White males who are against affirmative action betray doubt in their own true merit.

No, thank you for accepting this challenge, NotThatClever. Best of luck to you. Introduction: Affirmative action is necessary to shake up the contents of our current society"s stagnating barrel of privilege. This privilege is perpetuated by a racist system that has been set against previously disadvantaged groups. I therefore posit that to understand the phenomenon of privilege one must first understand human groups. Sub conclusion 1: The psychology of group dynamic is a the heart of the problem of privilege: The following information on group theory is widely accepted by psychologists and can be located online with ease, but citations are provided at the end. The members that make up a particular group define that group by the common bond or bonds that separates them from others who do not posses that bond or characteristic. It must be stated that a spectrum of membership does exist within membership of these groups, with some members identifying more and some less strongly with their group; however, this is irrelevant in the context of discrimination as those discriminated against are not and/or often cannot be involved in the process of their membership qualification. Two further points of importance that need to be raised before progress can be made in this argument are group identity, and the evolutionary importance of groups, namely the survival of a group competing with other groups in an environment with scarce resources. This is competition is clearly no longer necessary in today"s resource-rich world in which one per cent of the global population are alleged to hold half of global wealth. Privilege is therefore very much an important aspect of identity, and vice versa; it is also unnecessary. It is commonly accepted that group identity is formed through the dynamic of "us" and "them", this means that people agree that those of the in-group have a characteristic that is common only to them (us), and that those without that characteristic are not permitted to join that group (them) and therefore belong to the out-group. The group"s identity is then strengthened when it is directly compared to another group (or a number of other groups) not sharing its defining characteristic/s. This is especially so when those perceived (because these characteristics are in fact often not necessarily exclusive) to not share the group"s characteristic/s are made to seem inferior in some way, therefore heightening the status and desirability of that first group. Superiority and inferiority is, in this context of identity, unfounded, and more often than not a creation of information-bias. This is subtle but infectious process creates and coagulates chauvinism, racism and general bigotry. Sub conclusion 2: Minority (defined as stake in power as opposed to sheer number) groups have more difficulty making a living: It is no wonder then that a group will favor its own members at the expense of those partial to another group when dividing today"s abundant and intangible resources such as trust, compassion and empathy (to name a few) that are directly and causally related to more tangible and more scarce resources like employment, education and charity (again, to name but a few). This is evidenced by a yearlong study that has concluded that American"s would rather do business with white people than black people. This is, explains the study "" why unemployment has consistently been significantly higher for black people than for white people, both during recessions and boom times." It is important to remember that often people have no say in their memberships to groups, and this is particularly true of racial groups. Unfounded and racist stereotypes like "blacks are lazy" are an example of why this seems occur. A person"s anecdotal evidence is applied to the entire group of people who then suffer in turn. Sub conclusion 3: Privilege affects the present day economy: The above tendency has been more overt in the far past with the American slave trade, which predominantly and almost exclusively targeted black people as a whole group, and more recently with political segregation, for example, in America and apartheid in South Africa. Although these inhumane practices are no longer in existence their effects are clearly still visible as in the previously mentioned hiring practices (as well as in the facts found in the next paragraph). Sub conclusion 4: Previous advantages grow with each new generation and decedents of those groups therefore unduly benefit: Recent advantages that have impacted current generations include The Wagner Act of 1935. Under this act unions were permitted to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. This continued for nearly 40 years into the 1970s. Another example is that much of the wealth that many white families enjoy today was created by The new Deal programme and the Federal Housing Administration. These programmes made it possible for millions of average (almost exclusively white) Americans to own a home for the first time. The government put up $120 billion worth of home loans, of which more than 98% went to whites. How does this reflect today? Well, today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to have their loan application turned down. Sub conclusion 5: Programmes that address inequality are therefore justified: It appears that we have begun to address this problem with an almost global system that is in a transitional phase; a phase that has put laws in place to afford everyone equal rights and freedoms. As has been shown though, these laws are by no means enough and an attempt to share economic power and goodwill must, and is, being made with programmes like affirmative action. According to Prof. Dr. Karl Matthias Meessen in his book, Economic Law in Globalizing Markets, economic-redress programmes, like affirmative action are necessary to actively facilitate market entry needs and are meant to make market entry possible for those of previously disadvantaged groups after a long period of racial discrimination of those groups. Sub conclusion 6: It follows then that there is no colour-blind clean slate from which we can, right now, with clear conscious, begin anew: The playing field is severely unequal and to pretend otherwise, in the face of factually verifiable proof, is not a worthy argument. To employ a meritocracy, as many opponents of affirmative action do, denies that there is a history of privilege-skewed merit. One"s merit has a casual link to their privilege and is therefore not only due to their own hard work as is often argued. According to a study done in conjunction by Stanford University"s Graduate School of Business and Department of Psychology and Social Behavior: "" embracing meritocracy as a distribution rule causes whites to deny the existence of racial inequity. On this view, whites who endorse meritocracy seek to regard themselves as high in merit, and maintain this self-view by denying racial privilege." No one is denying that grit and hard work are important factors in success, merely that one needs the opportunity to display that grit and that such opportunities are in fact a privilege, a privilege that only a modicum can afford. Such privileges, in the context of today"s society are not as palpable as yesterday"s. For instance, the author, Peggy McIntosh, list of some of the more subtle privileges that white people can exclusively enjoy today, titled: Daily effects of white privilege. Main conclusion: Therefore being an able-bodied, white male and against affirmative action is admitting insecurity in your own actual merit: It is plainly clear then that due to the undeniable historic obstruction to the flow of resources to these previously disadvantaged groups that these privileges do not easily manifest themselves with grit and determination alone. Further more, programmes like affirmative action are necessary to right previous wrongs and redistribute goodwill equally in all spheres of public and private life, thus doing away with rampant undeserved privilege. With all of this in mind, to insist on keeping an unfair, 400-year head start, or to deny those starting late (not of their own accord) a means to catch up, is to admit insecurity in one"s ability to compete on an even footing, and therefore to admit that one"s actual merit is in fact actually due to privilege. Therefore being an able-bodied, white male and against affirmative action is admitting insecurity in your own actual merit. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://www.tandfonline.com... 4. http://amptoons.com... 5. http://newsreel.org...