August Tournament - United States should ban Affirmative Action

This was a pleasure, despite him presenting a whole lot of arguments and sub arguments. I will defend my case in this round. Framework As I've stated earlier, my opponent has to show that Affirmative Action (AA) should be banned for both employment and education. If I'm successful to defend at least one type of AA, I should be awarded the win. Argument 1 - Affirmative Action is a successful policy 1. My opponent doesn't disagree that AA was successful at helping minorities getting hired. He also doesn't disagree that it's necessary to eliminate, or at least reduce, discrimination from our society. But he argues that the disadvantaged are being further disadvantaged by giving them better opportunities! ! So let's example this interesting claim. My opponent is concerned that a hired minority may not progress in the job as a follow white person. But as I said over and over again that AA policy applies to minorities who have equal or comparable qualifications. This is extremely important and most people unfortunately don't understand that about AA. I'm sure Pro is not arguing that Black people, for example, with equal qualifications will perform worse than white people since skin color is not a factor for performance. And in education, I won't disagree that white students perform better. But as I said earlier, that's because of their earlier educational advantage. Repealing AA would not only fail to correct racial injustice, it would actually reinforce it [1]. And since the goal is to reduce racial injustice, AA policy is an important policy to keep. 2. Pro then argues that economic growth was increased diversity in the job field. I don't disagree. I never claimed that AA is the sole factor behind increased diversity. There are also other factors such as diversity committees and taskforces, diversity managers and departments in addition to AA that are also important [2]. What's most interesting that Pro's argument doesn't refute the impact of AA, it only states that "[E]stablishing how much credit affirmative action can take is hard". So just because it's hard to evaluate, does it follow that we should deem it as a failed policy? I'm sure the reader would think otherwise. Now regarding the comparison with Malaysia and Singapore is a terrible one. They don't resemble the US society in any way or form. Do they face racial injustice due to their ethnicity or the color of their skins? Are Malays oppressed in any way or form? So that's just a red herring. 3. Pro then argues that my study shows effective alternatives to AA. That's an interesting twist! The study is showing several important policies. Pro trims out the one he doesn't like and highlights the others in an effort to undermine AA. That type of gerrymandering of arguments undermines what the study is trying to present. So I'll quote the study again! "Structures that embed accountability, authority, and expertise (affirmative action plans, diversity committees and taskforces, diversity managers and departments) are the most effective means…" [3] 4. Pro argues that I reinforced Con's claim that AA is an outdated policy by using his own data. But actually I'm presenting to the reader the success that AA had in reducing racial injustice. But reducing doesn't equate to eliminating racial injustice. Pro may have an argument if racial injustice no longer exists, which unfortunately is not the case. 5. Pro argues that not all beneficiaries of AA are truly disadvantages. This point is really pointless. Pro again cherry picks an example from the pack to scream "injustice"! But what irks me the most about this argument is that he is comparing apples with oranges. He compares businesses owned by 'socially and economically disadvantaged' people to the average American family, rather than other similar businesses. Pro basically argues that an African American CEO could make 87 times higher than the average family. CEO's actually make 300 times more than the average worker [4]. So I reject this claim whole heartedly. Argument 2 - Importance of reducing discrimination 1. Pro is suggesting that I claimed that the Declaration of Independence states that "everyone should be socio-economically equal". I didn't state that. I never stated that Declaration of Independence demands that the US must be a socialist country. As Pro stated, "What the Declaration does say, is that all people are created equal, on a moral and legal standpoint" [5]. So from a moral and a legal point of view, it's only logical that "[I]n a democracy, the government should promote policies that would reduce discrimination and increases equality in the workforce" [6]. 2. Pro is arguing that my claim that discrimination is real is outdated! This is really unfortunate, because African Americans are being discriminated against on a continuous basis. So I'll show my evidence as I've presented in my rebuttal of Pro's first argument. "There are also numerous studies that conclude that "African Americans’ continuing experiences with racism and discrimination". A new study has shown that "even when candidates who are black hold degrees from elite schools such as Stanford, Duke, and, yes, Harvard. [The researcher] found disparities in both the number of responses black and white job candidates received from employers and in the level of starting salaries offered". In other words, while we are closer to eliminating discrimination, we are not there yet. " So I reject Pro's claim. 3. Pro argues that AA didn’t eliminate discrimination in 55 years, and he concludes that it's therefore not solving the problem. This is non-sequitur. And Pro's claim that "it has already done what good it can" is a bare assertion! As the data has shown, we're moving towards equality, and therefore repealing the status quo would only reinforce racial injustice as I've shown in my Rebuttal 2B. Changes take a very long time to take effect. 55 years is less than the average life time of humans. I've actually (not kidding) processed a birth certificate of someone who was born in the 70's, and it used the N word to describe the race. While there has been great progress, we can't pretend that this will be a long battle. Repealing AA would hinder the process which would be very unfortunate. 4. Pro disagrees on the interpretations of one of my sources which clearly states that "researchers found that when the new assistant professor CV had a male name, the candidate was judged by both male and female evaluators to be worthy of hire approximately 73% of the time. When the same CV had a female name, it was rated worthy of hire approximately only 45% of the time" [7]. The study shows that, with all other things being equal, a woman is simply viewed less favorably than a man. Her mistake? Her gender. Pro argues that what my source actually shows is that "African Americans must work harder to show that, when they perform highly, they are able to do so because of their skill and ability, rather than being fortunate". Again, what's the fault of African Americans? The color of their skins. How dare them! Pro then challenges that AA will not correct this as it's not a racial education program. What Pro fails to understand is that those disadvantaged will simply not get hired! They will not land the job because of their gender or the color of the skin. In this case, AA is essential. Again, I am not undermining the importance of diversity training. That's very important too. But that works in conjunction with AA, not against it. Argument 3 - Affirmative Action for Police is critical 1. Pro argues that the racial mismatch in the police force is not a big problem. I'm confident that my opponent is aware of Michael Brown's police shooting which led to massive riots in Ferguson. Ferguson's police was 94% white whose population is 67% black [8]. But my argument is regarding trust. The US attorney general, Eric Holder, blamed Ferguson police for creating a "toxic environment, defined by mistrust and resentment" [8]. This doesn't only hurt the community, but it also undermines the work of many police officers who are trying to do their work. A study has shown that "By demonstrating their trustworthiness to the public, the police can strengthen their social connection with citizens and thus encourage more active civic engagement in domains of security and policing" [9]. Pro then says that diversity didn't prevent police brutality in the Eric Garner case. I don't disagree. I never claimed that diversity is the "only" solution to eliminating police brutality. There are many important solutions that must be implemented to achieve this important goal. Diversifying the police force is an important one. 2. Pro argues the police should be hired based on their qualifications. I don't disagree. Again, AA requires that hired minorities are capable to perform their tasks. 3. Again Pro argues that AA promotes " hir[ing] people based upon race and gender, not ability and talent". This is not true as I've explained earlier. Please waive the next round as per the rules. Sources [1] Con's Rebuttal 2B, Round 3 [2] Con's Case, Argument 1, Round 2 [3] Con's Case, Argument 1, Round 2 [4] . http://www.epi.org... [5] Pro's Rebuttal, Argument 2, Round 2 [6] Con's Case, Argument 2, Round 2 [7] Con's Case, Argument 2, Round 2 [8] . http://www.theguardian.com... [9] . http://policing.oxfordjournals.org...