Affirmative Action

Since your argument exhibits a lack of understand of what affirmative action really is, I'll show you the laws pertaining to affirmative action. Executive Order No. 10925, President John F. Kennedy http://www.thecre.com... "(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. "(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin." Here's the part you have been ignoring. Notice the word "qualified" in the second clause. Executive Order Nos. 11246 and 11375, President Lyndon B. Johnson http://www.eeoc.gov... http://www.uhuh.com... No. 11375 amended No. 11246. These orders required that all organizations that accept federal funds take affirmative action to increase employment of minorities and women. With that said, let's get to your arguments. Your first argument shows a lack of understanding of affirmative action. Affirmative action is not a racial quota. It doesn't require that a certain amount of each minority be hired. It requires that affirmative action be taken to employ minorities and women. So your example is just false. Also, even if it were a racial quota, no racial quota would require that Asians be employed at a 5:12 rate to whites. The Asian-American population in the United States makes up almost 6% of the white population. A 5:12 ratio, on the other hand, would be 41.7%. So, not only is your example false, but it's also unrealistic. It would obviously be a good thing if qualified Latinos and African-Americans got a job at the man's business if they wouldn't have normally. If you read the affirmative action laws, they only apply to qualified candidates. So, it would only be the man's fault if he's hiring unqualified applicants. First of all, the whites would not have lost jobs if they did not have them in the first place. They just didn't get the jobs. And the second part is just a baseless claim. Again, affirmative action law applies only to qualified applicants. If the man is hiring unqualified applicants, that is entirely his fault. It is a rather ignorant generalization to say those whites hate affirmative action and the Latino and the African-American. First of all, you used a straw man argument. A racial quota is not affirmative action, so they're not truly hating affirmative action. Secondly, it's very irrational to hate someone just because they beat you out for a job. The Latino and the African-American would be qualified for the job if they were hired for affirmative action. You said, "People argue that it gives minorities more opportunities. It equally robs majorities of their opportunities." A percentage is the only thing that would prove your claim. It does not. It does not equally rob majorities of their opportunities because it affects a much smaller portion of the majority. You said it "equally" robbed majorities and I'm holding you to that claim. And you keep claiming that someone lost a job. That is just not true. In order for them to lose the job, they would have to have the job in the first place. I've explained this already. If both candidates are qualified and the white candidate is slightly more qualified, the minority's account has to be taken into consideration. I didn't say the universities and workplaces should just represent the demographics. I said they should more accurately represent the demographics of society. In a society in which all men are supposedly created equal, there is no reason that everyone shouldn't be given equal opportunity. As reflected in the workplace and universities, blacks still haven't been given equal opportunity. The example from Thomas Sowell is completely irrelevant to this argument. Affirmative action applies to qualified candidates. I have never seen an argument in support of affirmative action involving a black candidate who is much more qualified than the white candidate. It's pretty well established that Tiger Woods is one of the best, if not the best, professional golfers ever. Comparing him to an average pro golfer does not apply to an affirmative action debate at all. Sowell's point is pretty much garbage because the minority and women candidates are qualified. A less-qualified candidate, but still a qualified candidate, is not going to result in a huge loss of profit. The Tiger Woods situation hurts his argument since the typical affirmative action case involves a minority who is slightly less qualified than a white male candidate. This is simply your own view. Just because you would feel resentment toward affirmative action, that person, the minority group, and government, doesn't make your resentment rational. It doesn't make it righteous. In a diverse environment, a white male will obviously become more accepting and open to new cultures. You then make the baseless claim that the Hispanics and African-Americans who would be affected by eliminating affirmative action aren't naturally qualified to get into qualified. First of all, I have no idea why you use the word "naturally". Secondly, you're failing to take into account the disadvantages the Hispanics and African-Americans have faced in life. Race and class still intersect. Many minority schools are underfunded, as shown in several studies, including one from the Education Trust. Predominantly black schools have shown to not offer as many AP classes, hurting students' GPA's. I'm not going to dignify your hypothetical situation with a response until you can prove that it's realistic. Just being in the North didn't exclude African-Americans from discrimination. Being in the North didn't automatically give them equal opportunity. Also, you should back up your claim that most of the African-Americans benefiting from affirmative action came from the North. Affirmative Action also helps lower class minorities and women. Your summary of affirmative action is far too basic and frankly intellectually dishonest. Affirmative action has demonstrated that it has not only helped minorities, but it has also helped women. As I said before, some people have to take up a burden to promote a social good, which affirmative action is. I am a middle-class white and I am fine with this burden. Your claim that employers end up making less profit has little to no empirical data to support it. You haven't provided that data yet. And it's a gross oversimplification to say that majorities feel resentment toward minorities who "robbed them of their jobs". Your use of the word "robbed" is quite funny. The majority would have to have the job in the first place in order to be robbed. You can continue to show small things that are wrong with affirmative action or give hyperbolic situations. But it does not attack the policy as whole. The main point I would make to you is that the reason many minorities seem less qualified because of their systemic exclusion, whether it be underfunding for their schools or discrimination in some other way.