Affirmative Action

In R1, I provided a powerful quote from Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Adarand v. Pena (1995), a quote that merits being repeated: "It is irrelevant whether a government's racial classifications are drawn by those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help those thought to be disadvantaged. In each instance, it is racial discrimination, pure and simple" [same source as in R1]. I do not see where Pro has addressed this argument or the other 2 Supreme Court cases I gave as supporting evidence. In fact, it seems to me that Pro has agreed with me. Pro states, "The purpose of affirmative action is to give special consideration to people who belong to minority groups when it comes to applying for a job or getting into a college or private school of some sort. " This "special consideration" does not create equal opportunities; through "special consideration," minority groups clearly gain an advantage over non-minority groups. Pro also states, "Would it be fair to be harassed, referred to by derogatory phrases, or even be beaten or hurt and then on top of all of that worry if your application went through solely on the basis of your skin color? " Obviously, no, it would not be fair. That is precisely why affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Without affirmative action, minorities would not have to worry about being accepted solely on the basis of their racial identity; they could rest assured, without affirmative action, that they were accepted based solely on their own individual merits. Taking this argument a step further, we can see that affirmative action might lead to more racial discrimination: because people might think minorities only got their degree and job based on the color of their skin, they may refuse to use their services, fearing lesser quality. (Parenthetically, I would like to note that I am not taking this or the previous statement that Pro makes out of context; if the reader thinks otherwise, I ask that he/she look at the place where Pro actually makes these statements to see that they are indeed part of Pro's argument. ) Pro has not shown that affirmative action is not a form of reverse discrimination. Instead, Pro has tried to argue that affirmative action is necessary even though it is reverse discrimination. But the reasons Pro says minorities need affirmative action are not justified. In his conclusion, Pro states, "affirmative action is the necessary reenforment that people need to make sure that minorities will be able to apply for the same jobs that majorities can, join the same groups that majorities can and be educated in the same ways that are available to majorities. " Problem is, without affirmative action, minorities still have all of these opportunities available: minorities will still be able to apply for the same jobs, join the same groups, and be educated in the same ways as majorities. What affirmative action does is give minority groups "special consideration," give an advantage when equal opportunities already exist. Finally, in an extreme position, Pro concludes, "Without it [affirmative action] our society would degrade itself back into the discrimination we saw towards the African American community where they had specific water fountains, bathrooms, bus seats and every measure was taken to ensure blacks did not interact with whites. " I highly doubt that this would happen. First off, society, in general, treats both minority and majority groups equally regardless of the existence of affirmative action or not. Notice that our current president is black, that our secretary of state is a woman, and that there a Hispanic woman is in the Supreme Court. There is little chance that without affirmative action our society would "degrade itself back," as Pro seems to think. In fact, the groups that express racial hatred are themselves a minority; the effects of racial hatred today are not pervasive enough to justify affirmative action. In fact, Pro admits that "affirmative action does not end hatred," "just that it is an effective way to level the playing field for minorities that would otherwise be at a disadvantage since society does not look upon them as highly as a majority. " But if affirmative action only treats the symptoms of racial hatred and not the cause itself, what is the point, especially if it creates further inequalities and further stimulates racial hatred. In conclusion, I believe that the relatively small (compared with the past) degree of racial hatred today does not justify affirmative action because affirmative action is itself a form of reverse discrimination (and thereby perpetuates racial hatred), it gives minority groups an unfair advantage, and in the end, it does nothing to end racial hatred, only to cover it up. What we need, I argue, are stricter laws against racial discrimination, not affirmative action. Thank you.