Affirmative Action

First of all, let's say that you put affirmative action into place on an employer who runs his own small business. He needs to employ twenty people to help him. So, he holds interviews for numerous people in his city, and decides that the most qualified people are fourteen whites, five Asians, and one African American. However, due to affirmative action restrictions that have been placed on him, he has to hire twelve whites, five Asians, two African Americans, and one Latino. Now, this has the following positive effects: One Latino and one African American just got jobs at this man's business, when they wouldn't have usually. It also has the following negative effects: Two whites just lost jobs that they were more qualified for. The employer now has less qualified people in his business, and therefore makes less money with his business. Those two whites now hate both affirmative action and the Latino and the African American. "The claim that it equally robs the majorities of opportunity does not have much merit." For every African American, Latino, or whatever that gained a job, a white person lost a job. Percentages aren't applicable, because you're dealing with a country with more whites than blacks and Mexicans and whatnot. "It is irrelevant anyway. Affirmative action only applies to qualified candidates. It is not robbing a majority of an opportunity if both people are qualified. In order to rob them of opportunity, the opportunity would have to be deserved in the first place." What if they were both qualified, but the white man was slightly more qualified? This would still result in the minority getting the job. Besides, if they're of equal qualifications, there should be a tiebreaker that is less discriminatory than race. "It is justified to ask some citizens to take up this burden to promote a social good, which affirmative action is. It's important that we take steps in assuring that our universities and workplaces more accurately represent the demographics of society. However, I don't believe in racial quotas." Universities and workplaces shouldn't just represent the demographics. They should represent the qualifications of those demographics. "Your fifth claim is rather ridiculous. I have not seen any empirical evidence to back up the notion that affirmative action decreases employers' profits. As the burden of proof is on your side, I'll wait for your proof on this." Alright, then. From Thomas Sowell's "Economic Facts and Fallacies", page 170: "Imagine someone who owns a golf course in a country where racial discrimination is perfectly legal-- and this owner has a bias or prejudice against blacks. With an international tournament scheduled to be played at this golf course, would the owner pay no price for excluding Tiger Woods? The price to be paid would probably run in the millions, because the absence of Tiger Woods would reduce the worldwide television audience, or which advertising rates and revenues are based-- thereby reducing how much television networks would pay the owner of the golf course to broadcast the tournament. While it is easy to visualize the cost of discrimination in an example like this, there is usually a cost to be paid by anyone who competes in the marketplace in other situations. Employers who discriminate against job applicants from particular groups usually have to either pay more, in order to attract additional workers from other groups to take their place, or else lower the job qualifications required, in order to make more of the existing job applicants eligible. Either way, that costs money, whether in higher pay or in lower productivity from less qualified workers. If the discriminating employer is competing with other producers of similar products, then those competitors who have either less racial partiality or who care more about money can hire more qualified workers from the rejected groups without having to pay the additional costs paid by the employer who rejected them." This concept applies to discrimination against whites, as well. If you're forced not to hire someone you'd rather hire, you lose the profit that guy would have made over the other guy. "The sixth claim really doesn't mean much. I also don't see what your evidence for the claim is. In a diverse environment, people will obviously be more open and willing to accept other cultures." http://en.wikipedia.org... "It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites)." You see, if I were to apply for a job, and I lost it to a minority who was less qualified than me because of affirmative action, I would feel resentment against affirmative action, that person, that minority group, and government. "A Princeton University study found that ignoring race in college admissions would result in sharp declines of African-Americans and Hispanics in top colleges." Well, obviously, those Hispanics and African-Americans weren't naturally qualified enough to get into the college. You see, affirmative action is discrimination against whites. The percentages may not reflect his properly, because whites make up such a large percentage of the nation, but actual counts would. For every Hispanic/African-American/whatever that used affirmative action to get into a college, there is a white person who lost the application because of it. "It is important for African-Americans to be compensated for past wrongs, and it is important for them to actually have an equal shot at life." Observe the following situation: You have one guy that's 1/8 African-American, 7/8 white. His African-American ancestors lived up in the North. They had never been to the South. In the North, they were very successful. His white ancestors also lived in the North, and did very well. This guy, Mark, is in the middle class. His family lived in Illinois. You have another guy that's 100% Irish. His family fled to America during the Great Irish Famine. They struggled very hard in America. They lived in Georgia, where the standard of living was less than that of Illinois. Eventually, over time, they managed to struggle their way into the middle class. His name is Seï¿½n. Now, if they, Mark and Seï¿½n, were both to apply for a job, and were with almost equal qualifications, with Seï¿½n doing slightly better than Mark, who would get picked? Mark. Even though Mark actually had an easier history than Seï¿½n, he's African-American. "Those who have been affected socially and economically by discrimination and slavery should have their accounts taken into consideration. Their disadvantages in life should obviously be taken into consideration.... One of the qualified candidates just had to face more discrimination in their upbringing and that is why they are given the benefit of the doubt." Most of the African-Americans who are benefitting from affirmative action came from the North, where there was less slavery and less discrimination. Anyways, say you have a middle-class African-American family and a middle-class white family. They worked hard to get where they are. Their children both know the same type of life: middle-class. The African-American kid didn't have to relive his ancestor's slavery, or discrimination, or whatever. So, they have near-identical biographies since the start of their lives. Why should we look beyond the start of their life, at their family's history? It's irrelevant. So, overall, affirmative action helps out middle-class African-Americans and Latinos, at the expense of middle-class whites. That's a positive effect and a negative effect. They're equal and opposite. Employers end up making less profit, because they have to hire based on race, not qualifications. Majorities feel resentment towards the minorities that robbed them of their jobs. CON.