The US should abolish affirmative action

IntroductionBecause I believe that it’s time to dispel with the illusion that racism doesn’t exist, and with the illusion that “colorblindness” is the way to fight racism, I negate. Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes, “We ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.” Race matters; vote Con if you want to make it matter less.Advocacy1. Individuals belonging to groups designated as marginalized groups, such as African-Americans, Hispanic individuals, women, low-income individuals, and multiple groups of Asian-Americans, among others, will benefit from affirmative action policies, carried out and sanctioned by the state. The policy will be multi-layered, in that more benefits will be given to individuals who’re a part of more than one of these groups (e.g. a low-income woman gets more benefits than an upper middle-class woman) – this is a change from the current system that I advocate. 2. Examples of affirmative action policies include (a) favoring people from these communities among competing applicants of equal qualification, (b) a reduction in qualification expectations in terms of academic success for members of these communities, and (c) specific educational programs and skill training programs targeted at these individuals. I don’t support quotas. BurdensI’m going to prove that (1) governments have a moral obligation to implement affirmative action policies, and (2) affirmative action policies are beneficial to society. Both of those are independent ways for me to win the debate. For the sake of clarity, I don’t need to argue in favor of all the examples listed above – insofar as I prove that abolishing all affirmative action is a bad idea, vote Con.My Case1. Affirmative action uplifts marginalized individualsSubpoint A: Affirmative action offsets discrimination in hiring/admissions processesThere’s little doubt that racism/sexism are reasonably substantial in hiring and admissions processes. According to a 2004 study by Marianne Bertrand and Senthil Mullainathan, “White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones.” [1] A 2012 study by Devah Pager and Bruce Western, which used enforcement-based field experiments, concludes, “Blacks are less than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified Whites across a wide range of low-wage jobs . . . [and] the ultimate distribution of employment opportunities across equally qualified applicants reveals a process of decision-making very much shaped by race.” [2] Moreover, research has consistently shown bias in hiring against women who are mothers when compared to fathers. [3] This direct inequality is offset by affirmative action, which gives qualified individuals a chance to prove their qualifications against injustice and discrimination.Subpoint B: Affirmative action mitigates injustice within workplaces and educational institutions. Discrimination in the status quo is rampant. For one, there is a gap in wages between women and men in the United States, with women being paid about 78 to 80 cents to what every man earns. Adjusted for occupational choices, etc., the OECD estimates that 30% of this occupational wage gap is due to sexism. [4] Pro themselves pointed me to the example of the racial wage gap in the U.S., wherein black men earn 31% less than white men, on average. [5] Furthermore, workplace sexual harassment is rampant and under-addressed, with insufficient rules and reporting mechanisms in multiple workplaces. [6] Affirmative action mitigates these problems because it fights the glass ceiling effect – more individuals have the opportunity to go up the corporate ladder and take on leadership rules, allowing them to control policy. People who benefit from affirmative action are likely to sympathize with issues facing the marginalized and pass useful policy, as a result of their own experiences. According to Alana Semuels of The Atlantic, studies find that “[t]he higher the share of women on corporate boards one year, the more likely the company was to hire women executives in the following year.” [7] Political scientist Michele Swers says, “Women in Congress are just more likely to prioritize issues that have a direct connection to women [such as] violence against women [and] family leave policy.” [8] The same logic should apply in the workplace as well: based on personal experiences, women and minorities are more likely to repeal and fight discriminatory policy. Subpoint C: Affirmative action increases the quality of life of marginalized individuals.Affirmative action combats poverty by providing employment/educational opportunities. Individuals who benefit from affirmative action are more likely to be of low-income backgrounds. For one, affirmative action exists for low-income individuals, according to my advocacy, which means more low-income individuals will have an access to education, for example. Moreover, individuals of ethnic minority backgrounds are likely to be low-income. Affirmative action offers these individuals unique economic opportunities. According to a report by the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million women move up in the workforce. [9] In South Africa, affirmative action caused a “deep decrease in unemployment and poverty for each population group.” [10] There are at least six million women who wouldn’t have jobs today if not for affirmative action. [14] Affirmative action improves the quality of life of individuals by relieving situations of economic disadvantage. Conclusion. Martin Luther King noted, “If a man is entering the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.” [12] Affirmative action offsets existing discrimination, advancing the lives of the marginalized.2. Affirmative action creates diversityGiven the current homogeneity of workplaces, affirmative action creates diversity. According to Elizabeth Redden of Inside Higher Ed, “The percentage of African American, Hispanic and Native American students admitted to the University of Michigan Law School for next fall fell from 39.6 percent for those students whose applications were considered before enactment of a state law banning race-based preferences in December to 5.5 percent thereafter.” [13] Through affirmative action, the percentage of women increased by 16% of the total number of workers in architecture, 12% in medicine, 19% in law, and 20% in chemistry, among others. [15] Thus, it’s reasonably obvious that workplaces and educational environments gain more ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity.This is beneficial for two reasons. First, diversity has massive economic benefits. When people come from diverse backgrounds, they tend to think of problems in different ways and bring fresh perspective. Professor Rodney Smolla argues that affirmative action “does the institution a favor, enriches the institution, [and] brings to it the positive asset of new perspectives.” [16] Second, diversity facilitates integration of marginalized groups in the long-term, preventing the suppression of their opinions and discrimination within these environments, enriching the institution as a whole.Rebuttal1. Pro argues that affirmative action punishes people who aren’t culpable for oppression. However, affirmative action doesn’t “punish” anyone. It removes disadvantage. African-Americans don’t have the same access to resources that white people have; affirmative action offsets that.2. Affirmative action upholds merit, because, as demonstrated in my first contention, there’s a large number of meritorious candidates who are denied opportunities because of racism and sexism. Affirmative action ensures that people aren’t denied opportunities arbitrarily. Thus, Pro’s own value of merit means you should negate. 3. Freedom is fundamentally suppressed in an environment of injustice. Without access to basic economic opportunities, vulnerable individuals lose basic aspects of their quality of life; thus, their freedom is hurt to a far greater extent than the freedom of individuals who already have certain institutional advantages. If Pro’s value is freedom, you should negate. 4. Pro concedes: “[C]itizens would be forced to pay taxes to fund a police force to protect the right to life.” This means people have their money forcibly taken away from them in order to protect the rights of other individuals. It’s the same reason welfare programs exists. This is in direct contradiction with Pro’s contention, because affirmative action asks people to give up a small amount of resources to protect the rights of other people and to level the playing field. 5. Affirmative action is also reparation for historic injustice. Ta-Nehisi Coates explains that “the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders.” [11] Historic injustice against marginalized individuals means the U.S. ought pay reparations, and affirmative action fulfills this duty.Race matters. Only the Con side makes it matter less. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] Ellis Cose, “Color-Blind,” p. 171[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...