Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Affirmative action

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 22:45, 28 September 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 22:47, 28 September 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Debate:Affirmitive Action in the United States moved to Debate:Affirmative Action in the United States)
Next diff →

Revision as of 22:47, 28 September 2007

Is Affirmative Action education legislation in the United States a good idea?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Compensation: Is affirmative action justified as compensation for past wrongs to a group?

Yes

Affirmative action helps compensate groups for past wrongs such as institutional racism and level the playing field: If past wrongs have a legacy that live on today in the form of continued disadvantages, affirmative action helps alter those obstacles and correct past wrongs. Because disadvantages often perpetuate themselves in a vicious cycle, affirmative action helps give the disadvantaged traction to fight off their disadvantages and end the cyclical legacy of past wrongs. Once the playing field is leveled, than the need for affirmative action no longer exists.

Affirmative action is the only way to level the playing field now:

  • Past historical discrimination severely limited access to educational opportunities and job experiences.[1]
  • Ostensible measures of "merit" may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.[2]
  • Regardless of overt principles, people in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know or people from similar backgrounds, or both.[3]

Affirmative Action actually enables the selection of highly qualified candidates that only appear less qualified due to their systemic exclusion: Affirmative Action actually ensures that, on average, the best candidate is selected precisely because affirmative action systematically includes individuals from groups that are otherwise systematically excluded. That is, since individuals in such groups are — in the absence of affirmative action — systematically excluded, and since the groups are composed of individuals that are otherwise equal to others, such groups have a higher proportion of qualified candidates precisely because they are normally excluded. Therefore selecting candidates from the excluded groups yields, on average, a greater number of qualified individuals. Accordingly, the increased mathematical probability of generally selecting more qualified candidates from the groups targeted for affirmative action will decline as candidates are recruited from the targeted groups.


No

Argument:Many groups that have been victims of institutional racism are actually harmed by affirmative action instead of compensated: Asian and Jewish Americans are an example of this, where they have been victims of institutional racism (and continue to be victims of forms of racism and prejudice), but whom are harmed by affirmative action since it benefits largely black and Hispanic populations. This disproportionate effect is perverse and counter-productive considering that the intent of affirmative action is to eliminate discrimination. It is also defeats the notion of compensation for past injustices, as only some groups are compensated, while others are subject to further injury. This makes the desired effect arbitrary in practice.

Using affirmative action to remove discrimination is counterproductive because it requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate: It 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.

Economic or educational disadvantage is what's important, not race: 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.

An ethnic group today should not be blamed and held accountable for the wrongs of their ancestors: Affirmative action opponents also typically argue that those who suffer on account of affirmative action (ie. those who don't get the job or who don't get admitted to a particular university) should not be held accountable for crimes they did not commit; in other words, that most people of the present were not a part of the system that oppressed such minorities.

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.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.