Pro-Minority Affirmative Action

The fact that no one alive today had to deal with slavery is irrelevant. Many African-Americans today have had to deal with the effects of slavery and oppression. It's a misrepresentation to act as if the slaves were the only ones who suffered. Blacks, for many years after slavery was made illegal, had to deal with oppressive Jim Crow laws. They were discriminated against long after slavery was made illegal. As I've already stated, slavery and oppression of African-Americans severely affected many of them socioeconomically. It's unfortunate my opponent did not read further into the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Had he read further, he would have read the following: "it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees… on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin. .. where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise" As I have explained, racial diversity has a valuable quality for businesses and schools. This is why they are legally allowed to continue policies of affirmative action. The claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws affirmative action disregards multiple decisions by the Supreme Court. In Johnson v. Transportation Agency, the majority opinion decided that affirmative action could be legal under the Civil Rights Act because it remedied imbalances of workers and it did not establish quotas. [1] Regents of the University of California v. Bakke similarly upheld policies of affirmative action. [2]Unlike racial quotas, affirmative action allows employers and schools to use race as just one factor in a series of factors. Again, in 2003, the Supreme Court upheld policies of affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger. The point of showing the socioeconomic effects of slavery is to point out that the effects of racism and oppression have taken their toll on blacks, obviously. While some have fared better than others, that fails to show that they have not faced discrimination. The purpose is not solely socioeconomic status, as you have improperly assumed from my argument. The purpose is to help undo past wrongs. The purpose is to help blacks rise up in society after whites have had a 400-year head start. My opponent has made several faulty assumptions. First of all, he basically equates affirmative action with racism while he has completely failed to prove that it is on any level. He then says it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, while he provided no proof to back that assertion. My opponent's assertion that economic standing, now socioeconomic standing, accounts for the inequality has not been backed up. I fail to see how lower socioeconomic standing provides for the 6% higher unemployment rate for blacks. My opponent has asserted that economic standing has to do with this inequality, yet I don't see any logical argument that would show that the 6% higher unemployment rate is a result of economic standing. Saying that economic standing is responsible for lower wages of blacks is redundant, unless he's talking about economic standing before they had jobs. 4. Minorities tend to face much more discrimination in their upbringing and in their search for jobs. The job statistics that I have shown exhibit the disadvantages blacks face in America today. Unemployment rates for men who did not have high school diplomas in 2006 were 8.5% for whites and 18.8% for blacks. [4] Also, in 2006, the unemployment rate for white men with college degrees was 2.5% while it was 5.1% for blacks. Algernon Austin cited research that showed that even white men with criminal records were called back by employers at a much higher rate than black men with similar records. [5] A New York City study even found that white felons were offered more jobs or received more calls back than blacks with no criminal record. These statistics and studies are just clear evidence of discrimination. There is no rightful reason that blacks should be unemployed at such a higher rate than whites when they're equally qualified. Marianne Bartrand found that people with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to be called back by employers than people with black-sounding names. [6] There is definitely no rightful reason for whites to be hired at a higher rate than blacks when the white is a felon and the black has no criminal record. Blacks even face discrimination early on. A study from the Education Trust shows that minority schools or schools with high amounts of minorities are underfunded. [7] The underfunding of minority schools leaves them with fewer AP classes. This makes it harder for them to compete with whites who go to well-funded schools with many AP class opportunities. Black students are often not as well prepared for AP tests as white students are, as well. I have shown overwhelming evidence that blacks are being discriminated against in America today. This is unacceptable. There should not be such inequality and division along race. Economic standing or socio-economic standing clearly cannot explain all of the differences. The problem with much of my opponent's argument is that he makes claims without backing them up. My opponent brings up the example of black felons as a reason for the lower unemployment rate. However, he doesn't explain how that accounts for a 6% difference. He hasn't used any statistics in regards to black felons or socio-economic standing to back him up on this. The argument on Africa is rather irrelevant to the debate. Mongeese assumes that I believe that we should throw as many cultures as possible into a classroom because I gave evidence from a study that racial diversity is beneficial. It is clearly not a proposal of racial quotas, and that is a straw man argument. How my source defines affirmative action is irrelevant. I was referring to the study in it, not its definition of "affirmative action". That is a red herring. And debating over the definition when there really isn't much of a difference at all is petty. Con tells me I'm misinterpreting my own statistics, while his interpretation has been that economic standing causes inequality. He has failed to prove this assertion, as I've stated over and over again. And I would like for him to show me how I'm misinterpreting the statistics. The hypothetical culture is irrelevant because it is not the same situation. The hypothetical addition of a million people from another planet has nothing, whatsoever, to do with affirmative action. These arguments are simply hyperbolic and prove nothing. The fact that Thomas Sowell makes a claim and backs it up does not substitute for evidence. That's simply an appeal to authority. As you can see, my opponent has resorted to several logical fallacies. He assumes knowledge of the reason behind inequality, yet he fails to prove it. He tells me that statistics show that just poor blacks and poor Hispanics are affected, then he proceeds to quote an irrelevant statement regarding college-educated black couples. Simply saying "Yes, they do" to rebut my argument does not substitute for proof. Again, my opponent's proposal just affects blacks moreso than whites. It doesn't directly address the problem at hand, and that is the huge inequality between races. [1] . http://www.answers.com... [2] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [3] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [4] . http://www.epi.org... [5] . http://epi.3cdn.net... [6] . http://phoenix.liu.edu... [7] . http://www2.edtrust.org... [8] . http://www.jbhe.com...