On balance, affirmative action in the United States is desirable

I’ll start with a quote. This one is from a recent Supreme Court decision in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor makes the case for affirmative action far more eloquently than I possibly could:“Race matters. Race matters because of persistent racial inequality in society—inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities. And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man’s view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman’s sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, ‘No, where are you really from?’, regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.’ [So] the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race. We ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.” [16]Con’s RebuttalsMost of them don't actually address the substance of what I argued. I'll go over the main points.Reparatory Justice. Con ignores my argument that the destructive vestiges of past racial wrongs continue to put nearly every black person in America at a competitive disadvantage when compared with whites. Instead, Con asserts that affirmative action is racist. But to say affirmative action is somehow racist misunderstands its nature. It doesn’t send a message that whites are an inferior race, it doesn’t humiliate, ostracize, or stigmatize white, and it doesn’t express any racial contempt or other negative prejudice towards whites. Rather, it simply acknowledges that race still matters. In fact, the story of affirmative action is largely the story of whites choosing to increase the number of blacks in key institutions, with the consequence of decreasing the number of whites. And whites have done this for reasons that have nothing to do with putting themselves down because of their race.Diversity. Con offers no reason to prefer conventional meritocratic criteria over a holistic approach that takes into account circumstances beyond grades and SAT scores. Con asserts that the benefits of diversity are limited to "cultural diversity," but my source specifically speaks about the benefits of "racial diversity." Robert Putnam, Con's own source, also confirms that racial diversity has demonstrable benefits. True, Putnam’s research shows that there are short-term obstacles (e.g. a reduction in social solidarity) to acquiring the long-term benefits of diversity in neighborhoods. But Putnam repeatedly stresses that the “important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits” of diversity are worth pursuing despite that short-term cost. And Putnam emphasized that his results were exclusive to diversity in neighborhoods; in the context of universities, workplaces, the government, and especially the military, the benefits of diversity are immediate (i.e. there aren't any short-term obstacles). [Con’s 18] No surprise, then, that Putnam not only supports affirmative action but has submitted an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing in favor of affirmative action precisely because of its diversity benefits. [17]Integration. Con drops my argument that integration increases the legitimacy of our multiracial democracy. And Con drops my argument that affirmative action helps facilitate integration. I never said anything about forced integration. Nor do I see how affirmative action forces anyone to do anything; it merely creates opportunities.Ongoing Racism. Con misses the point. We live in a world where racism/sexism still exists. Nothing Con argued shows otherwise. In fact, Con's [19] is nothing but racist propaganda. Seriously. Look up Rushton. This guy has spent the past three decades using pseudo-scientific techniques to justify racism, claiming that blacks are so inferior to whites that they don't even deserve civil rights or Constitutional protection. To the extent anyone is racist in this debate, it's Con, not me.Conclusion: Vote ProThroughout this debate, I have shown that affirmative action is generally desirable to rectify past wrongs, create diversity, facilitate integration, and combat ongoing racism/sexism. Each of these points, when taken alone, outweighs the entirety of Con's case. When taken together, they explain why affirmative action has been so successful. Indeed, the effects of affirmative action thus far have been overwhelmingly positive: more blacks are going to top-tier universities, more blacks are getting positions in major firms, more blacks are getting positions in the upper echelons of government, and the SAT gap that Con keeps citing is gradually getting smallter. These are tangible results that have a significant impact on racial justice.In contrast, Con's case is an impotent cocktail of convoluted bull with a tinge of racism thrown in at the end. She hasn't come close to meeting her burden in this debate. Her case consists of assertions that aren't actually substantiated by her sources and therefore shouldn't be given any weight. She has failed to prove that affirmative action harms minorities, or that it causes self-doubt, anxiety, or depression among minorities. The most Con has proven is that some white candidates feel mistreated by affirmative action. But see R3: that perception is mistaken on multiple levels. So it's nothing more than a minor social cost, a cost that is justified by the important task of racial rectification. The benefits of affirmative action thus outweigh this minor cost multiple times over.For all these reasons, vote Pro. --Sources:16. Schuette v. BAMN17. http://chronicle.com...