On balance, affirmative action in the United States is desirable

In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., observed: “Our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis?” [1]Echoing King’s question throughout, I will argue that affirmative action is generally desirable because it redresses past wrongs, creates diversity, facilitates integration, and counters ongoing racism/sexism. When taken together, as a whole greater than the sum of its parts, this case will show that affirmative action is not only a valuable tool in our ongoing struggle against racial injustice, but also a powerful vehicle to create a better, more just, society.Before I turn to these arguments, a word on burdens. This is a normative topic, so the burdens of persuasion are equal on both sides. I must show that affirmative action in the United States is generally desirable. Con must show the opposite. However, that doesn’t mean I need to show affirmative action is desirable in all cases. The words "on balance" mean the resolution only requires that I show desirability more often than not (i.e. 51% of the time). The debate is also limited to affirmative action as implemented in the United States. So we’re not talking about whether affirmative action is beneficial in other countries, to other people, according to the norms in other societies. Having said that, onto my arguments:(1) Reparatory JusticeAlmost every black person in the United States has been the direct or indirect victim of past racial wrongs. For instance, anyone who attended segregated schools prior to Brown v. Board of Education, or who attended the many schools that remained segregated after Brown, are direct victims of racial injustice. Others are indirect victims – as the destructive vestiges of past oppression continue on, through education deficits caused by decades of inferior schooling, through the absence of inherited financial wealth, the absence of friends or relatives who offer useful job connections, and through institutional racism that persists in the interstices of our antidiscrimination laws.Affirmative action seeks to redress these wrongs. It effectively “balances the equation,” “levels the playing field,” helping rectify, at least partially, injuries that continue to put certain racial minorities at a competitive disadvantage.Why attempt to redress these wrongs? Because an essential element of justice is righting wrongs to the extent reasonable. And because it’s the only way to end racial injustice – for leaving past wrongs unaddressed often has the unintentional effect of perpetuating these wrongs, or even creating new wrongs. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this problem, explaining that “if a man is entering the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.” [1] Failing to actively rectify past racial wrongs continues to put racial minorities at a competitive advantage, so merely ending invidious discrimination isn’t enough.(2) DiversityNobody disputes the value of diversity. It is repeatedly emphasized across academia, the government, the military, and America’s leading businesses.In particular, studies show that diverse teams are better at solving a variety of problems than homogenous groups, even when homogenous groups are rated higher on standard ability measures. [2] These results aren’t surprising. Diversity produces different perspectives, different knowledges, and different inferences about cause and effect. Integrating these different perspectives boosts creativity, productivity, and excellence. In educational contexts, diverse classrooms result in a more fully informed classroom discussion, ultimately leading to better learning outcomes. Studies even show that cities with diverse populations experience greater economic growth, artistic surges, and other indicators of productivity. [2] The benefits of diversity thus apply in almost any context.In pursuing diversity as a goal, affirmative action policies are fundamentally meritocratic. Minority candidates are chosen over apparently superior white candidates because these minority candidates are actually better qualified when we take into account their unique perspective. Professor Rodney Smolla notes that diversity, in effect, “does the institution a favor, enriches the institution, brings to it the positive asset of new perspectives … the institution needs the applicant more than the applicant needs the institution.” [3] At bottom, then, diversity brings something to the table that white candidates simply cannot offer.(3) IntegrationAs a democracy, the legitimacy of our government depends on ensuring that the multiracial character of the United States is reflected in all its key institutions. That’s why President Clinton wanted to make his cabinet “look like America.” And it’s why the Supreme Court has emphasized that “effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civil life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized.” [4] This type of integration shows the public that our government cares about all Americans, including minorities who for various reasons find themselves marginalized. In facilitating such integration, affirmative action thus knits together our deeply divided society and promotes our government’s legitimacy.(4) Ongoing Racism/SexismIn a recent Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action, Justice Ginsburg stressed the stubborn persistence of racism: “it is well documented that conscious and unconscious race bias, even rank discrimination based on race, remain alive in our land.” [4] Sexism, too, still exerts a pervasive influence on women’s socioeconomic opportunities, interpersonal interactions, media imagery, and institutional processes.To be sure, our laws prohibit invidious discrimination in the workplace, housing, education, and other contexts. But these laws aren’t enough: (a) protecting one’s rights through litigation is expensive, emotionally taxing, and requires an immense amount of time, effort, and resources that many individuals simply don’t have; and (b) institutional racism and sexism persists in the interstices of the law, gaps that the law cannot reach. Throughout history, racists and sexists have somehow found a way to express their racism and sexism despite antidiscrimination laws. The most visible example today is police shootings: young black males are at 21 times greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts. [5] And blacks are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though usage among blacks and whites is comparable. [6] Or consider this fact: full-time women only earn 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, a significant gap with significant consequences over a lifetime of work. [7]Affirmative action helps counter ongoing racism and sexism, and in doing so, helps prevent further racism/sexism.ConclusionIn short, affirmative action in the United States is generally desirable to redress past wrongs, create diversity, facilitate integration, increase legitimacy, and counter ongoing racism/sexism. Taken together, these points show that affirmative action promotes a better, more inclusive, productive, creative, equal, fair, and just society.In response, Con will probably argue that affirmative action is “reverse discrimination.” Or maybe Con will argue something else, something so stupid that I can’t even fathom it. I’ll save my rebuttal for the next round. But as you read through Con’s arguments, keep Martin Luther King’s observations in mind – and focus on the both the big picture and the actual facts, not meaningless abstractions like “reverse discrimination.” Ask yourself: what is the alternative? Would you actually prefer a world in which no affirmative action programs had ever been pursued?---Sources:1. Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait2. Scott E. Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies3. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu...4. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)5. http://www.propublica.org...6. http://www.nytimes.com...7. https://www.whitehouse.gov...