Affirmative Action is harmful.

Many thanks to PRO for instigating this contest, and for having completed it. As is customary, I will introduce no new arguments this round, but will only offer a brief review and rebuttals. Overview: In this contest, Pro states, without sources or supporting data, that AA allows for the hiring of less qualified minorities over whites. I have pointed out, with supporting evidence from the actual US Dept. of Labor policy itself, that this is not true. AA Only takes race, gender; etc. into account to ensure that these things are not used as the Federal government makes hiring, advancement and recruiting decisions. This misunderstanding represents the heart of the Affirmative Action debate. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Con never responds to my pointing out his hijacking of the resolution, and instead continues to argue under the definition of affirmative action that he has provided. I used the definition that PRO provided in R1. The definition includes a link to a Wiki page, which makes detailed mention of the Dept of Labor Policy that forms Affirmative Action policy in the US. This debate was about whether or not affirmative action is fair or unfair. Con has not met this burden, and has instead attempted to argue that affirmative action doesn't take race into consideration at all. The debate was to cover whether or not AA is harmful, as stipulated by PRO in R1. I have shown that AA policies are critical in requiring perhaps the largest nationwide employer (the Federal Government) to adopt policies that eliminate race, gender, veteran or disability status and national origin from consideration when recruiting, advancement and job placement decisions are made. As for the hiring of less qualified individuals, I never said that minorities or women were less qualified. Quoting PRO: - (AA) “doesn't lead to the most qualified employee being hired.” - (AA) “harms fairness by taking jobs and scholarships from more qualified individuals in preference of people only meant to fill a quota.” - “the obvious injustice of denying an qualified individual a job so that it could be given to a less qualified individual is obvious enough” Statements such as these demonstrate the need for AA policies that help to eliminate race, gender, veteran status, etc. from hiring and advancement decisions; employers can hold horrible views of other genders and races without even being aware of it. PRO also includes in his performance several statements that are intended to compliment minorities, such as praising them for overcoming the difficult childhood, poverty and so forth that he assumes they might have had. Note to Pro: Congratulating minorities on overcoming a life of hardships is not a compliment. Make sure that they fit that condescending stereotype first. Not all black people are poor, uneducated, or “less qualified.” What this argument is actually saying, is that when we have to consider race, religion, color, gender and national origin in the hiring process, we end up hiring people because they meet a quota instead of their abilities. Which is exactly what Affirmative action was created to stop. Passing up better qualified persons because of race, gender, national origin or veteran status… in order to hire the white guy. Final Notes: -Pro fundamentally misunderstands what AA is, and has based his premise on this faulty understanding -AA does not take race into consideration, as proven by the actual language of the policy itself (R2) -AA uses the massive hiring power of the federal government to eliminate race, gender, religion or other irrelevant criteria from hiring, placement, and recruiting decisions are made (R3)