DebateChamps is proud to support the NFL and Rupe Scholars with sample research. If you like what you see, feel free to check out our website. With 12 forensics vendors in one store, we’re the one stop speech and debate shop.

PRO CASE:

The current situation demands action.

In the United States, strides toward social equality have a long way to go.  An NPR report on November 14, 2007[1] explains that income in the United States is still racially divided, with black families experiencing lower income than white families.  According to the Department of Labor in a 2003 report, women make an average 80 cents for each dollar men make.  Given this discrimination, something has to be done in the name of equal opportunity.

Because the resolution uses the word “justified” in context to affirmative action, it is not enough for the Con to suggest that affirmative action has a negative effect.  It is possible for such programs to be justified if they are done in the name of a greater good.  The Pro contends that the purpose of affirmative action justifies its use.

The policy chosen by some states, colleges, and workplaces is affirmative action, which provides increased consideration to demographics which have been harmed by some historical bias.  Programs can vary, and the best way to evaluate affirmative action is based on its goals rather than by critiquing example programs.  Roger Wilkins wrote for the Nation in March of 1995[2], “Affirmative action has done wonderful things for the United States by enlarging opportunity… It has not always been used wisely, and…those cases where rigid numbers are used…are a bastardization of an otherwise highly beneficial set of public policies.”

Contention One: The establishment of an equal future justifies affirmative action.

The future toward which we all aspire is equitable to all people, regardless of gender or race.  Because affirmative action provides a platform for slowly reversing decades of discrimination, it has the ability to establish a genuinely equal society.  If more minorities are able to attend college and secure gainful employment, their families benefit in the future.  Affirmative action creates a world in which it is no longer necessary, and the costs are easily justified.  We cannot simultaneously hope for a future which is different than the status quo and expect no effort to change the present.  Doing so takes sacrifice.

Not only does this work in the sense of sharing economic privilege with minorities and women, but it also exposes institutions to  the notion that such individuals are more than capable of performing on the job or in school, changes attitudes among a person’s co-workers and lays the groundwork for wider acceptance within institutions.

Contention Two: Trade-offs are fairer with affirmative action.

When debating the justification of affirmative action, one cannot look at an individual job but rather cast a wider social net.  Individuals in today’s interconnected world do not live in a vacuum, and this context is important to consider.  When white males enjoy a much greater social privilege, it is unfair to the socially disadvantaged to use a single job position as a debate for fairness.  In other words, the pro contends that a seemingly unfair policy is actually critical to fairness in the larger view of the world.

Opponents of affirmative action argue that the benefits it grants to minorities do so at the expense of other qualified candidates.  However, given the hostility of the current system, minorities who miss out on good opportunities are less likely to find another than the candidates they purportedly “oust.”  Therefore, the benefits accrued to one individual who is favored by an individual case of affirmative action far exceed the damages somebody suffers overall.

Conclusion

In his speech on affirmative action, Lyndon B Johnson said, “You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”

Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity is effective.  It is justified.  It takes a relatively small portion of social privilege and uses it to make a big difference.  Although it is far from perfect, it remains the best option available to American society to help realize the American dream.

CON CASE:

The United States’ handling of racism is far from perfect, so when confronted with a problem on the scale of socio-economic disadvantage, it is easy to want to resort to an extreme action that creates a form of favoritism with the goal of promoting equal opportunity.  As noble as the goal may be, affirmative action is not the method our society should favor in order to right its past wrongs.

Affirmative action presents a mix of benefits and drawbacks.  The resolution questions whether it is justified; we contend that it is not on the basis that justification requires that the benefits address the harms in a manner sufficient to overcome them.  Put simply, the benefits have to not only outweigh the costs, but the costs themselves must target only those who need to pay the price.  We contend that affirmative action’s inaccurate distribution of privilege does not meet this criterion.

Contention One: Economics matter more than race when it comes to privilege.

Affirmative action conflates the source of social disadvantage: economic status.  The reason why minorities have lower employment rates and access to higher education is at times a product of historical discrimination, but today’s minorities are not all disadvantaged. It is the cycle of poverty which harms poor individuals.  If our society wants to remedy its ailments, it ought to target poverty.  An NPR article[3] from March 27, 2006 explains that the cycle of poverty is very real in education: if you are from a poor family, you are more likely to drop out of high school, and if you drop out of high school, you are more likely to be poor.  The article explains that there are pilot programs that work to intervene in education to improve the well-being of the poor, helping them to earn college credit and graduate high school.  This program, which does not discriminate in its target, directly helps the disadvantaged rather than a broad group of individuals, some of whom do not require help.  Correlation with social disadvantage does not justify favoritism if some of its beneficiaries are not themselves in need.  Will Smith’s son, Jaden, won’t require help getting into college – he is growing up in a multi-million dollar household, is getting access to the finest education, and already has a successful acting career.

Affirmative action is especially unjustifiable, then, because its benefits begin at the college level – a candidate has to graduate from high school in order to benefit from affirmative action, and the office jobs that offer affirmative action aren’t open to low-level workers.  The most disadvantaged minorities – those that live in areas with unsupportive school districts – need solutions that address their needs rather than play to them as a token group.

Contention Two: Affirmative action hurts.

At the same time that affirmative action programs fail to help minorities in the greatest degree of need, they also completely ignore the non-minority groups who do require help.  Although the poverty rate for whites is lower than other groups, there are poor white individuals who face poor environments, high dropout rates, and need the same assistance in accessing college that any other disadvantaged person needs.  However, because they are not a demographic with once faced “historical discrimination,” they are not given the same benefits or consideration.  There is no justification for such a gap.

However, affirmative action’s harmful effects are not limited to poor white males.  They extend to minorities as well by undermining their legitimate success.  A Newsmax.com article[4] from May 3, 2005 explains that when minorities are granted increased consideration in applications to college, they can be negatively stereotyped on campus and face greater ostracism.  Like it or not, affirmative action creates negative perceptions, and those perceptions have a powerful influence on us.  The program is not justified because it does not create social acceptance, because it harms minorities and non-minorities alike, and because in the wake of its vast damage it fails to advance meaningful social change.

Conclusion

The justification for redistribution of status ought to be that an injured party receives reparations from one who has caused them their injury.  Affirmative action does not meet this because the most “injured” among minorities never accrue its benefits, and many who pay the price are innocent bystanders who need help but instead are turned away.  This unfair practice must not continue, and ought to instead be replaced by meaningful social change that helps our poorest.  Only then will we be able to move forward.

DebateChamps is the high school forensics superstore. As a member of the SpeechGeek family of forensics website and resources, DebateChamps provides a wide selection of speech and debate products in one place. With twelve vendors offering products to meet your needs in every major forensics event, DebateChamps is your one stop speech and debate shop. More information online at http://www.debatechamps.com.

[2] “Racism has its privileges,” Roger Wilkins, The Nation – March 1995

[3] “Helping Dropouts Break the Cycle of Poverty,” NPR News – March 27, 2006, Author Neva Grant

[4] “Report: Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good,” Newsmax.com – May 3, 2005, Author Jim Meyers