Affirmative Action

IntroductionCon agrees that non-discrimination and equal opportunity are legitimate goals. Con also agrees that "some groups lag behind the general population," but disagrees as to the cause. Con argues it is the result of "cultural values," not of "discrimination." But Con fails to realize that such cultural values are the product of past discrimination. Con thinks discrimination as a result of "cultural values" is not discrimination. What Con is saying, then, is that cultural values are a valid excuse to discriminate because it is cultural, and therefore, not really discrimination. This logic is flawed, as anyone can see: such cultural values are themselves already discriminatory. Culture is not a valid excuse for the obvious systemic discrimination that continues in this country, it is simply another form of discrimination that affirmative action attempts to account for.In fact, Con admits as much when he does not dispute the fact that women with the same qualifications as men are paid less for performing the same jobs. This is discrimination, precisely because of patriarchal cultural values, and Con has not disputed this.Last round, I cited an article about a racial gap in self-employment; the article shows that this gap is the cause of racial discrimination in the credit market by banks. Con assumes the article uses social science methodology, and then assumes that this methodology is suspect. To say the social sciences are suspect is a huge claim, for which Con provides little proof. Blacks and Hispanics get worse public education, because the urban schools they go to don't have as much money as the schools in white suburbs. The reason this happens is because public schools are financed from local property taxes, so in communities where houses and businesses are less expensive, the schools provide worse education. This is unfair, and is a form of institutionalized discrimination. [1] It has also been shown that the racial gap in scores on the SAT is not the result of absolutes like native ability but of accidents like social position, access to libraries and quality of public education, and the opportunity to take SAT prep courses. [2] Other studies and data show huge racial disparities in access to Medical treatment and in the quality of care received, which again is accounted for by systemic discrimination. [3] Mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine primarily affects the African American population, because White's generally can afford cocaine powder, which does not carry such severe sentencing guidelines. [4] It has also been shown that racism exists in today's advertising, through the perpetuation of discriminatory stereotypes. [5] And finally, according to the ACLU and Rights Working Group, racial profiling is pervasive in every state, and has created material challenges and disadvantages for African Americans as a group. [6]Systemic discrimination is a fact. The question then becomes, what do we do with that? Affirmative action is the proposed solution. Affirmative Action is Discrimination?Con argues that affirmative action is "institutionalized discrimination," and that "government discrimination" is not allowable. This is Con's most deceptive argument, as it seems like good reasoning but it is actually very flawed. Con's logic goes something like this: if it was wrong for Jim Crow laws to penalize people just for being black, then it is equally wrong to give preference to some people for being black. It is reverse racism. But this reasoning only works if the two practices are removed from their historical contexts and declared to be the same because they both take race into consideration. According to this bizarre logic, those who favor affirmative action are the moral equivalent of Ku Klux Klanners. This is the same logic that says, killing in self-defense is morally the same as killing for money because in either case its killing you're doing. Of course, no one actually thinks killing in self-defense is the moral equivalent of killing for money. When the law distinguishes between these two scenarios, it recognizes that the judgment of an action varies with the motives informing it. Now apply this logic to affirmative action: it was the explicit purpose of some powerful white Americans to disenfranchise, enslave, and later exploit black Americans. It was what they set out to do, and it is a clear example of racism. On the other hand, the express purpose of affirmative action is to end discrimination and provide equal opportunity. Two very different motives.It is important to recognize this distinction. Affirmative action does not set out to deprive you of a place at Harvard, it sets out to end discrimination. The statistically negligible disadvantage that white male's have when applying to college cannot be compared to sufferings inflicted for generations on blacks. Doing so is to neglect the particular history and motives informing each action.But this is what Con wants to do, to neglect the purpose and historical reality informing affirmative action law. Con says affirmative action is discrimination, and therefore it must be wrong. Sure, affirmative action may be discrimination, but it is the one kind of discrimination that is allowable: discrimination that protects against discrimination.Free speech law is comparable. The government regulates and censors speech (for example, the giving of information to our country's enemies). Does this mean the government has violated the first amendment? Yes and no. The government has violated the first amendment with the express purpose of protecting those same freedoms. And when the purpose and end is protecting that which it itself violates, it is legally allowable.And that is exactly what affirmative action does. It discriminates with the express purpose of protecting and furthering non-discrimination.And that is why we need affirmative action. Not doing anything about the systemic discrimination in this country is the same as saying, non-discrimination is good even when it leads to discrimination. The US government has historically given legal precedence to ends over means, and the case of affirmative action is no different.Higher EducationSince Con provides no source for the UCSD case, I skip it until hard evidence is provided and go straight to the case of Asian-Americans. The question at stake here is, are the Asian-Americans better qualified than other ethnic groups? The answer is sometimes. The key here is how "merit" is defined. According to studies, "affirmative action beneficiaries have succeeded in higher education and various occupations despite not having the required test scores or GPA, therefore exposing reified concepts of merit" as "intellectually biased." [7] Asian-Americans are more qualified according to the standards used by the UC system, but not according to the standards used by Harvard, where it is recognized that being Black may provide qualifications for certain jobs based solely on group membership. Affirmative action simply affirms that there are other factors that determine "merit," and corrects against discriminatory concepts of merit.ConclusionIllegalizing discrimination has not worked. Many minority groups still face systemic discrimination and serious disadvantages. Affirmative action is thus a legal necessity. And contary to Con's opinion, it is allowable.[1] http://blackagendareport.com...[2] http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com...[3] http://academic.udayton.edu...[4]http://www.neurosoup.com...[5] http://owni.eu...[6] http://www.aclu.org...[7] http://books.google.com...