Affirmative Action is Justifiable and Constitutional

"My opponent has just freely admitted that it is unjust and discriminatory to favor one race over another" This is false. The pro made the claim that is wrong to unjustly and indiscriminately favor one race over another. An attempt to equate the act of aiding specific groups in isolated instances in order to right inequities rooted in history with a generalized definition of discrimination is a fallacy and demonstration of faulty logic. The terms unjustly and indiscriminately serve as key terms for understanding what the pro would propose to be the underlying necessities for policies such as affirmative action or at the very least policies that seek the same fundamental goal, which is equality of opportunity. The implication is that by giving more consideration to individuals that find themselves more predisposed to unfavorable conditions either in that moment or prospectively based on a historically observed patterns, then it is justifiable given those conditions. As to the specificity of potential benefitting groups, the pro side will temporarily focus its lens on the African American community. "To be noted, there is not one law in the United States which actively discriminates against citizens of a certain race or gender" The absence of discriminatory law does not denote the absence of discriminatory conduct. Even in light of the Civil Rights Act which on paper banned discrimination, there was an adjustment period that is debatably still occurring. While policies historically toted the rhetoric "separate but equal" the outcome was everything but equal, perpetuating racial and prejudicial biases that had dire sociological consequences. Affirmative Action was implemented as a countermeasure against subversive discriminatory practices and these practices were not backed by law but rather the result of a socioculturally accepted norms. "It only takes three things to rise into the middle class. The three things are, "don"t have children outside of marriage, finish high school, and get a job." A complete range of social mobility should not be confined to simple movement from the lower class into the middle class, but rather in the definition of a full range of mobility afforded by equality of opportunity that includes access to the upper middle class and even the upper echelons of society. It is the pro"s belief that such degree of mobility is dependent upon education from higher institutions and employment at proportionally equal business entities. This is what Affirmative action seeks to address and remedy. Furthermore, social capital and status are not solely defined by income but a variety of other factors. The percentage of African-American children born out of wedlock is 73% with the percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites at 29%. [1] The graduation rates of black students for the 2011-12 school year was 69% with non-Hispanic whites at 86% nationwide. [2] The unemployment rate of blacks is roughly 1.5 times that of non-Hispanic whites across all age groups according to the United States Department of Labor for the 2nd Quarter of 2018 [3] Now these statistics and the factors that influence them cannot be fully divorced from the exercise of individual responsibility nor should they be. Conversely, they cannot be analyzed holistically without acknowledgement of historical and sociocultural factors. While Affirmative Action certainly cannot exclusively remedy the difference, it can be a mechanism to aid in that process, when correctly executed. "If the individuals are assumed to be qualified, I see no reason for Affirmative Action" Again, Affirmative Action was originally created on the premises that despite qualification, many minority groups were denied acceptance into specific institutions based on race. It was not meant to retaliate against majority groups but to equalize the established system that originally supported majority groups at the expense of minorities. "If the individuals are assumed to be qualified, I see no reason for Affirmative Action" "The problem is that Affirmative Action usually lowers the standards for certain races and sexes." Hence the pro"s inclusion of the qualifiers unjustly and indiscriminately in it"s original statement. The pro agrees that the standards should not be lowered below a set of parameters nor should quotas be imposed for the mere sake of diversity. However, in most evaluative practices it is not a single immutable bar that determines applicant competence, but rather several sets of parameters (many being arbitrary and unquantifiable) of which an applicant can meet, exceed or even fall short in light of other factors (for example a student may gain entry into a University with a GPA lower than the average if a standardized test score significantly higher than the average, intellectual capacity demonstrated through essay based questions that may outweigh other measurable factors, or other character based traits that are implied through extracurricular activities and the like.) To reemphasize, It is not the Pro"s argument that Affirmative Action should lower the standard or use either race or whatever other identity based trait as a singular trump-all factor, but rather that in order to equalize opportunity and control for potential bias (both conscious and unconscious) AA be implemented, and by extension take into account the various extenuating factors surrounding an applicant and their application and to neglect to do so would wholly dismissed certain historical and sociocultural factors. The notion that "Affirmative Action believes that these races and sexes cannot reach the standards the free market sets for every other race and sex" is an assumption made on the premise that society is collectively blind to race and/or gender and thus starts everyone on equal footing which is observed to be historically and currently inaccurate in light of the aforementioned statistics. While a certain degree of inequity is to be expected across and within different race groups for factors seemingly independent of race, if those same inequities can be traced back to several specific statistics that specifically vary across race groups in a disproportionate fashion as a foundation for what would hinder social mobility (and under the assumption that there are no biological factors that would support such a large disparity) then it stands to reason that there are sociocultural mechanisms that would lead to the existence of said disparities which would result in the necessity of the implementation of policies such as affirmative action making them justifiable and constitutional.