Debate on Affirmative Action

[iron81]

Affirmative action should be used to allocate scarce resources.

Pro: craigthedeac
Con: TomCollins

Mod note: This is a 1 on 1 debate between craigthedeac and TomCollins. Posts made by anyone else will be deleted. You may comment on this topic here.

[TomCollins]

I'm going to wait for Craig to post first, since its impossible to refute anything until he posts. However, I would like to make sure we agree on what we are debating. The definition I will use for Affirmative Action is as follows:

"A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment."

Craig- if you would like to correct or refine this definition, please do so.

[craigthedeac]

That definition will be fine. I am working on my post and hope to have it up in an hour or so.

[craigthedeac]

Pro Affirmative Action


<u>An Activity:</u>
I would like to begin with an activity and then get into the arguments.

For this activity, analyze the value of a college education. Consider:
1) Personal reasons for college education
2) Societal reasons for college education

If you spend a couple of minutes, you will certainly come up with reasons like going to college for personal wealth, or for the sake of society’s productivity. Aside from these economic benefits, you may also attend college in order to become better cultured or to learn life’s lessons. Similarly, college education is crucial to the progression of society.

Whether or not affirmative action helps meet these goals is debatable, but the activity will at least help establish a framework that you can use to evaluate the merits of affirmative action.


<u>Introduction:</u>
First, I accept Tom’s definition of affirmative action as being: “A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.”

Affirmative action programs can exist in various places, but it is most often debated in the context of college admissions. It is important to note that it also applies to the workplace, among other venues. Moreover, affirmative action does not focus solely on race; it also deals with discrimination against women.

My argument is that affirmative action is an effective tool to redress our nation’s historic and present discrimination against women and people of color. Although since the civil rights era we have progressed greatly, opportunity for these groups is still far too limited.


<u>Outline:</u>
For the sake of clarity, here is an outline of what I will address in this first post:
1) Have whites benefited from affirmative action?
2) The need for affirmative action in the workplace
3) The need for affirmative action in college admissions
4) Why a “color-blind” approach is inadequate


<u>Have whites benefited from affirmative action?:</u>
Although affirmative action is usually seen as something that arose from the civil rights era directed at benefiting non-whites, different interpretations exist that would point to its emergence in the 1930’s.

Ira Katznelson, who wrote “When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America,” makes precisely this argument. Many New Deal policies gave a leg-up to whites in order to ensure a racial hierarchy. For example, the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act helped factory workers (mostly white) but not agricultural laborers (mostly black) which was advocated by Southern politicians. Katznelson also argues that loans that promoted suburban expansion were aimed at whites. Moreover, he criticizes the GI Bill, which was allegedly color-blind, but favored white veterans by giving local governments control over the benefits, which prevented Southern blacks from having a say.

These are some examples of government policies that gave preferential treatment to whites in order to keep blacks from progressing. Other obvious influences have been slavery and just racism in general.

Whites have been the benefactors of affirmative action policies that were created by the government. These policies created the disparities that exist today, which justifies policies that would help those previously discriminated groups.


<u>The need for affirmative action in the workplace:</u>
“People of color and women are more likely to be unemployed, employed at lower wages, and hold jobs with a lower base pay.” (ACLU)

• The average woman loses approximately $523,000 in wages over a lifetime due to disparities. (ACLU)

The National Urban Institute showed unfair hiring practices in a study where it sent equally qualified applicants on interviews for entry-level jobs. The applicants were “coached to have similar levels of enthusiasm and ‘articulateness.’ The young white men received 45% more job offers than their African American co-testers; whites were offered the job 52% more often than Latino ‘applicants.’”

Keep in mind that using affirmative action to help correct these disparities doesn’t mean just letting any under-represented person have a job or get accepted at a school. A person’s race or gender is merely one factor that ought to be given weight. It should be viewed as allowing these groups, who are otherwise unfairly evaluated on the whole, to get their foot in the door and achieve an even playing field. Diversity in the workplace and in schools is a legitimate state interest.


<u>The need for affirmative action in college admissions:</u>
After Brown v. Board of Education, black representation in colleges was only 5%. After University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled that race could be taken into account by universities. “By 1990, over 11% of college students were black” (ACLU). This number was much more representative of the black population as a whole in the United States. However, backlash against affirmative action and Court rulings called some programs unconstitutional and Latino and African American admissions plummeted.

Minority and low-income students are significantly disadvantaged in college admissions because of a lack of resources available to them. Standardized tests like the SAT/ACT and Advanced Placement (AP) exams are taught far more often at schools in affluent, predominantly white areas. These tests have far too much weight in admissions and that negatively affects those in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Additionally, these tests are not a great predictor of success at colleges, work ethic is what is most important and this isn’t shown by any of these tests. In fact, many theories suggest that these lower-class individuals have greater work ethic, as they are more determined to move up in the world. There is a great need for equal opportunity in education, as there is in the workplace.

Ronald Dworkin studied the effects of affirmative action in “Shape of the River” (1999). This has been the only comprehensive study about affirmative action and students at elite schools, which recorded how they did in college and post-college. “Shape of the River” notes that the competition for admission at universities (assuming no affirmative action) is generally between the top tier of blacks and the lower tier of whites. Essentially, the battle is generally for the last spots of admission. However, the difference between score gaps (SAT) between this top tier of blacks and lower tier of whites is rather small. As to be expected, considering race in admissions decreases the gap which allows more black students to be admitted. The small difference in score gaps between these populations means that overall, a white students’ chance of admission is not significantly altered by affirmative action.

Another argument for affirmative action in schools is that by giving weight to race, it greatly heightens the chance of a black student to make their way into the “elite lifestyle” that is generally reserved for whites. By being accepted into an elite college, they can get into an elite graduate school, get an elite job, etc. and achieve this elite lifestyle.


<u>Why a “color-blind” approach is inadequate:</u>
Many people misinterpret Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous quote of judging people “by the content of their character, not the color of their skin” and imply that we should be completely color-blind. However, Dr. King understood that there was no avoiding color and gender. To assume that a completely color-blind (and gender-blind) approach is actually possible would be extremely naive.

As I have shown, there are many disparities between how people of color and women are treated compared to white males. The differences in opportunities available to them are vast. Additionally, the resources available to these groups of people differ. If one was to attempt a purely color-blind approach to college admissions or workplace applications, it would ignore all of these hurdles that certain groups face. It also makes it less likely for there to be change or equality in society, because those that have been marginalized by previous discrimination are left on their own to break out of their condition. Equality of opportunity is an end that society values and the state is therefore justified in pursuing affirmative action policies.




Any and all sources or full citations are available upon request.

[TomCollins]

Before I get too caught up in countering Craig’s points, I wanted to bring to the forefront a several conclusions I intend to support in future posts.

Affirmative Action is bad for those it displaces
• Costs them jobs/money/opportunity/prestige
• Displaced groups are not just white males. Asians often do not count as a minority. White women are not preferred to black women, etc…
• Leads to more racism

Affirmative Action is bad for the agencies that practice it
• Institutions end up with less qualified candidates
• Affirmative action is expensive
• Affirmative action causes turnover

Affirmative Action is bad for the minorities it claims to help
• Borderline candidates are more likely to crash and burn. Many times better to have success at a “lower” level than to fail after being pushed beyond ones limits
• Candidates who didn’t “need” affirmative action are often questioned – only got their positions because of being black (even though they were qualified).
• Affirmative Action promotes laziness and a poor work ethic

Craig makes an important error early in the post. He is quick to group “whites” and “blacks” as a collective group without realizing the individuality they are made of. You cannot have a forest without a tree. Lumping an immigrant from Sweden in the same category as a slaveowner as someone who “benefited” from racism does not make sense. “Whites” or “Blacks” do not benefit from anything. Individuals do.

To address Craig’s points-

Have whites benefited from Affirmative Action?

Craig starts off with an immediate mistake- grouping all members of a race as a collective unit, rather than treating them as a collection of individuals. Certainly some whites have benefited from racist policies. Many did not. By grouping a recent immigrant from Sweden in the same category as a direct beneficiary, such as a factory worker in 1938 is disingenuous.

Craig’s next mistake is to call such racist programs as “Affirmative Action”. Although I believe Affirmative Action to be a racist program, not all racist programs are Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action, by the definition he agreed to, is a program that seeks to redress past discrimination. Is Craig trying to imply that these racist laws were enacted to try to redress for some past discrimination that blacks carried out against whites?

The need for Affirmative Action in the workplace:

Craig doesn’t make himself very clear in this point, so I will give him a chance to clarify. Is the fact that certain groups of people are more likely to be unemployed an injustice in itself, or is it only a sign that discrimination might be occurring. Is (potential) discrimination the problem, or is unequal results the problem? I would assume that Craig is arguing the former. If this is the case, he is clearly assuming the only explanation to such differences is due to discrimination. He instantly discounts other causes, especially cultural or genetic differences.

The most obvious difference is brought up in the evidence he presents- that women earn $523,000 less in a lifetime due to disparities. The 76-cent myth has been told so many times it has become a fact to many people. This statistic is measured by taking the median income of all working women and men who work at least 35 hours a week at any job. It does not account for experience, overtime, or even the same job! Although many feminists have argued otherwise, study after study has shown that men and women are different. Men and women are motivated by many different factors. Women are more likely than men to take time off of work to raise children. Men tend to be attracted to more dangerous (and high paying) jobs.

Different cultures are also motivated by different factors. Many Asian cultures push children extremely hard in regards to education. Many of these children are thought to be embarrassments to the family if they do not obtain a prestigious career, such as a Doctor or Lawyer. There are also significant cultural differences even within a race. Caribbean blacks that immigrate to the United States have a much higher average income (despite being immigrants from countries many times poorer than the United States) than native born blacks. In one study, foreign-born blacks in Queens had an average income of $61,151 while native-born blacks had an average income of $45,684.

The study he presents seems to be very subjective in judging how the candidates are truly “equal”. I would like to see more information about how the study was conducted before I can comment further on it.

Craig assumes his conclusion- that discrimination exists, therefore it must be compensated by giving bonus points. If an organization acknowledges that the person screening or deciding is either consciously or unconsciously biasing the candidates based on race, it seems like a more logical solution is to find someone else to try to conduct the interviews.

The need for Affrimative Action in College Admissions

College admissions are a much easier nut to crack. Only elite colleges rely on interviews to determine a student’s admission. The admissions process, if race were not mentioned on the application, would never be known to those doing the admissions.

His first point claims that Affirmative Action is a good thing because it creates “proper” representation. The goal of Affirmative Action is to artificially set the ratios of races in admissions. It is no surprise it was successful in this goal, when the “weights” various races were given intentionally tried to arrive at this. When race-based admissions stopped in California and the admission rate of blacks dropped, it is merely pointing out how much extra benefit blacks were getting under the program. What he doesn’t mention is that the group that took over these spots was not whites, but mostly Asians. Asians made up 33% of students at UC-Berkeley in 2000, while only 36% of the students are white. The population of California was 11% Asian and 60% white.

The next argument Craig presents is very weak. It states that there is only a small decrease in the likelihood of a white student being admitted by using Affirmative Action. Since there is only a small chance that a white student is not admitted, this is a negligible cost. However, for those who are on the border, the chance that they are unable to attend the school of their choice is now enormous. Try telling it to the well-qualified candidate that was denied admission so that a candidate who has different skin pigmentation with much lesser qualifications that it’s “not that big of a cost”.

Craig makes another jump that is factually incorrect. Just because you are admitted into a college does not mean you are going to succeed. A candidate who is not otherwise qualified to gain admission to a school is much more likely to struggle or even fail after being pushed beyond his limits. A student who may have been a success at Good State University may struggle tremendously and may not even graduate at Ivy University. To assume this student, who was unable to qualify on his own merits, will be just as likely to succeed as someone who would be able to qualify.

Why a “color-blind” approach is inadequate:

Craig claims that racism and gender based discrimination are wrong. However, the idea that it should be counteracted with more racism is seems to only further the problems presented. The solution to racism should not be more racism, but an effort to decrease racism. Attitudes and social norms cannot be forced without leading to resentment or punishing innocents. Craig does not argue for equal opportunity but equal results.

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
Affirmative Action is bad for those it displaces
• Costs them jobs/money/opportunity/prestige
• Displaced groups are not just white males. Asians often do not count as a minority. White women are not preferred to black women, etc…
• Leads to more racism

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument that affirmative action will negatively affect certain groups is not disputable. However, my argument is that these impacts are justified based on previous discrimination and are a “necessary evil” in the struggle for equality. Even though some people may develop racist feelings because of affirmative action, what is the alternative? I would prefer a system where the marginalized become the benefactors of “racist” policies to one where the marginalized remain marginalized because of previous racist policies. A few years down the line, hopefully such policies will no longer be necessary. The reasons for affirmative action are things that you just hope people will eventually understand, but in the meantime it is the only way to solve the problems of representation and opportunity in the system.

When you mention Asians not counting as a minority, you are misinterpreting the target of affirmative action. Affirmative action is directed towards under-represented groups. It is not directed at groups just because they are not white or males.



[ QUOTE ]
Affirmative Action is bad for the agencies that practice it
• Institutions end up with less qualified candidates
• Affirmative action is expensive
• Affirmative action causes turnover

[/ QUOTE ]
Having less qualified candidates is something that is not guaranteed. If you’ll refer to the study that I cited earlier about the fake applicants that were equal in all regards except for their skin color, you’ll know that some decisions are not based on qualification, but on race/gender. When racism/sexism has a role in these agencies, qualifications sometimes mean very little. However, again I will be focusing on the argument that even if you are right and these harms result from affirmative action, they are still necessary.



[ QUOTE ]
Affirmative Action is bad for the minorities it claims to help
• Borderline candidates are more likely to crash and burn. Many times better to have success at a “lower” level than to fail after being pushed beyond ones limits
• Candidates who didn’t “need” affirmative action are often questioned – only got their positions because of being black (even though they were qualified).
• Affirmative Action promotes laziness and a poor work ethic

[/ QUOTE ]
Affirmative action won’t “push” anyone; it merely gives them opportunities that are often otherwise unavailable.

Also, cross-apply my arguments from my original post about this being key to allowing these groups to break into elite status. Also, apply the argument about these groups having more incentives for a harder work ethic.



I have grouped the following 2 arguments:
• [ QUOTE ]
Craig makes an important error early in the post. He is quick to group “whites” and “blacks” as a collective group without realizing the individuality they are made of. You cannot have a forest without a tree. Lumping an immigrant from Sweden in the same category as a slaveowner as someone who “benefited” from racism does not make sense. “Whites” or “Blacks” do not benefit from anything. Individuals do.

[/ QUOTE ]
• [ QUOTE ]
To address Craig’s points-

Have whites benefited from Affirmative Action?

Craig starts off with an immediate mistake- grouping all members of a race as a collective unit, rather than treating them as a collection of individuals. Certainly some whites have benefited from racist policies. Many did not. By grouping a recent immigrant from Sweden in the same category as a direct beneficiary, such as a factory worker in 1938 is disingenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a bit of a cheap-shot. Obviously I understand that individuals of the same race/gender are different. For the context of the affirmative action, however, you are dealing with groups. People are discriminated against based on these groups and that’s precisely the problem.

Policies that really analyzed individuals would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to develop and enforce. It’s much easier to deal with the group as a whole and it makes sense because the disparities between these groups are vast.



[ QUOTE ]
Craig’s next mistake is to call such racist programs as “Affirmative Action”. Although I believe Affirmative Action to be a racist program, not all racist programs are Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action, by the definition he agreed to, is a program that seeks to redress past discrimination. Is Craig trying to imply that these racist laws were enacted to try to redress for some past discrimination that blacks carried out against whites?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether or not we call it “affirmative action” is of minimal importance. What is important is the fact that there have been a variety of policies that have created an uneven playing field between these groups. Therefore, counter-policies should be able to level this playing field. Not doing so makes it very difficult for this gap, which was created through racist policies stemming from the government, to close.

I feel that this argument was severely under-covered. The merits of the argument still exist, you have merely claimed that I don't recognize individuality and that my application of the term “affirmative action” was incorrect.



[ QUOTE ]
The need for Affirmative Action in the workplace:

Craig doesn’t make himself very clear in this point, so I will give him a chance to clarify. Is the fact that certain groups of people are more likely to be unemployed an injustice in itself, or is it only a sign that discrimination might be occurring. Is (potential) discrimination the problem, or is unequal results the problem? I would assume that Craig is arguing the former. If this is the case, he is clearly assuming the only explanation to such differences is due to discrimination. He instantly discounts other causes, especially cultural or genetic differences.

[/ QUOTE ]
I actually am arguing that both are problems. Discrimination itself is bad and it is also bad that there are significant differences in representation in society.

Affirmative action helps negate discrimination and the potential for it by giving a boost to those that would be affected by discrimination. This in turn helps solve for representation discrepancies.

Your point is that differences in representation are due to other things than discrimination, like “cultural or genetic differences.” I agree, but it is important to understand that such differences were created by previous instances of discrimination. For example, some black students may not be as qualified for a certain position because generations of racism have left them at a significant disadvantage in terms of the resources they had available to them. Without affirmative action, these artificially-created differences will remain in society, the leg-up provided by affirmative action is necessary to break this cycle.

It is also important to stress that affirmative action doesn’t make up for significant differences among candidates. It only acts as a boost; it doesn’t guarantee a job or admission. So these other differences that you note will still be evaluated with affirmative action.



[ QUOTE ]
The most obvious difference is brought up in the evidence he presents- that women earn $523,000 less in a lifetime due to disparities. The 76-cent myth has been told so many times it has become a fact to many people. This statistic is measured by taking the median income of all working women and men who work at least 35 hours a week at any job. It does not account for experience, overtime, or even the same job! Although many feminists have argued otherwise, study after study has shown that men and women are different. Men and women are motivated by many different factors. Women are more likely than men to take time off of work to raise children. Men tend to be attracted to more dangerous (and high paying) jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, the ACLU article which I cited this information from, link, states, “This pay gap exists even within the same occupation” and that women “earned only 73% of the wages earned by men.”

Differences in pay between men/women are something that I am not too familiar with, which is due to the fact that my arguments for affirmative action focus on the opportunities available itself, not pay differences within the same job. Additionally, I think the racial equality goals are more relevant today.

I find it interesting that you mentioned that men and women are different. My question to you would be: why do you think these differences exist? Are women naturally less qualified or naturally less driven? Is it possible that social stigmas and perceptions of how women are “supposed to be” have deterred them from competing with men?



[ QUOTE ]
Different cultures are also motivated by different factors. Many Asian cultures push children extremely hard in regards to education. Many of these children are thought to be embarrassments to the family if they do not obtain a prestigious career, such as a Doctor or Lawyer. There are also significant cultural differences even within a race. Caribbean blacks that immigrate to the United States have a much higher average income (despite being immigrants from countries many times poorer than the United States) than native born blacks. In one study, foreign-born blacks in Queens had an average income of $61,151 while native-born blacks had an average income of $45,684.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will concede that cultural differences exist, I have never stated otherwise. However, many of these differences have resulted from or at least been effected by previous discrimination, as I have alluded to previously.

Your point about Caribbean blacks versus native blacks actually proves what I’m trying to say: that U.S. discrimination and racist policies against blacks (which foreign-born blacks would have avoided some of) artificially creates these differences.

Additionally, I think you are a bit hypocritical here because you seem to be grouping people collectively like you accused me of doing.



[ QUOTE ]
The study he presents seems to be very subjective in judging how the candidates are truly “equal”. I would like to see more information about how the study was conducted before I can comment further on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The following is a quote from the National Urban Institute (link):

“While traditional statistical analysis of earnings and employment differences by race and ethnicity is not well-suited to identifying discrimination (since any observed disparities by race might simply be caused by differences in the characteristics of individuals for which we cannot control in our data), a number of other analytical techniques have recently strengthened our belief that discrimination persists. For instance, studies in which matched pairs of minority and white applicants with apparently equal credentials are sent to apply for jobs routinely show white applicants getting more interviews and job offers than either black or Hispanic applicants (Fix and Struyk, 1994). This evidence is consistent with the notion mentioned earlier that observed differences between blacks and whites in education and test scores account for most of their differences in wages, but not in employment rates. Thus, discrimination against African-Americans may be most severe at the hiring stage, with less bias occurring in the wage and promotion process once employment is attained.
Other studies indicate that not all employers discriminate equally. Instead, the worst offenders appear to be small establishments, who mostly hire informally (and therefore more subjectively in their evaluations of applicant quality) and who are less visible to law enforcement agencies and potential plaintiffs. Also, employers in suburban areas that predominantly serve white customers appear to discriminate against blacks and Hispanics in hiring for jobs that involve significant customer contact (Holzer, 1998; Holzer and Ihlanfeldt, 1998).”

That quote is perfect because it specifically addresses your point that other cultural differences exist. In spite of these differences, the article concludes that discrimination plays a role in the hiring process.



[ QUOTE ]
Craig assumes his conclusion- that discrimination exists, therefore it must be compensated by giving bonus points. If an organization acknowledges that the person screening or deciding is either consciously or unconsciously biasing the candidates based on race, it seems like a more logical solution is to find someone else to try to conduct the interviews.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems like it would be difficult to implement. Nobody is going to want to admit to being racist or discriminatory, so firms likely won’t voluntarily change the people conducting the interviews.

Moreover, even if that was possible/successful, it would not solve for historical instances of discrimination/racism that causes the artificial differences between the groups. That’s another reason why the “bonus points” are necessary.



[ QUOTE ]
The need for Affirmative Action in College Admissions

College admissions are a much easier nut to crack. Only elite colleges rely on interviews to determine a student’s admission. The admissions process, if race were not mentioned on the application, would never be known to those doing the admissions.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the “color-blind” approach that I mentioned. You never address the disparities that exist between some communities and groups. Being “color-blind” and evaluating a person who came from a project and went to a horrible school on the same level as an privileged, affluent, private school grad isn’t “fair,” which is what the “color-blind” approach seeks to be. Keep in mind that these differences resulted from previous “affirmative action” policies enacted by the government.

Recognizing that there are significant barriers that were placed by previous discrimination is important. Since history has given them this disadvantage, affirmative action makes sense because it helps level the playing field.



[ QUOTE ]
His first point claims that Affirmative Action is a good thing because it creates “proper” representation. The goal of Affirmative Action is to artificially set the ratios of races in admissions. It is no surprise it was successful in this goal, when the “weights” various races were given intentionally tried to arrive at this. When race-based admissions stopped in California and the admission rate of blacks dropped, it is merely pointing out how much extra benefit blacks were getting under the program. What he doesn’t mention is that the group that took over these spots was not whites, but mostly Asians. Asians made up 33% of students at UC-Berkeley in 2000, while only 36% of the students are white. The population of California was 11% Asian and 60% white.

[/ QUOTE ]
I obviously agree that affirmative action changes the representation at schools. Unless I’m misinterpreting this argument, I don’t see how this is a reason why affirmative action is bad. The issue at hand is whether or not altering representation is good, not whether or not altering representation occurs with affirmative action. Reasons why affirmative action is good are found in other parts of this debate.



[ QUOTE ]
The next argument Craig presents is very weak. It states that there is only a small decrease in the likelihood of a white student being admitted by using Affirmative Action. Since there is only a small chance that a white student is not admitted, this is a negligible cost. However, for those who are on the border, the chance that they are unable to attend the school of their choice is now enormous. Try telling it to the well-qualified candidate that was denied admission so that a candidate who has different skin pigmentation with much lesser qualifications that it’s “not that big of a cost”.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try telling someone who participated in the job study that the discrepancy between race and chance of landing a job “isn’t a big deal.”

Try telling a black student from an impoverished neighborhood who had few resources and went to a horrible school who competed with the kid who grew up in a mansion and took SAT classes at his elite, private high school that his struggle wasn't “a big deal.”

We’re both talking about discrimination. The only difference is that the discrimination I’m referring to deals with under-represented, marginalized groups. Your group is the group that was benefited by previous racist policies and is now positioned higher. At least the discrimination that would take place with affirmative action would eliminate the gap between these groups rather than reinforcing it.



[ QUOTE ]
Craig makes another jump that is factually incorrect. Just because you are admitted into a college does not mean you are going to succeed. A candidate who is not otherwise qualified to gain admission to a school is much more likely to struggle or even fail after being pushed beyond his limits. A student who may have been a success at Good State University may struggle tremendously and may not even graduate at Ivy University. To assume this student, who was unable to qualify on his own merits, will be just as likely to succeed as someone who would be able to qualify.

[/ QUOTE ]
Refer to my responses on this subject that were made earlier.

To reiterate, affirmative action won’t necessarily “push” anyone; I disagree with your use of the term. It has to do with providing the opportunity.

Additionally, breaking into the elite lifestyle is heavily dependent on going to elite universities. Also, apply the arguments about these people being more driven and harder workers because they are determined to rise socially.



[ QUOTE ]
Why a “color-blind” approach is inadequate:

Craig claims that racism and gender based discrimination are wrong. However, the idea that it should be counteracted with more racism is seems to only further the problems presented. The solution to racism should not be more racism, but an effort to decrease racism. Attitudes and social norms cannot be forced without leading to resentment or punishing innocents. Craig does not argue for equal opportunity but equal results.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are going to suggest that there is a solution to racism, perhaps you could give more details on your plan. Simply advocating that my plan is fallacious without offering one of your own means that by default you are advocating the status quo, which is not adequately addressing this discrimination or racism.

Also, diversity is important and the state/universities/businesses ought to promote it.

Again, I stress why differences in resources and the impacts of historical discrimination mean that a “color-blind” approach is bad. Without solving for this, it is impossible to solve for equal opportunity because these resources directly impact one’s ability to get into a school or get a job. This was the point of this argument which you either misinterpreted or ignored. Therefore, the “racism” that comes with affirmative action is necessary.



Now I would like to recap what I believe to be some of the most important issues so far in this debate:
1) The immediate effects of affirmative action are necessary, even if it means discriminating against a white student or costing a business financially.
2) Whites (males in particular) have been the benefactors of historical policies and stigmas that have artificially established them above other groups. This structure has remained in-tact and will in the status quo. Affirmative action allows for penetration into these hierarchies while negating discrimination that stems from these established structures.
3) While cultural differences do exist between different groups, many of these differences can be attributed to artificial shaping.
4) A difference of resources amongst groups means that a “color-blind” approach is unjust. Affirmative action gives these groups a “boost” which helps them play the bad hand that life and our historical practices dealt them.
5) While it is easy to for some to reject affirmative action for being discriminatory, these same critics often lack alternatives that solve the uneven playing field.

[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.

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never indicated that conditioning is the “ONLY” reason why men/women are different. Numerous times I claimed it was a factor, but I have also stated several times that people are culturally different.

I hate that this is becoming a major point when in reality its significance on affirmative action is not great. We need to be focusing on opportunity.



[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I also think that proponents of affirmative action will stress race relations as being a goal of affirmative action.



[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You concede that discrimination still exists today. Barack Obama is discriminated against. Affirmative action benefiting him is therefore justified.

I assume the point you’re trying to make here is that affirmative action helps those who don’t need the help, or something along those lines. Aside from the fact that there is indeed discrimination today, Ronald Dworkin has an interesting take on this dilemma. To illustrate, let’s say that affirmative action leads to a bunch of rich black students getting into Harvard. Even though these kids had lots of resources, they got an extra, arguably unfair, boost from affirmative action. Dworkin states that this is fine, because white students at Harvard will get a new, better perception of blacks, “they can be rich just like me!” So, even if the distribution is not effective in determining who was harmed, overall, affirmative action is good for race relations.



[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m sorry but this is an awful analogy. Nobody would call that situation a success, that’s a horrible representation of affirmative action. In your analogy, there is no hierarchy, there is no past discrimination, there is merely an “injury.” Your analogy is also based on individual injury, but then affects groups overall. Affirmative action applies to group discrimination, and then affects groups overall. I could note many more problems with this analogy, but I think you get the point.



[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This argument does nothing for you. I’ve already agreed that there are cultural and inherent differences in people. It is important to note that some of these differences were artificially created. It is also important to note that with the sprinters example, there is equal opportunity.

I don’t know why you think I’m focusing on just equal results. The entirety of my argument deals with opportunity. I’ve mentioned that the hiring process is discriminatory and I’ve mentioned that there are major differences in resources, for example. You yourself acknowledge that discrimination exists today. These all impact opportunity.



[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the effectiveness of this approach:
1) If profit motive would work, why isn’t it working now?
2) Profit motive doesn't apply to college admissions
3) While “smart entrepreneurs” may figure this out, racists won’t care so discrimination still happens
4) If there’s financial incentives, that would imply that a company is getting a bargain which means you’re underpaying these people and taking advantage of the fact that their market price is cheap because of discrimination
5) Doesn’t factor the root of the problem or consider the difference in means/resources
6) As you noted, it would be very timely if even possible
7) Perceptions of these employees won’t necessarily shift to them being qualified. In fact, it may be counter-productive as people will be seen as “cheap labor.” They would be there because they are cost-effective and not respected for their qualifications



I’d like to recap what I consider to be some key concessions:

First, you agree that discrimination is still prevalent today.

You’re also conceding that there are societal gaps that resulted from previous discrimination. This proves my argument about the playing field being uneven.

So, we have established harms. What’s the next step, what needs to be done?

The status quo or profit motivations don’t solve or even account for either of those harms. It does nothing to level the playing field (this is synonymous with the creation of equal opportunity).

You acknowledge in the end that affirmative action would be a way to quickly close the gap.

At this point, the only argument you have going for you is whether or not affirmative action is “fair.” I feel that these concerns are significantly outweighed by the harms it solves for. It being comparatively advantageous was a point I made in my last post:

“We’re both talking about discrimination. The only difference is that the discrimination I’m referring to deals with under-represented, marginalized groups. Your group is the group that was benefited by previous racist policies and is now positioned higher. At least the discrimination that would take place with affirmative action would eliminate the gap between these groups rather than reinforcing it.”

Faced with no suitable alternative to solve these harms, affirmative action is both good and necessary.

[TomCollins]

I have a simple question for Craig before I fully respond.

In college admissions, how will someone who is judging the applications be able to discriminate based on race if they do not know what race the person is?

[TomCollins]

Also, in terms of my "concessions".

First, you agree that discrimination is still prevalent today.
No. I said it exists today. I did not say at what level.

You’re also conceding that there are societal gaps that resulted from previous discrimination. This proves my argument about the playing field being uneven.

You need to define what societal gaps are. I will not concede anything until you define what this actually means.

So, we have established harms. What’s the next step, what needs to be done?


The status quo or profit motivations don’t solve or even account for either of those harms. It does nothing to level the playing field (this is synonymous with the creation of equal opportunity).

Is this a concession? I strongly disagree here.

You acknowledge in the end that affirmative action would be a way to quickly close the gap.
No I do not.