass ceilings and redlining practices still keep neighborhoods all white and deny loans to well-qualified African Americans. According to a recent article in the academic journal, Annals of Finance, “Firms owned by minorities in general and blacks in particular are much more likely to have their loans denied and pay higher interest than is the case for white males. ” The same study shows that, although this is sometimes “explained by their lack of creditworthiness,” it is more “consistent with a finding of discrimination in the credit market by banks. ” [6]Other studies have shown that there is ongoing discrimination in the workplace, particularly because of gender differences. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research and dosomething. org, women are disadvantaged and discriminated against regardless of current anti-discrimination laws. For example, doing the same job with the same qualifications, women today are still only paid 72 cents for every dollar a man earns. [8] The case is explicit in higher education, where a man and women equally qualified for a Professorship are nonetheless faced with a pay gap that favors men. [9] And this is 50 years AFTER the Equal Pay Act became law in 1963. Clearly, laws making discrimination illegal have no worked. Because systemic discrimination has not ended, it is clear that further initiatives by the government must be taken for the sake of non-discrimination. This is where affirmative act law comes in. Some of the studies I have referred to, as well as many, many more, demonstrate that affirmative action has furthered the State's interest in non-dicrimination. In other words, it works. I will take up that issue of whether affirmative action works as a solution to the problem in the next round. [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.archives.gov...[4] . http://www.enotes.com...[5] . http://www.eeoc.gov...[6] . http://www.springerlink.com...[7] . http://www.nber.org...[8] . http://www.dosomething.org...[9] . http://historymatters.gmu.edu...