Official TOC Round 1

The topic at hand is: Pro-Minority Affirmative Action has led to positive reform to U. S. institutions. I choose to define these terms lightly, but my advocacy will also frame the debate. Pro-Minority Affirmative Action: positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Positive Reform: I hope this is fairly clear, but one can differentiate this use of "positive" from the use of the word "positive" in my provided definition of A. A. by considering positive reform to be good or beneficial. Positive steps are simply formal, intentional actions (like "positive" laws). U. S. institutions: any public sector institution, including both workforces & higher education. Primarily, A. A. has only been applied to these institutions, as private workforces & schools are governed by federal anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VI. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Onto my advocacy: 1. A. A. was and is a necessary program in combating the systemic discrimination inherent in the U. S. system. To deny the existence of racism or minority discrimination in the US would be as silly as it would be fallacious. Statistical & empirical evidence abound, though racism is not as readily visible in our public institutions as it has been historically. However, most public institutions, especially schools, are considered more segregated now than they were prior to 1954's landmark Board v. Topeka decision. [1] Mind you, the segregation & discrimination is not based on official statute or policy, but on the phenomena of public behavior, most notably movements such as "white flight. " Bottom line: discrimination is not only alive & well, but our recent complacency, as well as our penchant for attempting to eliminate A. A. programs in places like public universities, has actually led to a highly noticeable increase in minority exclusion from both education and the workplace [2]. Funnily enough, the data shows that minority discrimination in both considered arenas (workplace & higher education) has been mitigated significantly since the induction of A. A. programs. However, as the data in my sources demonstrates, this progress has been materially damaged by two things: public outcry about quota & points admission systems, & the banning of A. A. programs in certain states by referendum. I will discuss both of these in turn, but conclude this point by stating that A. A. has been statistically proven to do its job, despite what opponents have to say: it has allowed the public sector to more aptly reflect the demographics of the nation. 2. A. A. is an evolving program that is willing and proven able to adapt to the needs of the public. Its adaptability has ensured its ability to continue serving its purpose properly. No one can argue that any program in any institution anywhere in human existence hasn't had its ups and downs. No program or institution is perfect. However, the best, most useful of these show themselves able to meet the needs of changing times. For example, when A. A. was born in the 1970's, directly after a series of monumental civil rights struggles, it manifested itself in the form of hardline quota policies. [3] Since so few minorities could even make it to the college level, much less be remotely qualified for the workforce, more totalitarian policies were required to cause the necessary ideology shift needed to produce lasting change. A. A. tapered off until the 1990's, when the debate over hardline policies was reborn, and A. A. programs were revisited by their creators & implementers. Since then, A. A. has progressed into a program not of quotas & harsh point systems, but of prejudice confrontation, mediation, & education. In fact, almost all A. A. programs currently in effect employ models similar to the "Confronting Prejudices Response" Model [4], which is entirely selection-free. Now that workforce diversity is stabilizing via a decrease in discrimination in the workforce, A. A. is clearly evolving into an educational institution, rather than a selection program. Unfortunately, opponents still holding onto the misconception of these antiquated forms of A. A. are significantly slowing the progress of such educational reforms, which is why the recent decline has been seen. However, the point is that A. A. , in and of itself, has and will continue, if allowed, to produce an equalized public sector. 3. Any remnants of A. A. 's selection policies are a necessity to the institutions that still employ them. Selection policies for A. A. now are found only in the form of points awarded on higher education applications for being an identified member of a certain minority group. Since, according to sources, the selection portions of A. A. are the most contentious, this is the point at which A. A. must truly prove itself. Empirical observation has clearly shown that A. A. 's selection policies are producing the positive change required to affirm the resolution. Spurred by objections to such measurement systems, a number of states have voted on & passed referendums that forbid the use of minority selection points & A. A. selection policies in public higher education institutions. Such states include California, Michigan, Nebraska, & Washington. In these states, the acceptance rates of minorities have plummeted in public universities across the board, showing huge drops in Hispanic & African American accepted applicants. [5] Now, is this simply because those students deserve positions less than competing White or Asian American students? Most credible researchers in the field, as well as educational researchers, will give a resounding "no. " In fact, state universities use primarily statistical data to determine entrance, and these statistics are primarily composed of standardized test scores, such as the SAT. Specific demographics, including the socio-economically disadvantaged & most high concentrations of ethnic minorities (such as inner-city or urban public schools) consistently perform poorly on such tests due to discrimination inherent in the pedagogical methods practiced in their school districts. As previously argued in my inherency argument, corrective selection practices such as points systems are an equitable way to balance out such disparities, as long as they are applied correctly. The Supreme Court, specifically in the two University of Michigan cases Grutter v. Bollinger & Grantz v. Bollinger, in which the Court made a specific legal & constitutional distinction that A. A. is now adhering to: in moderation & with due consideration, a points selection system for minorities is fair to all & beneficial to the institution, as well as all students involved. [6] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] . http://www.umich.edu... [2] . http://www.yaledailynews.com... [3] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] "The Confronting Prejudiced Responses Model: Applying CPR in Organizations. " Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie, Stephanie A. Goodwin, & Kathryn A. Morris. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2008. [5] "State Anti-Affirmative Action Laws & Title VI. " West-Faulcon, Kimberly. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2009. [6] . http://www.npr.org...