Resolved: Affirmative action is in the best interests of the United States.

I would like to start off by giving a slightly different definition of Affirmative Action as I think the definition given by the negative side is not absolutely accurate. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1]: “Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. Refutation 1: First we need to look at the question what is the fundamental aim of affirmative action? I would like to quote President Lyndon B. Johnson, who said in his speech in 1965 [2] “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race, and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” I think from this it becomes evident that the aim of affirmative action is not to punish anybody but to offer equal opportunities to everyone. Thereby the first contention which deals with punishment becomes irrelevant. Refutation 2: Yes affirmative action means that a certain number of college and employment admissions will happen not exclusively on the basis of skill and capability but also on the basis of other factors. And yes, as a consequence of that the average productivity level of the nation might be affected temporarily. But it will help to level an uneven playing field that is the legacy of centuries of racism and sexism and I argue that the long run benefits for the society of reducing these inequalities significantly outweigh the temporary reduction of productivity. Refutation 3: Going back to the analogy given by President Johnson: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race, and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” To consider helping the previously enchained back on his feet as patronizing would reflect a very superficial view on the issue. This attitude has to be corrected in the society. Refutation 4: I agree that equal opportunity is desirable. But I have to come back to the same analogy. If you have been enchained for centuries as certain groups of society have been and then are supposed to race against someone who has been enjoying all kind of privileges then we cannot talk of equal opportunities. Equal opportunities means we as a society have to somehow compensate for past discrimination. This is not only in the interest of the minority but of the society as a whole. My main argument: Much of the inequality that is prevalent in the US today is a result of past discrimination of certain minorities. It is in the best interest of the whole society of the United States to reduce these inequalities as they give rise to tensions and are a hurdle for the progress of the society. Affirmative action is able to reduce these inequalities. Thereby affirmative action is in the best interest of the United States. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.civilrights.org...