Affirmative Action is harmful.

How Does AA Work? As one of the largest employers in the United States, the federal government is in a wonderful position to implement hiring practices that can ignore race, gender, veteran status, religion and national origin – and provide employment and education opportunities to persons that would otherwise be shut out. The Question as to the definition of AA: AA was first created in the US in 1961, under the Kennedy Administration. The idea behind the policy was to use the hiring power of the federal government to promote recruitment and outreach practices that “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin.” [1] The policy was administered under the US Dept. of Labor. All of this appears on the Wiki in the agreed upon definition, and was provided by PRO. It therefore, cannot possibly deviate from this definition. It only deviates from his straw man. “In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.” [1] AA in the US does not, and cannot by law, impose racial preferences. AA in the United States can only take these things into consideration as means to ensure that they are not the basis for hiring decisions. The policy also cannot protect practices that exclude more qualified candidates. AA Is Misunderstood PRO is not alone in this error, as many Americans believe that AA is a quota system (which is illegal), or that it replaces discrimination with discrimination (which, by actually reading the policy itself, we see is forbidden.) Many also feel certain that AA allows less qualified minorities to hold positions for which they are less qualified. These people are wrong; they have made a mistake, and have trusted sources of information that have proven untrustworthy. I note to readers evaluating this debate that I have used the actual language from the actual policy. I have also included language from the actual executive order that instituted AA. Rebuttals Racism and unfair hiring practices are good, because they build character This is an unsupported assertion, and requires supporting data. I point to the almost total lack of “racism training” in higher education and vocational schools, “Discrimination Offices” in corporations and businesses. “Building character” is a silver lining to an unfortunate situation; it is not a goal. I place a call to value people based on their skills and to leave race, color, religion and national origin out of the question entirely. As we read the actual language of the Executive Order that instituted AA, we see that PRO agrees with its goals. This should be seen as a concession, as it grants my case: that the impact of AA is beneficial. I never claimed that affirmative action leads to unqualified employees being hired, I said that it doesn't lead to the most qualified employee being hired. Noted. However, there is no reason to assume that women and minorities are “less qualified” than their white counterparts. Because companies and academic institutions want to diversify their employees and students they will overlook more qualified applicants in favor of those who meet a racial or gender-based quota. Quotas are illegal in the United States. [2] There is no reason to assume that non-whites or women are less qualified for these positions. This is more obvious in the field of education, race-based scholarships are given out at just about every university in the US, while white students graduating high school with honors get nothing. This is an unsupported assertion, there is no evidence for it. In fact, most college students in the US are white. [3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com... [3] http://nces.ed.gov...