Affirmative Action

"This is why we should implement a "flip a coin" policy, rather than affirmative action." Like stated before, this policy would be ideal if 1) all employers were completely unbiased and willing to engage in the "flip a coin" honestly. 2) all or most African-Americans were on the same level of whites in terms of economic and social equality and had the same opportunities: that's the big one. Maybe one day we can use the "flip a coin" policy; affirmative action is the temporary solution. "Eliminate the affirmative action, and you eliminate such resentment." But as I said before, affirmative action and letting a minority (who has a higher chance of having suffered a tough history than you) get or keep a job is part of the social burden that the majority has to accept in the interest of the society; therefore, there is no reason to feel this resentment and furthermore, most whites (as shown by public opinion polls) are willing to accept this burden (1). "However, if a black man and a white man both land on an equal application, then the white man obviously didn't live up to his 'social superiority,' so why should he suffer for it?" You keep making these absolute statements in conjunction with the adverb "obviously" as if it were some factual truth. Just because he is as qualified as the black man doesn't mean that he had a bad history. And even if he did, the black man could also have had a bad history. That's why you use affirmative action to prefer the black man, seeing as it's more probable that the latter statement is true. "What difference does it make whether the senior employees are white or black? As time goes on, if color-blind policies are used, blacks will have as many senior positions as they deserve by their qualifications, so there'd be no need to force employers to fire their senior white employees, which directly lowers their profits and hurts the economy." I've already refuted this statement. Because white senior employees are already in position, they will not get laid off in times of downsizing, and it will only perpetuate the cycle of inequality. And also, like I said before, colorblind policies don't work due to the lack of educational and economic equality of minorities in respect to the white majority; therefore, the black man would probably have grown up without the same educational opportunity as the white man, which would have a negative impact on things like GPA and job qualifications. Like you have said, two people can be qualified, while one is more qualified than the other. In this case, if the less qualified belongs to a minority, then affirmative action must be used to take into the economic and educational opportunities that this man was probably deprived of. This does not mean that white people are ever deprived, it's just taking into the account the statistically greater chance that the minority was deprived. "If they both have the same qualifications, life has been treating them equally well." Again, not necessarily. For someone who always exploits exaggerated or hyperbolic situations in your arguments (such as the struggling Irish potato famine farmer), it's contradictory and strange that you would make such absolute and generalized claims. They don't necessarily have to have the same lives, and if they are equally qualified the black man still could have come from a struggling family, just as you claim the white man could have. But there is a higher chance, even with equal or comparable qualifications, that the black man came from such a background; that's why we use affirmative action. Also, you are ignoring the other evidence for the benefits of affirmative action which you claim have an "equal and opposite negative effect." First of all, I assume you agree that diversity in the workplace is good, but you claim that the diversity would occur naturally without affirmative action. Although some of your conclusions make logical sense to yourself, professional and independent studies point otherwise. "According to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce"(2). Secondly, there's no equal negative effect at all. White applicants would not "lose" their job; most unemployment within the white population is attributed to inconvenient business relocation, downsizing, and lay-offs (3). Affirmative action, according to Census reports and official figures, would only cause about 1% of white workers to be affected(4). "If the average of one set of numbers is 5, and the average of another set of numbers is 10, for two numbers of different sets to be equal, one or both of them must be unnaturally high or low. It's a statistical fact." But I'm saying that that statement doesn't apply absolutely because there are a number of different factors. You defined average as "average income." So because the black man has a lower income, he's obviously less qualified? To use one of your "what if" arguments against you, what if the black man had a difficult family history, his family made a relatively low income, but his qualifications were equal or comparable to the white man's (i.e. he had good test scores due to an innate ability)? See, you're grouping both education and economics in the same group. Although you're correct in assuming they often are directly proportional, the aforementioned example provides an exception to that. We're dealing with people, not just numbers, and some people have certain traits (like intellect or personal ability) that aren't affected by statistics. "Then why do you assume that the white guy had a pampered life? Perhaps his family worked hard on a farm all their life." Right, but there's a higher chance that the black man did NOT have that pampered life, even with his certain above average qualifications. "Diversity can happen without affirmative action. Blacks would still be hired. It's just that a white man wouldn't go, "No, not again..." whenever he realizes that he's matched against a black man." Again, the studies I've cited show the lack of diversity with colorblind policies, and the abundance of it with affirmative action. Affirmative action is necessary; you're not taking into account all the possible situations and the naturally hindrance in financial and economic growth that minorities have faced. A lot of our dispute has been focused on our different interpretations of "qualification," "average," and "upper" or "socially superior." You need to consider that there are exceptions within the minority community too (like an exceptionally qualified black from a destitute family), not just the Southern drought-suffering farmer or the Irish immigrant. Affirmative action is a necessary policy to even out the present inequities in our society and increase diversity in universities and the workplace, and it's effectiveness is proven. Good man, mongeese. I had a fun time debating with you. Thank you to mongeese and to all those taking interest in this debate. VOTE PRO. Sources: 1)Roper Center for Public Opinion. (1995a). Question ID: USYANKP.95007, Q21 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com... 2)Reverse discrimination of whites is rare, labor study reports. (1995, March 31). New York Times, p. A23. 3)Ivins, M. (1995, February 23). Affirmative action is more than black-and-white issue. Philadelphia Daily News, p. 28. 4)http://www.understandingprejudice.org...