White males who are against affirmative action betray doubt in their own true merit.

I am grateful for the care with which you combed through my position and for the challenging argument posed in return. I commend the overall line of argument and its level of sophistication. I have summarised your argument below (I trust you find this an accurate representation): Sub conclusion 1: The path to equality cannot be paved with inequality. AA is discriminatory and promotes inequality. Therefore programmes like AA are not what are needed; legislation is. Sub conclusion 2: Based on a mathematical model of AA and using interrelation, you propose that those who decry AA are not doing so because non-white males are now equal with white males. They are decrying the devaluation of white males solely. Sub conclusion 3: Using a case study you argue that we are, in effect, lowering the standard of services in order to equitably promote people based solely on race and not their ability to provide the required service that the public are reliant upon. Sub conclusion 4: Here you present a further case study that is supposed to promote the use of legislation over AA. You then conclude that: Existing anti-discrimination laws are the correct routes to equality. AA is not because it is discriminatory in nature. White men decrying AA are doing so out of a sense of fairness and equality. They are not doing it out of fear that they cannot measure up on an equal playing field. After all, we are not giving them an equal playing field with AA. White males are justified in their fight against AA for moral reasons. I will begin with our first disagreement, and so will attempt to defend sub conclusion 4 of my original position. I do not see it as integral to your argument but I think this a necessary structure to my original position and I will attempt to refute your attack. My assertion has not denied agency, it has, to the contrary, controlled for agency; insofar as it is irrelevant whether or not one actually takes the opportunities that they are provided. It is more important to consider whether or not there have been opportunities provided in the first place. To ignore that these opportunities are far less available for blacks et al to apply their agency to, is to miss the point. It is my opinion that the majority of your disagreement with my argument lies in your critique of anti-discrimination laws and Affirmative action having contradictory effects; however, this is simply not true. I will illustrate this by unpacking the differences between anti-discrimination laws and Affirmative action. Desmond and Emirbayer write in their book Racial Domination, Racial Progress, "Affirmative action programs differ from anti-discrimination laws in that the former are proactive--they attempt to prevent discrimination from occurring -- while the latter are reactive: they redress specific people who have been victimized by discrimination" (193 "194). Whether we are dealing with cancer or discrimination, we all know that prevention is better than cure. These two concepts are easily maneuverer to sound contradictory but are in fact just two sides of the same coin. Similar to say punishment and reward; in that they are complimentary methods used to produce the same outcomes. This leads me to your claims in sub conclusion 1: "The path to equality can not be paved with inequality"" Firstly, I must forward that not all forms of discrimination are bad. I would actually go so far as to say that if discrimination was the tool that caused the problem, then surely it is necessary that we use that same tool to reverse engineer it. Much like if a screwdriver was used to drive in the screw, surely we will need a screwdriver to remove it again. The wording used in the South African legislation is far more in line with this thinking, calling it: "unfair discrimination" as opposed to just "discrimination". Secondly we should most certainly not teach subsequent generations that everyone is equal, because that is an inaccurate statement. For example, you and I hold different views on Affirmative action; on average men are physically stronger than women; relatively speaking, whites occupy more positions of power than blacks do; blacks are more likely to be unemployed than whites, and so on and so on. It is clear then that we must discriminate, categorise, distinguish or differentiate those who have privilege of opportunity from those who do not, as was originally suggested. This then dovetails rather neatly with your following point that is used to support sub conclusion 1: "... Because we cannot simply create a clean slate, we must work to erase the marks of the past with even eraser strokes. We must not mark over the whole slate with new inequality and declare a moral victory in wiping the slate clean." Let us picture this slate of society as a relief sculpture, such that many layers have been skilfully eroded away to reveal negative space, and therefore a pretty image. The layers that have remained unscathed, the upper most layers, are white males. They hold this position at the expense of the oppressed layers below them. To remedy this bias and keep the pretty picture would be impossible, because the changes required are too extensive and the picture would become grotesque. The solution to finding an equally pretty relief, bar discrimination, cannot be achieved without two drastic measures. The first would be to fill in the negative space and the second would be to erode the top layers down until equal with the bottom layers. Using both prevention and cure; or, addition and subtraction. This is what was I proposed in my own sub conclusion 5, which posits that we need a transitional phase to ease market entry for non-whites. It is vital though that these two solutions not be interpreted as inequality, because to elevate the bottom or erode the top is a process of equality. Another apt metaphor would be book keeping; receiving payment from debtors and then paying one"s creditors is a process of equalising. White males have purchased, on credit, their positions in society; equality dictates that they now pay for it. They are not being robbed; in fact; by not paying their debt, they are the thieves. I will now address your position as described by sub conclusion 2: Your mathematical modelling of the situation is a superb strategy and I agree, for the most part, with what you are trying to imply by it; until, that is, you begin to use interrelation. I therefore accept that theoretically the model looks like this: Non White Males = +1 Non White Females = +2 White Females = +1 White Males = 0 It looks like this because it must contextually reflect what it is currently attempting to model, i.e.: white privilege. This is simply how linear models work, they must, by nature, be dependent upon context1. Now, what that actually means is that zero the norm in our current context; furthermore, by setting non-white males to zero what you are implying is that they are the norm. I then take that to mean one of two things is happening; one, that we have moved forward in time (into a new context) and the programme has been overly successful as a means of redistribution and must therefore be reassessed; or, that you think that non-white males are the norm in the current day. Both of these inferences are clearly not the case today; therefore, to set non-white male at zero in today"s context is not an accurate use of that linear model. This, along with my earlier tool and slate metaphor, therefore refutes your attack on my main conclusion that those against affirmative action are that way inclined because of: ""the devaluation of white males solely. They oppose it because all discrimination is wrong and the road to equality is not traversed with unequal footing." Regarding the your sub conclusion 3: "We are, in effect, lowering the standard of service fire fighters provide" This is an emotionally charging point, because it sounds like peoples" lives are at stake, and that should take precedence over a promotion every single time. But are peoples" lives really at stake? Those test scores were thrown out because they were irrelevant, at least since U.S. District Judge, Nicholas Garaufis, has ruled that New York City fire fighter recruitment exams used between 1999 and 2007 were racially biased against African-Americans and Hispanics. Going further he stated that the written tests had "discriminatory effects and little relationship to the job of a firefighter."2 Therefore those test scores prove nothing about the actual performance of those fire fighters and therefore nobody is suffering unduly as a result. I accept and agree with your proposal of legislation as proven effective by your case study in sub conclusion 4; however, I still stand by my claim that prevention (in the form of AA) is better than cure (in the form of legislation). It is surely apparent then that the moral hinge from which your argument hangs (namely that white males are justified in their fight against AA for moral reasons.) is unsound. I conclude then, that if we are to accept the following points: 1.That there is inequality; 2.That anti-discrimination laws and Affirmative action are indeed just two sides of the same coin (prevention and cure); 3.That both are necessary to find equality; 4.That the means of a preventative, transitional phase using AA, with the ends of equality requires the use of discrimination; 5.Which, in and of itself, is not unfair, but rather a necessary tool; Then my original position therefore remains intact: That being an able-bodied, white male and against affirmative action is admitting insecurity in your own actual merit. 1> https://en.wikipedia.org... 2> http://www.fairtest.org... 3> http://www.slate.com...