[TomCollins]

I disagree with a lot of Craig’s points, especially the point he claims that women have the desires they have today ONLY because of social conditioning. If we need to get into this point, I will try to gather some actual research, but even with Affirmative Action programs for women for 20+ years, we have not seen the equality those who favor such programs expected. In the field of Engineering (a historically male career), only marginal gains have been made. In 1979, women made up 12% of Undergraduate Enrollment in Engineering. In 1999, women made up only 20% of Undergraduates in Enrolled in Engineering. Men and women are motivated by different factors. Men are more interested in status, money, and power. Women are more interested careers based on helping others, relations. The article that Craig cites is very sneaky how it words the pay gap. “This pay gap exists even within the same occupation” and that women “earned only 73% of the wages earned by men.” When using the quotes in this way, he seems to imply that the 73% applies to women within the same occupation when in fact it is not. There may be a gap between men and women for similar occupations, but the article intentionally neglects what it is. Surely it is much closer than the 73% it later presents, or else it would have presented it. Even a small gap is reasonable, since women value spending time with family more than men, and could represent the fact that many men work longer hours than these women at the same job. From a Bureau of Labor Statistics study-


“On the days they worked, employed men worked about three-quarters of
an hour more than employed women. The difference partly reflects
women's greater likelihood of working part time. However, even among
full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week),
men worked slightly longer than women--8.3 versus 7.7 hours. (See
tables 4 and 6.)”

This means that women who work the same jobs as men would still make only 92% of their income even with a constant wage rate.

To summarize the points Craig has brought up:

1) Previous instances of racism/racist/sexist policies have harmed members of certain groups (minorities/women)
2) Because of this discrimination, members of these groups are worse off than before. This has resulted in the offspring have disadvantages on average to members of other groups.
3) Affirmative Action will redress these injuries from the past

What are the goals of affirmative action?

Craig doesn’t spend much time mentioning what the goals are. Unless he corrects me, I will revert to the definition provided early in the debate- to redress past discrimination. Most supporters of Affirmative Action believe that it should only be a temporary fix, that after applied for long enough, will balance the scales.

Does Affirmative Action redress past discrimination?

I will not debate that discrimination has occurred in the past and still exists today at some level. However, it is not effective or fair in how it determines those who were harmed. Although Affirmative Action is designed to redress past discrimination, it does not use such criteria. For example, Barack Obama would be a potential beneficiary of Affirmative Action programs today for being a black American. However, Barack Obama was only minimally harmed by racist policies of the past. His ancestors are not slaves, but slave owners. When Barack Obama benefits from Affirmative Action, it comes at the cost of another individual. This individual often times did not benefit from past discrimination- either directly or indirectly. The most viscous discrimination occurred prior to the major immigration periods of this country. A large number of these individuals harmed by such discrimination are just as innocent as the original victims of discrimination in the past, while having received no benefits from the past.

Imagine a situation where a mugger robs a woman and steals $100 from her. Clearly this is an injury. How can we redress this? The ideal situation is to find the individual who carried out this act and get the $100 back from him and repay the woman. However, the Affirmative Action solution to this problem is to find a random male and take $100 from him. The money is then returned to a random woman. As you can see, nothing has been redressed. In fact, only a new injury has been created. Affirmative Action Proponents would call this system a success, since “men” and “women” now have equal amounts of money.

How do we measure Equal Opportunity?

A common fallacy presented is the idea that equal opportunity will produce equal results. Of the last 10 Summer Olympics, only 2 winners of the men’s 100 m event were not black. One was in 1980, which was boycotted by the US. Of the 30 men who have run the 100m event in under 10s, every single one was black. Are the stopwatches used in these events biased against whites? Of course not. Measuring equal results is not an accurate measure of opportunity. Both cultural or inherit differences lead people to both pursue and achieve different goals.

Do we even need to act?
If such discrimination exists, there is a significant profit motive in finding all of these “well qualified” individuals who could not land good jobs from racist firms. A smart entrepreneur will be able to hire all of these employees at a discount and make a profitable business. Other firms will be able to copy this strategy and raise the wages on their own. This approach may take more time than a forced Affirmative Action approach. However, the added benefits of doing nothing also results in less resentment and new racism caused by such behavior. When a black woman is promoted, few will question whether she got the job due to her abilities or by “being black”. Employers will no longer lose well qualified employees who correctly or incorrectly perceive they are being discriminated against because of their lack of “underrepresented” status. Affirmative Action is only necessary if racism is wrong. However, the only way it can possibly exist is to carry out the same actions it claims are wrong.