On balance, affirmative action in the United States is desirable

Thank you, FourTrouble. I will present rebuttals in the following round. For now, I will construct my own case. Negation Case: Premise: The cost of affirmative-action Costs, according to the Center for the Study of American Business [8]: $6.5 billion to the private sector in Affirmative-action grievances alone $1.7 billion to Federal agencies to enforce affirmative-action $21.4 billion to the private sector in total compliance costs Further cost resides in the form of ‘opportunity cost’, of which Brimelow and Spencer, cited in the Helen Suzman Foundation, found to be a staggering $236 billion, all in one year alone [6]. This opportunity cost refers to the revenue lost, due to the increased drop-out and lower-capability facets of affirmative-action students, when compared to non-affirmative-action students. It is Pro’s requirement that justification be provided for these exorbitant expenses. In my Negation Arguments, I will make use of these realities. Negation Arguments: Arguments in relation to minority affirmative-action recipients (i.e. African-Americans, Hispanics etc.) Link 1: Affirmative-action hurts minorities According to the Stanford Alumni (quoting Herrnstein and Murray’s, The Bell Curve), there is a substantial, average gap between African-American and White accepted applicants of 171 SAT points [1]. In terms of university admission, this can translate into statistics such as the ones found at Princeton University, wherein if affirmative-action were to be abolished, the 33.7 acceptance rate for African-Americans would fall to 12.2 percent. Incidently, the Hispanic acceptance rate would fall from 26.8 percent to 12.9 [2]. Furthermore, within the same source, with affirmative-action abolished, minority student admittance to the University of Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School plummeted 66 per cent from the previous year’s figures. Evidently, affirmative-action promotes unfit minority candidates *well above* their recorded ability level. These conclusions are supported by Sander’s research, of which comes from the UCLA law school where Sander works at: minority students were exceedingly representative of the bottom ten percent of the class – only one in four passed [3]. Therefore, due to this mismatch in ability-level, is should be of no surprise that in Sander and Taylor’s Mismatch, referenced in The Daily Beast, it is argued that minority students are disadvantaged by [3]: Being less prepared for classwork, and therefore much more likely to drop-out anyway Being more likely to flunk the professional certifications required to make-use of their degree Evidently, working at *well above* ability-level causes great stress, anxiety and failure in minority groups (indicated by racial-minority students having the lowest confidence-rates in themselves [14]), of which, due to the inflated perception of their ability, are seemingly unable to remedy. Vicious circle: Furthermore, minorities experience self-doubt and self-esteem issues, according to a report by David Dodenhoff. Thus, affirmative-action students tend to prefer “easier” majors and drop-out of school at much higher rates, as corroborated with Stanford’s and Sander’s statistics. However, the issue never ceases as due to the selection of easier majors and higher drop-out rates, stereotypes are reinforced, which leads to, you guessed it: selection of easier majors and higher drop-out rates [4]. In fact, a paper by Antonovics and Sander [7] found that *without* affirmative-action, minority students are *more likely* to accept offers from universities, due to a release from this vicious circle. Thanks to affirmative-action, this vicious spiral continues to lower self-esteem and increase self-doubt amongst minority students as a collective. Affirmative action incites entitlement (which creates unhappiness): However, despite receiving preference, affirmative-action does not satisfy even those who it is meant to help but instead sparks racial tension *in those whom benefit*. From an official Gallup Poll, it was recorded that, “three in four blacks believe that they do not have equal job opportunities in [America]” [5]. Link 2: Affirmative-action hurts high-performing students, and leads to racial violence Asian people, since affirmative-action largely benefits Hispanic and Black people, are negatively affected by this discrimination (which, ironically, is designed to curb discrimination). In a Princeton University report, citing figures for the University of Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School, Asian admittance rates drop from 23 percent to 18 percent, if affirmative-action were used. These percentages are based on a sample-size of 45,000 Ivory League applicants, which is an enormous sample-size [2]. Discrimination breeds racial tension: From this, the impact is that Asians feel discriminated against and have less faith in the system. As David Dodenhoff suggests in his report: “[blacks, whites, Asians and all other racial groups] begin to resent the individuals and groups they perceive to benefit from such policies” [4]. Fostering deleterious division, as affirmative-action does, leads to tension amongst racial groups, of which can cause racial crime. Indeed, as a Gallup Poll suggested, whilst 72% of African Americans support affirmative-action, 49% of White Americans *opposed* affirmative-action [5]. A poll by the Pew Research Center corroborated this view: “62% of Americans disagreed with the statement that we should give "preferential treatment" to minorities, while only 33% agreed” [15]. Racial tension divides communities: In Frank Salter’s novel, On genetic interests: family, ethny, and humanity in an age of mass migration, he argues, “Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism” [16]. As racial tension strikes a community, as it becomes less homogeneous, it becomes less caring, less friendly and less stable, making it a worse place to live in. Racial tension leads to violence: Especially since affirmative action leads entitlement, (“three in four blacks believe that they do not have equal job opportunities in [America]” [5]), it is no surprise that when entitlements are not met, minorities lose faith in the system, and racial violence erupts. An example includes, but are not limited to, the 2015 Baltimore Riots, wherein 20 police officers were injured, 285-350 businesses damaged, 150 vehicle fires and 60 structure fires, to name a few of the scary results [17]. Racial violence means serious community divides, terror and wasted governmental money (to mend the destruction). Arguments in relation to non-minority affirmative-action recipients (i.e. women) Link 3: Affirmative-action encourages women into jobs they have little interest in Women are naturally interested in people-orientated professions: From an enormous sample-size of 200,000 from over 52 countries, Richard Lippa found that, “Men are much more orientated to the ‘thing-orientated’ occupations [(i.e. science, engineering etc.)]. Women, relatively, are much more orientated towards the people professions” [9]. Further, damning corroboration is found in the documentary, Brainwash, in the words of Trond Diseth of Oslo Univerisity. Trond, who works with, “children with deformed genitals”, can determine (with near 100% accuracy) biological sex in recently-birthed children, merely by observing which toy the child gravitates to [10, time: 17:26]. Evidently, women have a *biological* preference towards people and people-orientated professions. Attempting to stymie women’s biological interests is expensive: Programs and organisations that push women towards certain professions, such as the ‘Steminist’ organisation, arouse sexist policies, such as ‘gender quotas’ so that there is a push towards ‘gender equality’ in the workforce. As cited earlier in my premise, the costs could hardly be seen to be worth pushing women into jobs they are not really interested in. Men are heavily discriminated against: The other impact is this. Gender quotas, backed by U.S. President Barrack Obama [12], dictate that a certain number of women are *required* to be in STEM fields, or else the colleges whom do not meet these ‘gender quotas’ are reprimanded ($6.5 Billion in affirmative-action grievances alone [8]) [11]. However, a true indication of how heavily men are discriminated against, thanks to affirmative-action, comes in the form of discussions (involving Barrack Obama) about how ‘limiting male enrolment into science fields’ may be necessary, in order to curb, ironically, sexual discrimination [13]. Such blatant misandry results in the unfair treatment of men all over America, of which will be aggravating and depressing for those who realise, and contradicts the intentions of affirmative-action (i.e. this sexism against men does not fight sexism. Rather, it blatantly advocates for it). Summary of Impacts Affirmative-action: - Costs a lot of money (especially in terms of opportunity cost) - Causes high-rates of anxiety, self-esteem issues, unhappiness (due to entitlement) and higher rates of failure, in regards to racial-minorities - Causes racial tension (in both affirmative-action *and* non-affirmative action students), which whilst a bad thing in itself, also leads to racial violence - Wastes money attempting to persuade women to defy their natural inclinations - Is blatantly sexist against men For these reason, I offer you a negation of the resolution. References [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com...