Affirmative Action

A. Statistics Demand the Acknowledgement of Discrimination My opponent begins by presenting six statistics that highlight discrimination. However, the first four do not immediately lead to the assumption of discrimination. For all we know, black males could just be a higher crime rate group at no fault of discrimination. However, his final two do indeed demand recognition. First, I will counter the women argument: Women are paid, on average, 77% of what men are paid. However, that statistic does not account for differences in the male and female workforces. One factor is that woman tend to work fewer hours, and part time employees are paid less. "Just comparing men and women who work 40 hours weekly, without accounting for differences in jobs, training, or time in the labor force, yields a ratio of 87.2 percent, with a smaller pay gap. " Other factors include the choice of college major and years of uninterrupted employment. Even though more women graduate from college than men, they tend to major in lower-paying liberal arts. "Generally, the more information about women that is included in the analysis, the more of the wage gap that can be explained, and the less is the residual portion attributable to "discrimination. " An analysis that omits relevant information finds a greater unexplained residual, and concludes that there is more discrimination. "[1] "Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%. "[2] That final number does not even include hours worked between the two sexes. Next, onto the racial arguments. I read my opponent's source for clarification, and here is what I found: "At the same time, it is important to remember that the problems of discrimination cannot be eliminated through enforcement alone. Racial stereotypes, though often exaggerated distortions of reality, are fueled in part by real associations between race, crime, and incarceration. Tackling these social problems at their root"including inadequate schools, neighborhood instability, and a lack of employment opportunities"are likely to represent among the most far-reaching interventions. "[3] It isn't really the fact that employers want to discriminate, it is the unfortunate circumstance of racial stereotypes. Only education to both sides will right this wrong; quotas will only harden distrust and dislike of racial groups by others. Finally, my opponent concludes with a statement on how affirmative action rights these wrongs. However, the best counterargument is Asians. "An average White employee makes 92.1 percent of what the average Asian makes. ""Average Asians earn $899.5 per week in 2005, which is about 11.2 percent more than other races. " This is even though, "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are unique in many aspects. They earn 7.6 percent more than other races even though they work fewer hours, have fewer years of job experience, and lower rate of union membership. " How is this possible? "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders lead the rest of the population in educational qualification. On average, Asian and Pacific Islanders have nearly one more year of education. 48.5% of Asians in the U. S. have a Bachelors Degree or more, compared to 31.8% for the national average, 32.3% for White non-Hispanics and just 23.6% for others. "[4] And, in history, Asians have been discriminated against as much or more than any other group. [5] It is education that has clearly been the dominant factor in Asian's rise. B. Affirmative Action and Racism/Prejudice Discrimination Are Not Equals Minorities do not always benefit from affirmative action: "A high school student with a below average academic record is likely to be a below average college student. Thus, students admitted through minority recruiting programs often end up in remedial classes with mediocre academic performance. Through simple cause and effect, affirmative action programs prolong the stereotype of minority students finishing near the bottom of their class by encouraging enrollment in universities beyond an appropriate level of difficulty. According to a federal study, just 39% of enrolled black students finish their degrees compared to 54% of white students. Attending a university where the pace of learning is too difficult is just as counterproductive as attempting to lift too much weight at the gym. The insistence on relaxed admission standards for minority students insinuates that such students are incapable of succeeding without such programs. This insult casts a permanent doubt on the real achievements of high-achieving minorities. "[6] In addition, "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. "[7] In fact, The data show that students admitted to the top level schools under affirmative action did not do well. When affirmative action ended in California, minority applicants applied to school suited to their qualifications, and both admissions and graduation rated increased. [7] Affirmative action does not necessarily combat racism or encourage development. C. Affirmative Action Provides Incentive As stated earlier, affirmative action tends to stifle incentives for minorities because it enblazens the idea of the fact that they require a government forced program to get jobs. It carves the idea of stereotypes into their minds. "Tragically"for blacks, women and other "oppressed" minorities"affirmative action indirectly communicates a demoralizing message of inferiority that reinforces the same separatism it set out to solve. It is pure illogic to think that you can fight fire with fire and get anything but scorched earth. "[8] In fact, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. , "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. "[9] Affirmative action completely subordinates the human personality to a person's group. In a sense, affirmative action does not cure disparities among races and genders and discourages incentive and the removal of stereotypes by everyone. It is unnecessary and harmful. Sources: [1]: . http://blogs.reuters.com... [2]: . http://www.time.com... [3]: . http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com... [4]: . http://www.aabri.com... [5]: . http://www.zakkeith.com... [6]: . http://wiki.mises.org... [7]: . http://www.nas.org... [8]: . http://www.humanevents.com... [9]: . http://www.africa.upenn.edu...