Affirmative Action

"Affirmative action is made explicitly to take into account the realistic tendencies of employers or admissions officers." This is why we should implement a "flip a coin" policy, rather than affirmative action. "In terms of the so-called 'resentment' that the whites feel, I agree that there undoubtedly would be some cases of resentment, but it's not some unconditional hatred that suddenly is felt towards blacks by whites." Exactly. It is conditional. And the condition is affirmative action. Eliminate the affirmative action, and you eliminate such resentment. "And besides, the point of affirmative action is to to take into account these age-old economic and social inequities with the acceptance of burden by the generally better off white population." However, if a black man and a white man both land on an equal application, then the white man obviously didn't live up to his "social superiority," so why should he suffer for it? "Also, you are not taking into account how affirmative action also applies to laying off workers from their jobs..." What difference does it make whether the senior employees are white or black? As time goes on, if color-blind policies are used, blacks will have as many senior positions as they deserve by their qualifications, so there'd be no need to force employers to fire their senior white employees, which directly lowers their profits and hurts the economy. "When you used my quote against me, you understood it incorrectly. Whites would get more jobs because they have been holding senior employment positions for years, and have had more educational opportunities..." You now assume that all whites have been senior employees. This is false. When a white man applies for a job, and is equally qualified as a black man, then you can't just argue that the white man can get a new job. Why can't the black man get a new job? You see, they're equally qualified, so it shouldn't matter which one of them doesn't get the job. Either one could try again. Why put the burden on the white guy every time? Give him a fair chance. If they both have the same qualifications, life has been treating them equally well. There is no inequality with equal qualifications. Thus, there is no reason to favor the guy who has black skin. "Yes, but just because they are equally qualified doesn't mean they have the same family history." They must obviously be similar. The white guy and the black guy obviously have the same burden from their family history. "It's true, their might be some cases where affirmative action is done at the expense of poor whites, but when there are two equally qualified candidates, there's a higher chance that the black one came from a more difficult background, and this is taken into consideration." Wrong. If the black guy had a more difficult background, then he would be less qualified. If the white guy had a more difficult background, then he would be less qualified. If they're completely equally qualified, then they should have a comletely equal chance of being hired. The black guy shouldn't be given special treatment. You also ignore the fact that any mulatto would claim to represent blacks, so he would have an advantage over lesser blacks, and an advantage over equal whites. "Wow. That's pretty ignorant as I understand it, and frankly, a little racist. So in order for a black guy to be as qualified as a white guy, the white guy has to be below the success of the average white family?" That's the argument behind affirmative action. The average white family IS more successful than the average black family. That's not racist. "That is a biased assumption; you're saying the only way a black person could be as qualified as a white person is if the black guy was unusually above the status quo and the white guy unusually below it." Replace the "and" with "or," and you have a true statement. If the average of one set of numbers is 5, and the average of another set of numbers is 10, for two numbers of different sets to be equal, one or both of them must be unnaturally high or low. It's a statistical fact. "Again, no. Just because a black guy happens to be exceptionally qualified in terms of intellect or test scores or whatever doesn't mean he was some 1/4 mixed race kid who grew up a pampered life in New England without any discrimination." Then why do you assume that the white guy had a pampered life? Perhaps his family worked hard on a farm all their life. "This is in theme with all your previous statements. Please either provide statistics or define what specifically you mean by 'average.'" Okay, the average white American has a higher income than the average African American. Otherwise, affirmative action would be purposeless. "Also, you have failed to refute the benefit of diversity in the workplace. Diversity helps co-workers become more empathetic and tolerant of other cultures." Diversity can happen without affirmative action. Blacks would still be hired. It's just that a white man wouldn't go, "No, not again..." whenever he realizes that he's matched against a black man. Anyways, my opponent assumes that minorities have to have a worse past than majorities. However, if that held true for every minority and every majority, then there wouldn't be any minorities that are equally qualified with any majority. Here's a balanced situation. You have a black guy and a white guy applying for a job. They turn out to be equally qualified. They have the same qualifications. Through a combination of every possible external and internal factor, they have the same qualifications. The external and internal factors of their life had the same effect on each of their qualifications. The external and internal factors are equal. They are equal. Now, riddle me this. Why should the black man be preferred, when they are equal? The answer is, he shouldn't. They're equal. Vote CON. Affirmative action is inequality, by the logical explanation above. "Some opponents of affirmative action contend that affirmative action programs are discriminatory and that they, in many cases, result in the promotion of under-qualified individuals over higher qualified individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender. They also argue that preferential treatment should be based upon current social and economical standing, not that of one's ancestors. Some opponents say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications." "Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor white or Asian); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they engender animosity toward preferred groups as well." http://en.wikipedia.org...