On balance, affirmative action in the United States is desirable

Con’s shamble of a case consists of four claims: (a) affirmative action costs the government and businesses billions of dollars, (b) affirmative action harms minorities, (c) affirmative action causes racial tension, and (d) affirmative action is sexist. Each argument fails for the same reason: it’s bull all the way down.(a) Economic CostsCon exaggerates the economic costs and ignores the economic benefits. Her source says $1.7 billion is spent on workplace regulations, not affirmative action regulations, and $21.4 billion is spent complying with those workplace regulations. To be sure, these regulations cover affirmative action in the workplace, but it’s a tiny fraction of the total costs. These regulatory/compliance costs are also non-unique, as there’s going to be regulatory/compliance costs whether affirmative action is pursued or not.The $236 billion “opportunity cost” (Con’s word) is also bull. Con’s source says it’s the result of “bad hiring decisions” and “negative effects on morale,” not "increased drop-outs." But the notion that for-profit businesses actively sacrifice $236 billion dollars per year because of affirmative action is downright absurd. After all, there’s a reason that every leading business in America supports affirmative action, and it’s because the economic benefits of affirmative action hiring significantly outweigh whatever risks it entails. Con simply fails to take into account the benefits of diversity (see R2). Con’s source is also egregiously outdated (it’s from 1991, when affirmative action looked nothing like today), offers no data to support any of its assumptions/estimates, and even if it had, there’s no way to quantify, with even a modicum of precision or consistency, the so-called “opportunity cost” of “bad hiring decisions” and “negative effects on morale.”(b) Minority HarmsCon suggests four harms to minorities: overpromotion, less black lawyers, more self-doubt, stress, and anxiety among minorities, and discrimination again Asians. I’ll address each in turn.Overpromotion. Con’s argument suffers from what philosopher Michael Sandel calls “the smug assumption … that success is the crown of virtue.” [8] The truth is we learn more from our failures than our successes. There’s value in reaching for something beyond ourselves, in stretching ourselves past our present capacities. As T.S. Eliot wrote: “Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.” Or as Thomas Edison famously quipped: “I make more mistakes than anyone I know. And eventually I patent them.” So even if some minorities struggle more at higher-tier schools, they also undoubtedly learn and grow more through that struggle.Professor Ian Ayres confirms this point, noting that “most overmatched students” are “carried along to more success.” This happens, in part, because overmatched students “may be mentored and inspired by their better-credentialed peers or teachers, or obtain the advantage of greater institutional commitment of resources.” [9] Similarly, Professor David Wilkins observes that students at higher-tier schools are “granted a lifetime membership in the elite networks to which the graduates of such institutions automatically belong,” as well as “a visible and durable credential that they can use to signal to employers that they have received all of the valuable goods that elite schools provide.” [10]Unsurprisingly, then, most minorities choose to attend higher-tier schools despite having below average SAT or LSAT scores, because they recognize the immense benefit of attending a higher-tier school. They also recognize that their lower test scores are often the result of circumstances beyond their control: lack of caring parents, attentive teachers, a decent neighborhood, or test-prep courses. As Derek Bok explains, “black matriculants are … in the best position to weigh the pros and cons. The data are universal. Black students do not seem to think they have been harmed as a result of attending selective colleges with race-sensitive policies.” [11] And to the extent someone thinks they’re worse off at a better school, they’re free to attend (or transfer to) a lower-tier school. Affirmative action doesn’t force anyone to attend higher-tier schools; it simply provides the opportunity.Less black lawyers. [12] Con cites Richard Sander’s discredited analysis of affirmative action in the context of law schools. Recent studies reveal that Sander made several false assumptions and exaggerated the “mismatch” effects in law schools. When interpreted correctly, the data shows that affirmative action “is pivotal in achieving racial diversity in law schools, and that any mismatch effects are concentrated among students who would not be admitted to any law school without preferences.” In the absence of affirmative action, “all but the least selective schools would enroll one-third to one-half fewer black students than they do today.” As a result, “many potentially successful black law students would be excluded, far more than the number who would be induced to pass the bar exam by the elimination of mismatch effects.” [13] Affirmative action thus leads to significantly more (and better trained) black lawyers.Con also mistakes the baseline goal of affirmative action. It’s not to create as many black lawyers/professionals as possible, it’s to advance society and the black community as a whole. That goal is furthered by an admissions process that gets the largest number of blacks into top-tier schools, where they have a better chance of going on to become partners at major firms or to serve in the upper echelons of government. Moreover, it’s better for the black community to promote diversity, to facilitate transracial learning, and to instill a sense of multiracial solidarity, at all schools, not just lower-tier schools. So even assuming arguendo that affirmative action somehow decreases the number of black professionals, the benefits of affirmative action still outweigh that harm twice over.Self-doubt. There’s no evidence that affirmative action causes stress, anxiety, or self-doubt. Con hasn’t even show there’s a correlation here, much less an actual causal chain. For instance, Con’s [4] doesn’t offer a single piece of reliable evidence – it’s just an “opinion” piece with no supporting data or citations whatsoever. Even worse, Con’s [14] shows that minorities in high school, not college, experience greater stress, anxiety, and self-doubt. That alone disproves any notion that affirmative action is causing these problems. And to the extent there’s something causing self-doubt among minorities, a better explanation is that it’s the institutional racism that minorities face on a day-to-day basis. Affirmative action helps solve that problem (see R2).Asians. Con ignores the variability of the Asian American community, which includes many poorer subgroups (e.g. persons of Laotian, Cambodian, and Hmong ancestry). If you look at the data underlying Con’s source (from Espenshade’s study), it shows that upper-class Asian students don’t benefit from affirmative action admissions, but underrepresented Asian ethnicities that come from lower-income families actually have a higher probability of being accepted compared with students of other races. This shows that current affirmative action policies actually benefit underrepresented Asian students raised in lower-income homes. [14](c) Racial TensionThere's no evidence that affirmative action has any causal relationship with racial tension or racial violence. True, some white candidates (and maybe some Asian candidates) "feel" mistreated by affirmative action programs. But this "perception" rests on a misunderstanding of affirmative action and university admissions, and it's a minor social cost compared with the benefits of affirmative action.First, the perception of mistreatment is usually wrong. Goodwin Liu has demonstrated that most rejected whites would have been turned down in the absence of affirmative action, and more than half would also have been turned down had they been black. The reason for this is because there are simply so many whites competing for each particular seat in a class. Thus, Liu found that “the admission of minority applicants and the rejection of white applicants are largely independent events." [15] Second, affirmative action isn't a form of invidious racial discrimination. It doesn't send a message that whites are an inferior race. Rather, it's a collective effort to address a major social problem (see R2 on reparatory justice). There's nothing wrong or unfair about enlisting the help of all Americans in addressing that problem.Third, universities dont exist to reward "merit," independently defined. Admission is only justified insofar as it contributes to the social purpose the university serves, and that purpose may legitimately include racial rectification.So to the extent some whites feel mistreated by affirmative action, they're wrong. At most, thiat perception is a minor social cost that's completely outweighed by the benefits of affirmative action. Also, Con randomly cites a novel for the claim that homogenous societies are better. But see R2: diverse societes are better on every level. (d) Sexism In the United States, women are free to pursue whatever careers they want. Affirmative action simply creates greater opportunity for them to do that. At bottom, it doesn't encourage/require women to do anything. Con also says something about quotas. But in the United States, quotas are illegal. So quotas are outside the scope of this debate.--Sources:8. Michael Sandel, Justice 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com...12. Con’s source only discusses "mismatch" in law schools. So I only discuss that context. 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com...;