Affirmative Action

I have tried to locate Pro's openings arguments in R1 and have reduced it to the following claims: 1. Affirmative Action is a necessary part of today's society. 2. Affirmative action is necessary because America is a country that is flawlessly blossoming in hatred. We disregard the 14th amendment; a person's right to an opinion is more highly valued than a person's right to not be discriminated against. We need affirmative action to even the playing field (because there is hate). 3. Without affirmative action, the country would fall in a segregated state because of pervasive discrimination. 4. Without affirmative action, it may have never happened that African-American's were able to show that they were as capable as whites. 5. Without affirmative action, we may disintegrate into groups of witch-burners (or their symbolic equivalent today). 6. The gay community would be nowhere without affirmative action. They would all be broke and homeless, as in 30 states, LGBT people can be fired solely on the basis of their sexuality. Affirmative action keeps LGBT people from losing their jobs. These are all very interesting claims, and I will wait till the next round to see what evidence my opponent will provide and how my opponent will argue for these claims before I address any of them in particular and in any detail. Until then, I will simply begin my case against affirmative action by giving a brief overview of the central arguments I have against it. These are my introductory contentions: 1. Affirmative action does not end the hatred and persecution of minorities. In other words, affirmative action does not solve the problem of minority-hatred. What can solve this problem is employing stricter laws against discrimination and hate speech, including making affirmative action illegal (see contention below for the contention that affirmative action is itself a form of discrimination). 2. Affirmative action punishes non-minority groups and thereby perpetuates the same discriminatory practices that affirmative action is intended to fight. This position was powerfully articulated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Adarand v. Pena (1995): "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" [1]. We see this same problem in Hopwood v. State (1996), a Supreme Court case in which Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas when she was denied admission to the University of Texas Law School even though her application, including test scores and grades, was stronger than some of the minority candidates who were admitted [2]. In short, affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. 3. With reference to Pro's statement, "It may be possible that in the far future as hate crimes go down and religion dies out and people learn to accept things instead of wasting their time hating that we could be able to do away with affirmative action but that won't happen any time soon since we have groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and the Westboro Ministries." I argue that affirmative action, if it will be illegal in the future, is illegal now. In the Supreme Court Case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Justice Thomas states the same position, contending that if the "racial preferences" that a law school employs will be illegal in 25 years, they are "illegal now," for the Constitution, if it means anything, "means the same thing today as it will in 300 months" [3]. Indeed, for Thomas, what is at stake is the question of whether the Constitution has an unchanging meaning to which we are obliged to adhere, or whether, on the other hand, the Constitution is a dynamic, living document. Needless to say, this argument is controversial, but I firmly agree with Justice Thomas: the Constitution, if it is to have any meaning at all, must have an unchanging meaning. 4. Affirmative action does not truly help the disadvantaged. Affirmative action only helps minorities, irrespective of their socioeconomic status. As such, many who are disadvantaged will be punished by affirmative action just as many who are not disadvantaged will be aided by affirmative action. Sources: [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... [2] http://www.nacua.org... [3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...