Affirmative Action

Refutations R4 Half Truths I will list two of con’s quotes regarding the resolution, and show that they are not necessarily able to be interpreted to hold the same meaning: [1] “But the fact is, I as Con am attempting to prove, as best as possible, that affirmative action is not a beneficial program to be administered, whether by corporate programs or government programs, for the reasons which I present,” [2] "The point of the debate is, should affirmative action programs be legal? And if not, why not?" Quote [2] is a question, which asks if affirmative action should be legal, which assumes that conclusive evidence exists that show that it is harmful in some way shape or form when used in employment practices. Let me remind the readers that we are engaged in dialog over affirmative action and how it is administered in the workplace, not arguing about affirmative action in higher education.Con’s initial argument in R2 may have been to show why affirmative action shouldn’t be legal, but after I provided factual information about what affirmative action IS and the criteria involved in its administration, con changed his argument to dispute affirmative action’s applications under the legal guidelines. The following quote by con is an attempt to show that affirmative action guidelines are illegal based on the EEOC’s own definition of its purpose: “But if an employer wishes to set up their own affirmative action program, in an attempt to maintain a state of "workplace diversity", then he is violating the law. Why? Because under the definition of affirmative action, as set forth in the debate, an employer would encourage increased hiring of women and minority groups, when the laws that the EEOC is required to uphold do not allow this.” The key word here is encourage, and the laws that the EEOC is required to uphold DO allow companies to market job openings to whomsoever they wish to. What they don’t allow is discrimination against anyone on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic…………, when hiring or promoting applicants or employees“ The EEOC makes no mention of the illegality of a private enterprise or company that receives government contracts in so far as any law that prohibits to whom a company can advertise a job opening to. Quote [2] is NOT what we are arguing in this debate where the title is simply, “Affirmative Action.” What we are arguing is more closely related to quote [1], whether or not affirmative action is beneficial. Con has not proven that affirmative action (as defined how OFCCP administers and enforces Executive Order 11246) isn’t beneficial to individuals or companies / contractors, so he dances between trying to establish that it is a violation of laws set forth by the EEOC (which I have proved that it is not), and trying to dismiss the actual laws regarding the facts about affirmative action, that they are somehow unfairly established and applied. Con hasn’t cited any facts to show how affirmative action is harmful, instead he wrote a “what if” scenario about his ideas about affirmative action in R2. When I provided facts about affirmative action and how it relates to employment in R2, he then attempted to show that the government's own affirmative action program, as defined by Executive Order 11246, is against the very law that the EEOC upholds. Corporate Programs In R4, con asserts that I am, taking his words and twisting them out of context, and then instructs the audience to reread the paragraph that I quoted that led me to believe that con was in favor of affirmative action in private enterprizes. He also asserts that his statement: "Because if I have a competitor who manufactures the same product, and he doesn't care what sex his workers are, as long as they're good at their job, then he has an advantage over me. The reason is because my competitor has access to a greater supply of quality workers than I do, and I have limited myself to only a certain portion of the labor market,” had nothing to do with Affirmative Action private or otherwise. In reality the above quote was referring to this statement by con: ”What most people don't understand is that in a free market economy, there is already a system in place that discourages racism and sexism, and promotes equality in the workplace. What is this system? Supply and demand.” Let’s compare the above quote of con to the data that I provided concerning how the hiring of women and minorities is beneficial to private enterprise: “In a free market capitalistic society, private companies themselves are finding that hiring a more diverse workforce, including minorities, women, and those with disabilities offers an advantage in the manufacture and market of their products or services. If companies are choosing to implement their own affirmative actions policies, without being required by law to do so, then affirmative action must hold benefits to companies themselves, and not just to the individuals who benefit from these policies.” Seeking qualified candidates from diverse groups is beneficial to private enterprise. That it is called “affirmative action” only means that qualified applicants from traditionally disadvantaged groups of workers will be sought to complete the application process, it doesn’t mean that under-qualified workers will be hired simply to fulfill diversity. A company would do harm to itself by hiring workers who could not fulfill the expectations of their job title. The comparison of cons statement about the supply and demand system of free enterprise discouraging racism and sexism, and my findings about the reasons that private companies seek a diverse workforce, are complimentary, and show that both con’s and my line of thinking regarding the liberty of private enterprise to hire whomever is beneficial to them, is similar. Why wouldn’t I conclude that he is in favor of affirmative action - when defined as the liberty of private enterprise to seek and hire those who would be qualified and profitable to the company? His own statement regarding the system of supply and demand brought me to my conclusion. Let’s take for example the engineering and design of tools. Tools designed for and by women serve a growing market, that the service of can’t be as easily obliged without women engineers. Business insider briefly touches on this subject: http://www.businessinsider.com... tech industry knows it can't fill all the jobs it has while discouraging half the population from joining the industry. It also knows that it can't do a good job of designing new tech products for women if women aren't part of the design process.” and, ”Women engineers can't join the ranks soon enough to help ensure future tech products work well for both halves of the population.” This is proof that sometimes it is in a company's best interest, in regards to supply and demand, to seek qualified applicants from a specific demographic.My response to con's wordy inquiry about whether minorities will recieve preferencial treatment over white males is that the word “qualified” is subjective in how it relates to the position being applied for. My example of the need for female engineers, to design tools with the strength of females in mind is an example of where a company may seek a qualified female engineer to fulfill this goal. As con stated: “What most people don't understand is that in a free market economy, there is already a system in place that discourages racism and sexism, and promotes equality in the workplace. What is this system? Supply and demand.” What is called affirmative action works with supply and demand, not against supply and demand!Con confuses a company’s desire to hire and promote a diverse workforce with discrimination against white males. He also assumes that companies use quotas, which in itself is illegal. He states,”What we need to do is let the free market run its course, because as I have demonstrated, people who discriminate against potential employees are instantly punished in the marketplace, as opposed to those who do not discriminate.” I agree with the previous statement. Who decides WHO is the most qualified person to hire? Private Enterprise and the laws of supply and demand. How are companies going to assure that they get a wide range of prospective applicants? To advertise in venues frequented by their targeted demographic. There is nothing illegal, or immoral about this approach to finding potential qualified applicants. The previous statement is in response to my opponents inquiry about private enterprize seeking job applicants from a specific demographic. Economic Incentives Con states that I didn’t offer a rebuttal of his piece on Small Business Administration, when in fact I did, i made a typo "R2, that should have read R3. Government contracts are only given for extremely specific tasks. The following link shows the kinds of grants that are currently seeking a contractor. http://www.grants.gov... link shows that grants are not only available to specified groups, but to anyone who can show that they qualify as disadvantaged. "Individuals who are not members of one or more of these groups can be considered for the 8(a) program, but they must provide substantial evidence and documentation that demonstrates that they have been subjected to bias or discrimination and are economically disadvantaged.” https://www.sba.gov...; Cons argument that, “It can be argued that this is a form of affirmative action, although not in employment, it is giving preferential treatment to WOBs and MOBs over regular small businesses, as far as aid is concerned,” is not necessarily the case. Conclusion in R5