Affirmative Action

IntroductionCon concedes that, even though discrimination is illegal, “discrimination due to race and gender exists.” Con admits that “if any person is disadvantaged, it’s reasonable for government to extend extra help.” But, Con says, “the key difference from affirmative action is that remediation ought to be based upon what has happened to the individual, not to his group."But given group discrimination, is group-thinking wrong? No, group-think is reasonable because AA responds to discrimination that targets groups, not individuals. Con's argument is thus an ironic attempt to salvage a flawed argument. Con simply makes another argument equally as flawed, and conceals the "relevant concerns," systemic group-targeted discrimination. I will flesh this out later.Asian-AmericansCon claims “Pro didn’t respond.” False. I advise Con and readers to take a look at my discussion of Higher Education from last round.As I explained, a discriminatory concept of merit is ALREADY in place. SAT scores and GPA reveal a “reified concept of merit”; discriminatory because it shows little correlation with success. SAT scores may show access to "SAT prep" that many couuld not afford. Allowing discriminatory concepts of merit is discrimination.As such, turn Con's argument, Asian-Americans are an example of AA working. Asian-Americans are benefactors: if they are accepted because of a discriminatory concept of merit, it is discrimination. But if that concept of “merit” is corrected, then Asian-Americans are no longer discriminated against. Thus, AA ensures that Asian-Americans are not discriminated against.Con claims AA benefactors do not succeed, but the source data is questionable: from a blog, it is limited to the UC system, presupposes a discriminatory measure of merit (SAT/GPA), and uses the same social science methods Con himself dismisses. My peer-reviewed source from last round provides countless studies showing AA beneficiaries were successful at "top level schools" across the nation. Con drops this argument. All these arguments were made last round. Yet Con claims I “didn’t respond.” I have to say, it is really upsetting that I have to take up character space to deal with Con's misrepresentation.Motive, Context, OutcomeCon claims AA provides "no measure of discrimination other than equality of outcome.” Again, Con ignores what I wrote. Motive, express purpose, historical context – these are all measures that, with outcome, inform AA law. Because Con neglects the relevant facts, including my explicit references to “motive” and "historical context," Con's conclusions are consistently questionable.GenderCon admits women are paid 77% of what men are. Yet Con cites evidence that the pay gap is actually 87.2%. 87.2%? That is still a pay gap. Con concedes, and my argument holds.Con's other source puts pay gap at 91%. But the article cautions, this number is for "more-educated women." It continues, “That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.” It concludes, the "77% estimate too optimistic." Thus, we conclude Con pulls numbers out of context to conceal facts which prove not only gender discrimination, but racial discrimination as well.Thomas Sowell’s ArgumentThe source is questionable, a Yahoo "Voice," similar to Opinions or blogs. The argument itself is pure pseudo-psychology: Americans do not visit black physicians or dentists because Americans assume AA gave blacks those jobs? That's bad psychology and racist.Why would someone reasonably conclude that it had to be AA that gave blacks those jobs? An underlying assumption that blacks are inferior; without "extra help," blacks can't get those jobs. That's racism.I say turn the argument around: Americans refuse to visit black physicians because of racial discrimination. Thus, we need AA.Self-identifying and geneticsSelf-identifying is not institutionally acceptable. Con's source explicitly states, "given the tests' speculative nature, it seems unlikely that colleges, governments, and other institutions will embrace them." Again, Con pulls quotes out of context to conceal facts. Con's argument is thus negated by the fact that colleges, governments, and institutions are not accepting these genetic tests. Again, note how Con consistently misquotes to make conclusions that don't take all the relevant facts into consideration.Is the “relevant concern” groups or individuals?Con claims “relevant concern” is not the “groups people belong to, it is about individual.” I began to unpack the flaws here earlier. As I noted, insistence on the individual does not correspond to the manner in which harms were inflicted and experienced.Blacks were not historically discriminated against as individuals. They were discriminated against for being black, for belonging to a group. Racial discrimination and gender discrimination are group-targeted discrimination. Therefore, the "relevant concern" is not individual identity, it is collective identity. Any solution to group-based discrimination must take the relevant group into account. It makes no sense to critique group-thinking when the discrimination was toward a group, not an individual. Claiming that group-identity isn't relevant is simply another way Con attempts to conceal relevant facts (collective identity, historical context, motive) to further his agenda against AA.Con continues, AA “completely subordinates the human personality to a person's group.” Completely? That's a big claim, and again, it's bad psychology. This time, Con provides no evidence, not even a source. I counter, AA acknowledges the fact that group membership affects human personality, but not "completely subordinates" it. Again, I say turn the argument around: AA can correct AGAINST racial discrimination (racism) that does subordinate human personality to a person’s racial identification (that is, their group). AA solves the problem, not causes it.The argument against group-think is not only flawed, it is ironic that after practicing racial discrimination for so long, people would now decide to make amends by proceeding through unsystematic partial measures (individual remediation), and leave the larger systems of exclusion that racial discrimination has fashioned firmly in place. That is simply bad logic informed by bad ideology.Cultural ValuesOn the issue of "cultural values," you can have any cultural values you want (including racist ones), but these values cannot be used as an excuse for institutional discrimination. Con implies they can.ConclusionCon claims I did not respond to the argument, “government is not qualified to make a correct distinction between good and bad discrimination.” Actually, I did. That was a central part of my argument last round. Con disregards my points, so I will repeat some again.As I explained, Democratic government is predicated on good/bad distinctions, not just for discrimination, but for other democratic ideals: for equality ("separate but equal" is bad), and for free speech (government regulates speech that compromises free speech). There are other examples.In each case, implicit in each basic right is the inevitability that at some point, government will have to perform its opposite to uphold the basic right. It's an inevitable catch-22.The key, for government, is distinguishing acts (in this case, discriminatory ones) by reference to motive, historical context, and outcome. We do this because AA is clearly NOT the moral equivalent of racism. AA amends disadvantages caused by years of racism, racism discriminates out of sheer hatred.Con agrees that race/gender discrimination persists; AA is therefore justified.Throughout the debate, I have refuted Con's case against AA, whereas Con has consistently dropped or misrepresented my arguments. I advise voting Pro.Also, I advise voting conduct against Con, as anyone can see the kind of neglect Con consistently shows is bad conduct; it is not an isolated case, and forced me to use up character space for no reason.