Affirmative Action

Thank you Ron Paul, you've proven to be a formidable opponent. In this round, I'd like to esponge the charitable language of my opponent, in order to expose the true claims made by my opponent, and then move into my rebuttal. His words will be in bold, and mine will immediately follow."My opponent begins by presenting six statistics that highlight discrimination. However, the first four do not immediately lead to the assumption of discrimination. For all we know, black males could just be a higher crime rate group at no fault of discrimination."My opponent has implied the claim that black men are inherently more dangerous than non-black males. I do find this to be slightly offensive, but my feelings have no place in a debate and I will debate the words for what they say. If criminal minded aggression is in pigment, I have missed out on the status quo. To imply that it is due to pigment and not socioeconomic, direct racial profiling, and the sheer numbers of police in low income areas (a place more likely to be held by black males) is not only fallacious, it's racist. Not that I'm calling my opponent a racist, I'm not sure if he intended it to be the devil's advocate or not, but the viewpoint he's set forth is exactly that. The statistics were:1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated, 1 in 36 Hispanics, 1 in 15 blacks (1 in 9 black men from age 20-34), the unemployment rate for blacks is over 15%, over 12% for Hispanics— National unemployment is 7.9%, median income for blacks is $34, 345, $37, 913 for Hispanics, and $55, 530 for Caucasians & 30% of Hispanics don't have health insurance, just under 20% of blacks, and 10% of Caucasians aren't insured. What these statistics show, is that when minorities are subject to approval (Societal approval by the police, job application approval, and insurance approval) they are constantly picked at a more disadvantaged rate than any other group. To pretend that this does not exist based on discrimination or to not see this as an American problem, and only see it as a minority problem is a view point not delegated by reason, but by discrimination or privilege. For example, it's not problem with women that they're discriminated against in the work place, it's a problem with the workplace."First, I will counter the women argument: Women are paid, on average, 77% of what men are paid. However, that statistic does not account for differences in the male and female workforces. One factor is that woman tend to work fewer hours, and part time employees are paid less."I do not believe my opponent is intentionally trying to mislead the voters, I believe he has just failed to read the source that I quoted. Source number 3 in my previous round specifically states, "The Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages, found women who worked full-time, year-round in 2010 made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country." "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are unique in many aspects. They earn 7.6 percent more than other races even though they work fewer hours, have fewer years of job experience, and lower rate of union membership." How is this possible? "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders lead the rest of the population in educational qualification. On average, Asian and Pacific Islanders have nearly one more year of education."My opponent set forth a segment about Asian progress in the United States attributing it to their tendency to have a higher education and more educational requirements. I will agree with my opponent that education is the key to success and tolerance, and that Asians do lead the way. However, this is not central to this debate.Asians do not face the level racial discrimination that Hispanics and blacks do. This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. Over the past four centuries, Black history has included nearly 250 years of slavery, 100 years of legalized discrimination, and only 50 years of anything else. Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face. [1]With this last quote, I would like to move onto my rebuttal contentions. I. The foundation on which your vote will be cast, has been set. In my opponent's last post, he made a statement very central to this debate's outcome. He stated, "It isn't really the fact that employers want to discriminate, it is the unfortunate circumstance of racial stereotypes. Only education to both sides will right this wrong;" The problem with this is that whether it be hate inspired by the individuals thought or discrimination reinforced by racial stereotypes, it has the same outcome. It leaves the undesired race out of the mix. My opponent will have you believe that intervention is not the best combatant to this militant exclusion of privilege, and that education cures all. I submit that education is the true key, but how do we do it? In order to educate on prejudice, you must integrate the two and let experience teach and educate. You cannot expect for someone to lose their fear of heights by never having to experience heights. For example, racism started its steep downfall when blacks and whites were ordered to desegregate and integrate schools, and then forced to hire minorities and interact with them on a daily basis. The problem with my opponent's position is that it disregards current life. he has accepted that prejudice is alive and well, but then states that the only way to defeat it is to let the prejudice population self educate when they're ready. Well, that disregards every life they reject until that point when an intervention leads to the same result but at a much better advantage for minorities than the previous suggestion. Question number 1 is: Is affirmative action successful?According to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ("Reverse Discrimination," 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of non contractors (Citizens' Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies.[1]Question number 2 is: Given that it has worked, is there still a need for affirmative action? My opponent has set forth the claim that companies have gone out of business because of discrimination in the application process and promotional platforms, but this is not the rule, it's an exception. I'd like my opponent, if he doesn't mind, to provide the companies that went out of business because of their racial bias. Given the statistics I've provided and many more, the answer is yes. When you have large inequalities in statistics that prove an obvious bias, intervention is warranted and also demanded. There is still a level of discrimination high enough to prevent people from experience the privileges of normal life, thus requiring immediate response. If it works, and it is needed, there is no rational reason for abolition.II. Negative Psychological effects of affirmative action. Obviously rare. White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem. Out of characters, I'll elaborate next round. [1]http://www.understandingprejudice.org...