Affirmative action is a good idea

I appreciate your responses. I can tell this debate will be a good one. :) I partially agree with your first refutation. Change is being made. But the change wouldn't have been nearly as easily made if affirmative action was never implemented. Affirmative action addresses race because it is part of the problem. For at least 200 years, African Americans were deprived of rights while the white majority kept the rights for themselves. It's no secret that African Americans were kept as slaves. They were treated unfairly, and I'd have to say 'unfairly' is hardly the word. "But blacks have not simply been treated unfairly; they have been subjected first to decades of slavery, and then to decades of second-class citizenship, widespread legalized discrimination, economic persecution, educational deprivation, and cultural stigmatization. They have been bought, sold, killed, beaten, raped, excluded, exploited, shamed, and scorned for a very long time. " [Stanley Fish] Is it fair to take these men and women, set them free, put them at the beginning of a race and tell them they're free to compete? [an analogy by Pres. Johnson] The answer is no. And so, affirmative action steps in with a little advantage for the team who's been held back for so many years, and this is how equality is being achieved. So as my opponent has conceded, problems lie in the race. We can't fix a problem without addressing it. If the problem lies in math class for one, they should give special attention to that math class. Not knowing 2+2=4 doesn't mean copying that answer from another classmate's assignment [not addressing the problem]. It means you grab a calculator and punch in 2+2 to get 4 [addressing the problem]. "[a]So, instead of going in for a second interview, they just choose the black guy? [b]The reality is, it's not possible to have two people who are completely and totally equally qualified. " I'll work my way backwards. .. [b]. I guess you're right, let me try again. Obviously two men won't usually have the same qualifications, however, it is possible to be equally qualified or be equally as ready for the job or spot in the college course. And so when an employer realizes, "Hey, this guy is ready to work. And so is this man," under affirmative action, he'll. .. [a]. give the disadvantaged man an advantaged by giving him the callback. I can't really tell you how an employer is going to do their callbacks, whether it be just giving him the job, or setting up another interview. I assume each employer does it differently. "In the days of yore, they would look at race as a deciding factor (If he's not white, we shouldn't hire him). I don't see how affirmative action is any different, except it pretends to be promoting fairness" "In this country whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others. Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others. Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no. " [Fish] Look at the playing field. It's currently tilted, and that's obvious. Equality, as you have conceded, is not being fully achieved, but steps are being taken. The playing field is tilted, and was tilted because of the majority. The minority was set at the bottom, while the majority climbed up to the top and the playing field had become unlevel. So in equalizing the playing field, and bringing the majority to the same level, or close to the same level as the majority, Affirmative action is promoting fairness. "[a]So, if the guy who's hiring ISN'T racist, it ends up being "reverse racist," or, to say it as it really is, racist against the majority. [b]. .. I believe in equal rights for everybody, not special rights for some. " [a]. " Reverse Racism is a cogent description of affirmative action only if one considers the cancer of racism to be morally and medically indistinguishable from the therapy we apply to it. A cancer is an invasion of the body's equilibrium, and so is chemotherapy; but we do not decline to fight the disease because the medicine we employ is also disruptive of normal functioning. Strong illness, strong remedy: the formula is as appropriate to the health of the body politic as it is to that of the body proper. " [Fish] Allow me to explain. For many years, the minority has been discriminated against and deprived of many opportunities, while the majority was given an advantage. We'll call this the "Cancer. " In order to fight this cancer, we must use chemotherapy by giving the minority the advantage. Look back to my classroom example. It's not reverse discrimination, it's not putting one over the other. It's making an attempt to put two competing teams on an equal level. [b]. I strongly agree with this. But in the words of Reginald T. Shuford, "Treating people fairly does not mean treating them the same. " In the past, as I've shown, the majority has been given the advantage, or "special rights" as you put it. "Special rights" that the majority has already been given for more than 200 years. So now, it's the minority's turn. Let's give them a chance to catch up, shall we? "Basically, your argument then proceeds to sound like you're arguing that minorities are naturally disadvantaged and/or less qualified" I believe I can fairly argue this. This assumption comes from reality. The minority IS at a disadvantage, because the majority has PUT them at a disadvantage through keeping them from education opportunities, employment opportunities, good houses, adequate healthcare. You have to look at the reality, which is that minorities are at a disadvantage. And as I've proven, affirmative action seeks to remedy that disadvantagement.