Affirmative Action

The ResolutionWe agree upon the important aspect of affirmative action, which is that it confers benefits based solely upon membership in a group, such as race or gender. Affirmative action acts to require racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination based upon a person's group rather than his individual ability. Pro's definitions say such goals are legitimate, but whether discrimination is legitimate or not is what we are debating. I will argue that discrimination based upon group membership is not legitimate.I reject diversity as a legitimate goal. Societies that are monocultural, like Japan and Norway, are neither better nor worse than societies that are multi-cultural like the United States and Brazil. We should be concerned with true legitimate goals of equality under the law, equality of opportunity, excellence in education, and prosperity. Making a society or institution diverse is secondary.Government Discrimination is WrongPro asks if affirmative action is needed and does it work. We'll respond, but before that we ask if policies of institutional government discrimination are allowable. Should government be allowed to violate equal treatment under the law?Affirmative action is institutionalized discrimination, and is therefore contrary to the principle of equal opportunity. The government decides which groups will receive benefits and, by implication, which others will suffer losses. Martin Luther King was correct in his assessment that discrimination hurts not only those who suffer from discrimination, it harms the perpetrator as well. In the case of affirmative action, government is fundamentally corrupted by punishing some to benefit others. The example of UCSD adding 200 points to the SAT scores of Hispanic applicants is instructive. A primary beneficiary was the group of applicants from South America, who were not suffering from discrimination and who were competitive without the 200 points. Foreign applicants are generally an elite, because it costs a lot to attend a foreign school. Discrimination is obviously unfair.Affirmative action in California was ended by a voter initiative, Proposition 209, banning discrimination. The initiative was modelled on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [3. http://en.wikipedia.org... ]Like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the voter initiative demanded equal treatment of all people. The impact on University of California student population was was to quickly raise the population of Asian students from about 3 , Proposition 209Asians make up about 10% of the California population. With affirmative action in place, Asians were about 37% of the students population. With affirmative action ended, the Asian student population increased to about 44%. The numbers at the Berkeley campus are now approaching 50%. The mantle of affirmative action had been used to impose a quota on Asian students. http://mjperry.blogspot.com...In the history of California, Asians have been discriminated against as much or more than any other group. [4.http://www.zakkeith.com... ] However, the government decided it was okay to now discriminate against Asians. So why do Asians do so well. Asians have a five point IQ advantage, but that's not nearly enough to explain the success. Clearly, success came as a consequence of a strong culture that places a high value on education and initiative. Whatever factor discrimination plays, it is minor by comparison.Affirmative action is not needed: A "Consistent" Theory is Not a Proven TheoryThe affirmative action premise is that lack of opportunities due to past discrimination accounts for differences in the success rates. That's false. Yes, some groups lag behind the general population in outcomes, but that doesn't mean the reason is discrimination. It's about cultural values and tradition. There are fewer male nurses than female. That does not prove that men are discriminated against in pursuing that career. It's more likely that fewer choose that career path. The same is true for there being fewer women CEOs and women scientists. The culture is changing and the numbers in non-traditional career paths are increasing. Perhaps the numbers will never equalize in some cases. Perhaps there are more alpha-type personalities among males than among females, so that there would naturally be more male CEOs than female. It's not the job of government to trump human nature by attempting to force outcomes.Affirmative action damages cultural values by teaching that the key to success is for the government to reward one person's group at the expense of others. At the same time, granting government the power to discriminate corrupts government. Discriminating against Asians is a corrupt practice obvious to all.Pro cites the abstract of a paper that studied bank loans to entrepreneurs. The paper costs $35 to read, so I cannot examine their methods. I suspect the authors used the typical social science methodology in which the authors diddle with a statistics package, adding and removing "correction" factors until they get the result they wanted. The study is suspect on it's face, because entrepreneurs are rarely financed with bank loans. Banks don't take substantial risks, and they will only loan against substantial collateral, usually the entrepreneur's house or the accounts receivables of the company. Entrepreneurs are financed by personal savings or by "angel" investors. On the face of it, the study may indicate that minorities have fewer personal assets and fewer wealthy investor contacts. those are cultural problems, not discrimination. The authors claim they took all the factors correctly into account, but it's doubtful that they did.The authors only claim that their results are "consistent with" discrimination. The results are probably also consistent with minorities have less wealth, minority communities being less financially supportive, or with minority cultures having fostered less business acumen. Supporters of affirmative action made dire predictions about the consequences of it's repeal. A careful study of the data shows that incompetent firms given preferences under affirmative action did go out of business, but that minorities then continued to advance steadily under fair competition. "Proposition 209 in no way hindered the progress of minorities and women in public employment. Predictions about a future deterioration of labor market positions for women and minorities proved utterly unfounded."..."In 1999, black students earned a total of 1,139 bachelor’s degrees from the UC. In 2006, that number had increased 3% to 1,170. In 1999, Hispanic students earned a total of 3,984 bachelor’s degrees from the UC. In 2006, that number had increased 33%, for a total of 5,287 degrees." [5. http://www.nas.org...; ]Discrimination by institutions is against the law, yet affirmative action claims that there is significant discrimination that cannot be proved to legal standards. It is fundamentally unfair to punish people who have not been convicted of a crime, and who in all probability have done nothing wrong. What exactly did Asians do wrong that justified discriminating against them in education? "Today, Asian-American students make up 40 percent of the student body at the state's top school--the University of California, Berkeley. That's more than double the amount of Asian Americans at Ivy League institutions. The difference? Ivy League schools may consider race in the admissions process." [6. http://racerelations.about.com... ]SummaryGovernment cannot be trusted to discriminate against people. It corrupts government and it works against resolving the cultural problems that affect outcomes far more than discrimination.