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

I negate. Definitions: affirmative action - the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities best - of the most excellent quality “Interests” and “United States” are relatively unequivocal terms, so I will only define them if I find my opponent’s definitions abusive or flawed. My standard is NET BENEFITS FOR AMERICAN SOCIETY. The term “United States” in the resolution implies that we should look only to America. Furthermore, net benefits is an accessible framework that gives fair ground to both sides of the debate. Thus, vote for the side that has the most benefits for the U.S. My plan is that businesses and agencies that use affirmative action to hire or admit people to positions have their tax benefits suspended for a short period of time. The accumulation of money from this fee will work to improve the economy and send the message that skin color should NOT be a factor in admission or employment. The Pro burden is that the benefits to American society of implementing affirmative-action procedures in institutions, businesses, and agencies overwhelmingly outweigh the costs. The Con burden is that the benefits to American society of monetarily incentivizing businesses and schools NOT to consider gender in decisions (my plan) outweigh the costs. Contention 1: Reverse discrimination is morally flawed. Affirmative action drives out discrimination with more discrimination. The historical assault on ethnic minorities (like blacks and Hispanics) CANNOT be solved with a present assault on majorities (ex: whites and Asians). The warrant for this argument is that slavery and gender inequality, while deplorable, occurred in American society over 100 years ago and cannot be blamed on current majority groups. College and employment applicants of ethnic majorities should NOT be punished for or limited by the questionably discriminatory actions of their ancestors. This violates equality of opportunity, a keystone of our American system. John Mearsheimer, an analyst of philosophy, notes that “punishing one group to compensate for another is inherently wrong, particularly when the wrongs are generations in the past”. Given that most people in the present have never been harmed individually by government (in the sense of institutionalized racism), it is simply impossible to compensate them for harms that never occurred to them personally. Louis Pojman, an American philosopher, notes that “Respect for persons entails that we treat each person as an end in him or herself, not simply as a means to be used for social purposes. What is equally wrong about Affirmative Action is that it fails to treat White males with dignity as individuals”, judging them by the actions of their ancestors. To ensure that all Americans of the current generation have the same economic and educational opportunities in society as one another and that no one should be punished for crimes beyond her control, businesses that use affirmative action programs should be penalized. Putting an inherent disadvantage on majority groups in the current generation is analogous to depriving a child of privileges because his great-grandfather stole an automobile. Contention 2: Affirmative action is socially and economically detrimental. In an effort to not be racist, consultancy groups may reluctantly employ an analyst who they know will not produce as many great ideas, hospitals may reluctantly employ a surgeon who they know will not be as effective in the ER, and universities will admit students who they know will not be as diligent. This proves that affirmative action could potentially be an assault on businesses, medical centers, and academic institutions, respectively. Essentially, affirmative action creates a system where less able applicants fill positions. The impact is that employers lose the flexibility to employ the BEST candidates. This is inherently bad for both efficiency and productivity. The prosperity of small businesses and public colleges in the United States is key to global competitiveness and economic success. Considering race in college and employment admissions weakens productivity by selecting members who may be less equipped to solve problems. Affirmative Action helps to weaken the productivity of the United States. Preferred groups have less incentive to perform well because it is not needed, and non-preferred groups do not perform as well because they don’t feel it will help them. This hurts everyone, especially in tough economic times such as these. Affirmative action is a form of charity that hurts the workforce and the economy. It punishes people who have worked for what they have and gives other people opportunities they have not earned.Contention 3: Affirmative action undermines achievements. It creates the impression that success has been unearned. Some members of minorities see affirmative action as patronizing and as tokenism on the part of the majority, which is altogether unethical. Through simple cause and effect, affirmative action programs prolong the stereotype of minority students finishing near the bottom of their class by encouraging enrollment in universities beyond an appropriate level of difficulty. According to a federal study, just 39% of enrolled black students finish their degrees compared to 54% of white students. Attending a university where the pace of learning is too difficult is just as counterproductive as attempting to lift too much weight at the gym. Trey Tepichin, an attorney, explains his experience as a minority who was accepted to Duke University: “Affirmative action serves not to elevate minorities but instead functions as a tool to undermine their accomplishments. To set the record straight, I was born and raised in Mexico City -- I am not white. When I got into Duke I remember comments directed to me such as, ‘I bet affirmative action helped you get into Duke,’ or ‘Duke needed to fulfill their Hispanic quota.’ Simply because I am Hispanic and affirmative action is practiced, the value of my accomplishments were lessened in the eyes of many.” To stop the attribution of minority success to the imbalanced programs of affirmative action, businesses and institutions who continue these programs should be incentivized to stop.Contention 4: The capitalist system in America demands merit-based hiring practices. Aiming to improve minority representation in high-profile positions does not mean that the United States should sacrifice emphasis on merit and ability. In a meritocracy, equal opportunity is critical. Everyone must have the opportunity to demonstrate his/her abilities and gain rewards on basis of talent. Affirmative action simply creates race as a factor in providing individuals with these rewards. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed that one day we would live in a society where individuals would be judged by their character and not the color of their skin. The grade a student scores on an exam is arguably determined by how well he/she has prepared for the exam (ex: variability of study methods, amount of time spent on the content, participation in class, etc.) People are elected to Congress on account of how well they are perceived to perform their jobs. For instance, Bill Clinton was reelected to presidency in 1996 not because he was white, but because society approved of his spending-cut / progressive-taxation balance. In our American system, people are rewarded based on merit, not race. The color of one’s skin is completely arbitrary and should have absolutely nothing to do with admission to a position in a college or business.Remember that it is not my burden as the Con to argue that affirmative action should be eliminated. My plan is to limit the presence of it in American society, because it is inconsistent with our ideals. My plan is valid, because it is a way to achieve net benefits without putting affirmative action in the best interests of the U.S.Thus, I negate.