Debate: Affirmative action

[]

[]

[]

[]

Is affirmative action good public policy?

Background and context

"Affirmative action" involves steps being taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action generates intense controversy.

In the United States, the first period of passionate debate on this issue began around 1972 and tapered off after 1980. The second period began in the 1990s leading up to the Supreme Court's decision in the summer of 2003 upholding certain kinds of affirmative action.

See Wikipedia's Affirmative Action article, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for more background.

[]

[]

[]

[]

Compensation: Is Affirmative Action just compensation for past wrongs to a group?

[]

Yes

• Affirmative action brings justice by compensating groups for past wrongs. It is important for injustices to be redressed. Slavery and institutionalized racism have not been redressed yet in America. In order for justice to be served, it is necessary for the main losers of racism in America (blacks) to be compensated for their loses. It is also appropriate that whites assume some burdens in enabling the redress of blacks, as they were the main perpetrators of the crime of slavery. Affirmative action achieves this all, sufficiently compensating blacks for past wrongs, achieving redress, and restoring justice.

[]

No

It is Impossible For Affirmative Action To Be Compensation.

Whether affirmative action achieves its goal cannot be approached until you realize that it, nor reparations, is any type of compensation. Compensation, whether defined legally or economically, is not giving treatment to one person for a harm done to another. There are three things that cannot be refuted to support this:

The first thing to consider is that Affirmative Action was started by arguably racist Southern Democrat Lydon B. Johnson, as an executive order No. 11246. This means that the only persons engaging in racial profiling as a qualification for employment was the federal government followed thereafter by the state and local governments. Those jobs may be a wage at best for anyone who has been in the conundrum of government employment. It is not a payment, it is a job. It is taking the opportunity from one person and giving that opportunity to another which arguably isn't compensation either as that right has always existed.

The second is the definition of compensation itself.

Black's law dictionary defines compensation in part to be 1) "indemnification" or 2) "making one whole" or (more importantly) 3) "That which is necessary for returning an injured party to his former position." or compensation for a "directly and proximately" caused injury.

In other words, anyone can and should be compensated for work they do for others or products that they produce for others. People should be compensated for harm done to them. If you do not pay for someone's work, you have taken time which they can never get back. If you take a product without paying, you are stealing. If you injure them unjustly, you have to pay for it. However...

People are not compensated for work others do or for harm caused to other people.

They may be compensated for organizing, managing or providing capital as part of actual work done for others (such as employees), but they are compensated nonetheless for their contributions. Even in wrongful death suits, the person is being compensated for their loss from the death of a relative.

Everyone can be harmed by government. But given that most people in the current generations have never been harmed individually or unequally by government, it is impossible to compensate them for harms that never occurred to them personally. For those that are, there a means of legally obtaining compensation. The basis for that damage is equal protection and equal opportunity which the government must apply to all persons.

• The laws should be "race-blind" to counter all forms of discrimination: Affirmative action promotes prejudice by increasing the resentment of those who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action from those who have been adversely affected by the policy. Therefore, it simply shifts the prejudice from one group to another, which does not resolve the problem of racism.

• Affirmative action fails to compensate for past wrongs by affecting the wrong groups

• Affirmative action fails to achieve justice as it sacrifices the rights of one group to attempt to bring justice to another

• Many groups that have been victims of institutional racism are actually harmed by affirmative action instead of compensated

• Argument:An ethnic group today should not be blamed and held accountable for the wrongs of their ancestors

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Diversity: Is diversity in all areas of society a highly valuable social good?

[]

Yes

• Greater ethnic or gender representation at all class levels is socially important. Establishing the importance of proportional diversity in all levels of society is essential to justifying Affirmative Action, as Affirmative Action is only a means to this end. This argument includes that Affirmative Action is essential to a healthy, fully informed civil society as well as to the creation of a truly representative leadership that understands and upholds the diverse interests of the "common good".
• Affirmative Action helps create an important, diverse learning environment. A diverse educational environment produces major benefits for students and society.
  • It creates an environment for understanding the full range of perspectives, life-styles, and social circumstances in a society.
  • Understanding different perspectives reduces the potential for misunderstanding, racism, and conflict among groups.
  • It provides our future leaders the above lessons, enabling them to better represent the common interest.

[]

No

• Minority schools are not diverse, and yet provide an important learning environment In order for a diverse learning environment to be seen as important or necessary, minority schools (homogeneous) must be demonstrated as a bad idea. Yet, they are a good idea.

• Diverse schools actually receive poor ratings from the students themselves - This position was given particular credence following a major study in 2002: "Diversity and Affirmative Action: The State of Campus Opinion". Stanley Rothman, S. M. Lipset, and Neil Nevitte. 2002.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Equality: Is Affirmative Action a good way to enhance social equality/integration?

[]

Yes

• Affirmative action is the only way to level the playing field and change a perpetual legacy of disadvantage: If past wrongs have a legacy that live on today in the form of continued disadvantages and subtle forms of exclusion, then the past wrongs continue, albeit less overtly, today. Some of these more subtle forms of exclusion included:
  • Past historical discrimination severely limited access to educational opportunities and job experiences.
  • Ostensible measures of "merit" may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.
  • Regardless of overt principles, people in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know or people from similar backgrounds, or both.

• Going to a top university is the key to success, not performance at the university The basic argument here is that, in order to advance higher in life, the stamp of a top university is more important than the performance of a student in that university. Therefore, it is more important for a minority student to attend a top university even if it means that they will be nearer the bottom of their class.

• Argument:Predominantly black schools don't offer as many AP classes, making it harder for blacks to get high grades An 'A" grade in an AP class is counted as a 4.5 by some universities, making it possible for a student who takes all AP classes and gets all A's to get a 4.5. Yet, predominantly black schools offer far fewer AP classes, making it harder for exceptional black students to compete against the grades that exceptional white and Asian students are able to muster.

[]

No

• The laws should be "race-blind" to counter all forms of discrimination: Affirmative action promotes prejudice by increasing the resentment of those who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action from those who have been adversely affected by the policy. Therefore, it simply shifts the prejudice from one group to another, which does not resolve the problem of racism.

• Argument:Affirmative Action is wrong to consider race instead of economic or educational disadvantages Economic or educational disadvantages do not necessarily correlate to those of a particular racial/ethnic status. There are many examples of wealthy well educated black youths that have experienced every society advantage there is. There are also examples of white youths that have lived in economic and educational squaller. If it is economic and educational disadvantages that are the problem, why not focus in affirmative action on these criteria instead of race and ethnicity.

• Affirmative Action causes some students to be "mismatched" with programs that they can't keep up with By admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms.[1]

• Affirmative action lowers the perceived value of the certificates earned by blacks: Affirmative action creates the impression that black individuals required the help of affirmative action to gain placement in a top university. As such, employers and the world discount the value of a black individual earning a certain degree, relative to their pears earning the same degree. Clarence Thomas is famous for saying that his degree from Yale was worth only 15 cents due to the impression among employers that he received it only because he was black.

• Argument: Affirmative action is simply discrimination by another, more positive, name. As a result, it does little to solve the underlying issues of prejudice and elitism. Instead, affirmative action simply increases tension between majority and minority groups; majority groups feel that they are the victims of discrimination. This naturally leads to increased feelings of resentment and division between the two: accepting or rejecting a person based on anything other than merit is a universally unpopular act. Affirmative action, therefore, often worsens the very problem that it is supposed to solve. (The 101 'Blair's Babes' of the 1997 general elections are a good example of this.)

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Burdens: Is it OK to burden some citizens with Affirmative Action?

[]

Yes

• Affirmative Action is justified to ask some citizens to take-up an unequal burden for the sake of a social good (equality): It is common in democracy for different citizens to take up unequal burdens to achieve certain social goods. Progressive taxes are a good example of this. Affirmative Action adopts the same notion of assigning certain unequal burdens to some currently privileged groups in order to achieve a greater level of equality.

• Countering the argument that Affirmative Action unfairly damages poor and unprivileged white males

[]

No

• The rights of one group should not be sacrificed to benefit the rights of another groups: The opponents argue, since all people have equal rights, no individual's rights should be sacrificed to compensate for another person's rights being taken away.

In a school application, shouldn't the person who is most qualified get accepted? In a lot of cases qualified students aren't being accepted to make room for a minority student even though they may be more qualified.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Meritocracy: Is it OK that Affirmative Action contradicts notions of meritocracy?

[]

Yes

• Affirmative Action actually enables the selection of highly qualified candidates that only appear less qualified due to their systemic exclusion

• Affirmative Action makes race only a small "plus" for certain candidates among a much larger array of competitive considerations

[]

No

• Affirmative action contradicts the notion of meritocracy Citizens should be rewarded on the basis of effort and merit. Yet, Affirmative Action gives partial rewards to individuals on the basis of race, undermining the notion of meritocracy.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Economics: Is Affirmative Action important economically?

[]

Yes

• Diversity is important to a dynamic economy.

[]

No

Diversity IS NOT Affirmative Action.

Lost in this debate is the sophistry of the assumption that Affirmative Action is diversity.

It invariably is not.

They are not synonyms. They are more akin to being antonyms.

To illustrate, which of the two groups is more diverse?

1) A company of five that contains a white, black, jewish, asian and arabic employees whom are all skilled in manual labor.

2) A company of five that includes an accountant, a software programmer, a marketing coordinator, a logistics specialist and an administrative assistant which all share in part in manual labor or contract it out. Let's say that they are all the same race as you are.

The second group is invariably stronger and shows the true strength of diversity-that is diversity of perspective and skills.

If you chose the second group, I would respectfully decline any offer from you to run any business which would be used to provide people with products and others with jobs. You obviously do not understand strength.

When most people use the word diversity, they are usually misusing the term and actually are referring to the strength of the concept of Unity or due diligence (which involves getting more than one perspective).

Racial profiling promotes mediocrity by violating the fundamental rule espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King Junior----That people be judged on the basis of their character and not the color of their skin.

In societal terms, a person's character is measured by how moral they are and how valuable your skills are to providing goods and services to your fellow countrymen.

Departure from emphasis on character is a much larger and more fundamental concern than racist policies promulgated by a racist southern democrat which were done to get and retain votes at the expense of stifling the rising tide of black entrepreneurship in 1960s which was the real source of leverage in the Civil Rights campaign.

• Affirmative action results in less qualified and effective candidates filling positions, resulting in lower economic productivity for companies and a nation:

• Affirmative action may damage the ethos of those that are more qualified, yet lose out to affirmative action candidates

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Race focus: Is it appropriate to focus on achieving racial diversity?

[]

Yes

• It is appropriate for organizations to concentrate on specific diversity factors such as race instead of having to give equal treatment to all forms of diversity

[]

No

• Affirmative Action uses a definition of "diversity" that is too narrow

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

US Law: Does US law provide for Affirmative Action?

[]

Yes

• Beginnning with President JFK's Executive Order 10925, which stated mandated, "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Various changes to US law such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Revised Philedlphia plan have given minorities and women more opportunities than other races.

Several Supreme Court cases (Griggs v. Duke Power Comp., Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) since then have also shown that affirmative action exists and has ruled against institutions which did not give preference when they were supposed to.

[]

No

The text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 advocates a "race-blind" approach: Title VI of the Act promised that "[n]o person…shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." While it makes a couple of exceptions for employer preferences on the basis of gender, religion, and national origin, it makes not exception for race in regard to the law being "color-blind".

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

States: Where do the US States stand on the issue?

[]

Yes

[]

No

• Position:California has been trending away from Affirmative Action since the early 1990s

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Players and academics: Where do the relevant players and academics stand?

[]

Yes

• [Thomas Nagel's “Equal Treatment and Compensatory Justice”. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1973]
• [Judith Jarvis Thomson's "Preferential Hiring". 1973]
• Ron Daniels, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights

[]

No

• Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute opposes affirmative action - One of the most frequently cited opponents of Affirmative Action and proponents of a "color blind" society.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

US supreme court justices supporting affirmative action?

[]

Yes

[]

No

• Clarence Thomas, US Supreme Court Justice, advocates "color-blind" policies:

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Activist organizations: What are the main activist organizations in this debate?

[]

Yes

• American Civil Rights Coalition
• Affirmative Action and Diversity Project
• National Organization for Women
• American Association for Affirmative Action
• Position:The Urban League supports Affirmative Action

[]

No

• Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Countries: Where do countries internationally stand?

[]

Yes

• Position:Countries supporting affirmative action

[]

No

• Slovakia. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution. [2]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Videos pro and con.

[]

Yes

[]

No

• "Affirmative Action: Separate But Equal". (Michigan University). Posted on YouTube May 21, 2007.[3]

See also

• Resolved: Universities should use affirmative action to encourage minority enrollment

External links

• New York Times. "The New Affirmative Action". September 30, 2007

Videos

"Ward Connerly on Fox News School Segregation". Posted on YouTube on July 5, 2007.[4]