Affirmative Action is Justifiable and Constitutional

The con would like to begin the next round by stating that one’s color of skin, race, or biological sex should never be the basis for any argument except in regard of certain medical procedures. The con frankly believes that one’s skin color or sex does not matter. This is not to be confused with someone’s culture not mattering because the con believes that one’s culture does indeed matter. Continuing, this is not to say, that if someone is being discriminated against based on these three factors, the general public should ignore the injustice. On the contrary, the con believes that any case of discrimination based on these three factors should be outlawed from this remarkable country. Then, the only way Affirmative Action is justifiable, as my opponent put it, is if there is still “unfavorable conditions” for certain colors or sexes in the United States. Because of this justification, the pro has the burden to prove that such “unfavorable conditions” still exist. What the con argues is that there is no wide spread racism based on those three factors in the current United State and because of this, there is no need for Affirmative Action. The con will unfortunately acknowledge that there are still individuals in the United States who believe that because one is of a certain color, race, or sex, this one individual is less than another color, race, or sex. Beginning, the con will now address the main points made by the pro. “The absence of discriminatory law does not denote the absence of discriminatory conduct. ” This statement is true. However, two things contradict the need for Affirmative Action. The first is that there is legislation banning discrimination based on the three factors discussed above. Legislation in the United States is passed by the majority which logically equates that the majority agrees with it. If legislation is passed barring discrimination based on color, race, or sex, which it does in the United States, then the majority has proposed and approved it. This directly contradicts the belief that racism and sexism are rampant in the United States. If racism and sexism were rampant, then the citizens of the United States would have passed new legislation repealing the legislation which bans discrimination. Second, the argument that Affirmative Action is needed because racism is still prevalent does not apply to the current conditions of the United States. The con will contradict the pro’s focus on African-American racism while simultaneously contradicting the focus of any racism in the United States. First, a gallop poll shows that in 1958, 37% of Americans would never vote for a black president (1). Barack Obama, a man of black skin, was elected twice in 2008 and 2012. Second, according to William H. Frye, an expert at the Brookings Institute, “Sociologists have viewed multiracial marriage as a benchmark for the ultimate stage of assimilation of a particular group into society. ” (2) In 1958, 16 states banned interracial marriages. Today, interracial marriages have risen to 15% of all new marriages. Continuing, “63% of Americans say it “would be fine” with them if a member of their own family were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group. In 1986…65% said people of different races marrying each other was not acceptable for anyone or themselves (3). ” These three statistics alone show that there is no trend of rampant disdain to a specific color, race, or sex in the United States. “It is the pro’s belief that such degree of mobility is dependent upon education from higher institutions and employment at proportionally equal business entities” Affirmative Action is a policy that can be wielded to diminish any race and that is why it is so dangerous. The secondary effects of policy aimed to aid a certain race over another have targeted other ones dramatically. This can happen and has happened in the higher institutions of United States. One such example is in higher education. A National Study of College Experience showed that, “a student who self-identifies as Asian will need 140 SAT points higher than whites, 320 SAT points higher than Hispanics, and 450 SAT points higher than African Americans. ” (4). This large of a gap directly shows how Affirmative Action is negatively consequential. The con will concede that some outside factors, such as essays, can influence decisions but, such a large gap of standards, like SAT scores, is blatant racism caused by Affirmative Action policies. “Now these statistics and the factors that influence them cannot be fully divorced from the exercise of individual responsibility nor should they be. ” The statistics that the pro utilized never connect to mass racism occurring in the United States. Nor can the pro connect mass racism because, as the con presented earlier, the United States is no longer a racist country. This is because these disparities the pro cited are a causation of a problem in specific culture, not from a majority of people targeting a specific minority. It seems that the pro is shifting its argument to one defending Affirmative Action to an argument alleging that the United States and its citizens are, as a whole, racist. “The pro agrees that the standards should not be lowered below a set of parameters nor should quotas be imposed for the mere sake of diversity. ” This is what Affirmative Action does. Affirmative Action “aids” by imposing quotas based on race and when the standards of that quota are not met, unnecessarily lowering the standards for some, not all, races or sexes. If the pro agrees, as the pro did, that no standards be lowered, or quotas be in place, the debate is over. The con has won because the pro is now arguing for something different than Affirmative Action. “if those same inequities can be traced back to several specific statistics that specifically vary across race groups in a disproportionate fashion as a foundation for what would hinder social mobility…then it stands to reason that there are sociocultural mechanisms that would lead to the existence of said disparities which would result in the necessity of the implementation of policies such as affirmative action making them justifiable and constitutional. ” The pro makes no constitutional argument throughout the whole pro case. The pro only addresses the constitutional argument in the last sentence of the case. This lack of evidence alone dismisses the pro’s constitutional justification. However, the con believes that even if there was an argument for Affirmative Action based on the Constitution of the United States, it would be faulty. The con believes that the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments actually contradict Affirmative Action. Concluding, the con argues that if there is no mass social antipathy directed to a specific color, race or sex, there is no need for Affirmative Action. The only mass discrimination that is occurring in the United States is caused by the evil system of Affirmative Action.