JC: On Affirmative Action

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Debate Topic

Does “Affirmative action” still remain the ideal standard for American Government to encourage public and private institutions to obey in order to promote nondiscrimination in the United States?

Intro

It is important to introduce terms in this argument to ensure that the debaters are on common ground. I find the best approach to explain "affirmative action" to be through Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Historical Origin​

"Affirmative action" first appears in President John F. Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925 which required government contractors to "take 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." It is the subject in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even though it is not explicitely stated and later championed by President Lyndon B. Johnson during his presidency.

Since its inception, “affirmative action” took on a number of interpretations as arguments flared over its application in the work place and in American colleges. Critics stated that “affirmative action” was nothing more than reverse discrimination and that its own flawed means made it impossible to fulfill its purpose:

To count by race, to use the means of numerical equality to achieve the end of moral equality, is counterproductive, for to count by race is to deny the end by virtue of the means. The means of race counting will not, cannot, issue in an end where race does not matter (149).

These advocates contested that “affirmative action” should follow accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which stated, “[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.” Title VII went on to prohibit employment practices that discriminated based on race, gender, religion, or national origin (but permitted exceptions).

The administration of the Civil Rights Act by federal courts throughout the 1970s crafted "affirmative action" to not be the compensation for past wrongs, offset unfair advantage, rewards the deserving, or yield a variety of social goods but to administer change to resilient institutions in order comply with nondiscrimination.

Conclusion​

Affirmative action is most frequently discussed in the context of school admissions as Universities have been discovered to use race as a contention for acceptance. Many students claim that this application of affirmative action is perverted as it no longer follows a policy to maintain nondiscrimination and instead limits seats according to race. Advocates of affirmative action cite the promotion of diversity whereas the opposition often voices their disdain over the compromise in meritocracy. Many individuals are left to ponder this: Does affirmative action best suit the needs of the American public and are issues of discrimination really remedied by its influence? Are there better evaluative standards other than affirmative action which offer a better assessment of social equality? After nearly half a century since its inception, it's time for some honest deliberation.

 

[Sucumbio]

Affirmative Action while good on paper is poor in design and execution, imho. One issue is that by requiring employers or universities to have X number of Y race in attendance/on the payroll, you end up shifting your focus to filling seats rather than seeking properly qualified candidates. This can lead to a lowering of the bar, lowest common denominator in effect because at least that way you're meeting government mandated numbers (which are arbitrarily reached to begin with).

Another is, it actually serves to downplay the struggle of minorities, especially blacks. Now I'm not black, so my view on this is second hand. From the mouth of a very strong activist in the black community at Northeastern University where I attended college, "Affirmative Action assumes that Blacks aren't capable of attaining for themselves, even in the face of adversity." I think her biggest problem with it was that there were plenty of Black Americans who managed to struggle their way to success, in the face of certain defeat, and because of quota systems, other blacks were basically being handed on a silver platter the same ends, without the struggle through means. I neither agree or disagree with this point, as I said... it's really not a call I can make.

Sort of in tie with the 2nd point, a 3rd point is that it leads to people of lesser character getting in. This is a generalization of course, but the point is that people who don't get a break oftentimes are stronger in character -because- they're not getting any breaks. Someone else, who doesn't have to try, and can simply achieve just by being alive, is not so inclined to be of strong character. Character is something that's built, arguably, by sacrifice.

 

[El Nino]

I have some grievances with the concept, but I haven't had a look at the policy itself, only secondary sources.

One problem may be the emphasis on race rather than socioeconomic status or family background. There are a few Asian American communities that essentially work the same types of jobs as many Latino communities; their statuses are somewhat comparable. I don't know if the wording of the policy itself takes that background into consideration, or if it just lumps them in with other Asian Americans from more established backgrounds. Not to mention that persons of Middle Eastern descent are technically "white" according to the Census Bureau, as are recent immigrants from Eastern European. But I would consider them to be different from white Americans who are the descents of the first colonizers.

This is just a thought since I haven't been able to check the policy itself. If it doesn't take family history into consideration, I question how beneficial it would be to society.

The other problem I have is with taking people from disadvantaged educational backgrounds and throwing them into schools with higher standards than what they're probably used to. That's like setting someone up to fail. I went to a pretty dismal public high school. Some of my classmates had trouble at the associate's level with things like basic algebra (this is after graduation). If they had gotten thrown in to a major university, I don't think the outcome would have been positive. At the very least, students that show initiative and promise could be offered a contract that gives them a year or two at a community college to prep them for university.

But the real problem is with public education in general. I don't like the idea that some politicians try to promote, wherein we can just take a few people from a community, give them opportunities, and have them somehow stand up as the flagship for the entire community. I don't think it works that way. I think any significant benefit to the community is going to have to come from the ground up.

Of course, education is one of those things politicians always promise to change but won't touch. Probably because it's a thankless task that takes years to show results. Not something that'll get you re-elected next primary.

 

[1048576]

I think AA perpetuates racism in society today. If I see a black woman at work, how do I know she met the same minimum qualifications I did? I can't, because of AA. So I'm not just going to assume she's competent, whereas with a white guy I can be sure that he passed an equally strenuous test to get in.

 

[SuperBowser]

Somebody should bring some numbers in :D Is there a reason America doesn't consider socio-economic status instead of race? The gap between rich and poor has widened in America over the last half century and this would worry me more. Most black people happen to be from lower socio-economic groups anyway, so this would seem the fairest way to go about things. Are there greater social barriers to stop black students from entering university than white students?

The other problem I have is with taking people from disadvantaged educational backgrounds and throwing them into schools with higher standards than what they're probably used to. That's like setting someone up to fail. I went to a pretty dismal public high school. Some of my classmates had trouble at the associate's level with things like basic algebra (this is after graduation). If they had gotten thrown in to a major university, I don't think the outcome would have been positive. At the very least, students that show initiative and promise could be offered a contract that gives them a year or two at a community college to prep them for university.

Is this a situation that actually happens though? I don't know the American system, but I'd like to think admissions departments of universities are a tad more discriminating than that. The idea behind affirmative action is to recognize students of equal ability that worked through more difficult conditions. Not to throw unqualified people into the deep end where they do not belong. Perhaps I'm wrong I'm fairly certain there are people on my course who entered with lower grades than the standard requirements (because of their socio-economic status); I don't think they've struggled more than anybody else on the course. My university cares deeply about its drop-out rates - worse league table rankings, wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds per drop-out, wasted students.

Either way, I don't believe affirmative action has been successful. However, I think the problem extends further than just education; there are financial and social barriers too and institutional racism still exists. Affirmative action may remedy a symptom or two but it cannot fix everything.

 

[El Nino]

Is this a situation that actually happens though? I don't know the American system, but I'd like to think admissions departments of universities are a tad more discriminating than that. The idea behind affirmative action is to recognize students of equal ability that worked through more difficult conditions. Not to throw unqualified people into the deep end where they do not belong.

The American system has problems in that an A grade in one high school may not be equivalent to an A grade in another school. That's why GPA is weighed against standardized tests.

It's possible for a student to get a 4.0 GPA (perfect score) in school, but score low on a standardized test. From personal experience, I know people who graduated from the same high school as me, but they couldn't do basic algebra. And they were given passing grades in algebra. That's because our algebra classes weren't equivalent to classes in other schools. The teachers encouraged students to copy answers off of each other (not making that up). So a student who got a passing grade at my school wasn't at the same level of proficiency as a student from a higher ranked school.

Admissions in the U.S. weighs a group of factors all together. Ideally, under affirmative action, certain slots would be reserved for minorities, and only high performing minority students would be accepted. But it's hard for a student at a bad school to score high on a standardized test because ideally the school curriculum is supposed to prep you for the standardized test.

It's not directly related to race, but a lot of lower ranked schools are in minority neighborhoods.

If I have time later, I'll try to see if I can find sources for drop out rates for people admitted under affirmative action. This is one of those topics where I get suspicious of secondary sources. It's entirely possible that the drop out rate isn't that high, and I brought up this point for nothing.

Another point to consider is that it might be more beneficial to promote low-cost vocational programs rather than throw all our efforts into getting people into universities. The BS degree isn't worth as much as it once was, and meanwhile the private technical colleges are making a killing from people who want a license or certification.

Edit:

I think AA perpetuates racism in society today. If I see a black woman at work, how do I know she met the same minimum qualifications I did? I can't, because of AA. So I'm not just going to assume she's competent, whereas with a white guy I can be sure that he passed an equally strenuous test to get in.

Well, I presume you would do it the usual way and evaluate her performance by itself, disregarding her race. AA applies to admissions to college, not to graduation, nor to work performance. Even if the system helps you get in, it's not going to help you graduate. Once you're in, it's pretty much all up to you.

I have a personal anecdote to this, but, well, I've used enough anecdotes already.

 

[1048576]

Replace work with college and you get the same argument.

 

[El Nino]

AA still wouldn't help anyone pass their classes though. I think if someone is doing well in school, you can say they deserve to be there. If they're not doing well, then maybe not.

 

[SuperBowser]

El Nino!

The American system seems so confusing. In the UK, we do GCSEs and then A levels. Academically, this is all that matters for university admissions. I don't think schools are so desperate to pass their students that they will encourage cheating here..... though there were a few cases in newspapers.

I can make one sweeping generalization for the UK. You may hear of students that achieve 13A*S at GCSE level (perfect score); not one of these people will have come from a poor background + public school. This doesn't mean these students were necessarily dumber or less able. They simply didn't have the same opportunities to perform as outstandingly. Standardised tests are not perfect in this situation. I admit students from such backgrounds may be less academically strong in general but I think it would be a huge disservice to these students and society at large to ignore higher performing students from these groups.

I don't know the extent of affirmative action in America, but the last statistics I read showed a definitive favouritism towards richer and white candidates. Despite the extra ''help'' supposedly provided, poor and/or black students are still severely underrepresented at American universities. While lower educational achievements play a definite role, social, financial and cultural barriers were also important.

I don't know how well I've got my point across. To provide an example with random numbers: the top 10% of students from your school may be comparable to the top 33% from another school. Specifics are where the difficulty lies but I do not believe the principles behind affirmative action are broken - students taken in from your school may have lower grades at face value, but this should not dictate a poorer performance to their peers at university. With the vast, heterogeneous nature of the American education system, I can imagine it's difficult to implement fair admissions policies encompassing such ideals though. Requirements shouldn't fall to the point that you worry about basic skills of the student admitted.

I am interested in the statistics you find! Perhaps everything I say is wrong. However, I doubt the conclusions of these studies will be straightforward. If a higher drop-out rate is observed in students admitted through affirmative action, there may be multiple reasons. Family support, university support, financial support, unfamiliarity with a formal education system and ''fitting in'' could all be equally responsible. I think a higher drop-out rate (if it exists) would represent faults in the system as well as the student.

What would be your opinion if affirmative action was scrapped and, instead, the system looked at socioeconomic status?


(I do agree with promoting low-cost vocational programmes. They are actually very good. Too many people rush into university these days because we are led to believe there is no other option.)

 

[El Nino]

El Nino!

SuperBowser!

According to this article:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/21/gradrates

...graduation rates for students admitted to elite colleges under affirmative action are much lower than other students.

And according to this article:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/c...tive-Action-and-College-Graduation-Rates.html

...after affirmative action was banned in California, college admissions among black students actually went up because students were picking schools that they were better suited for.

I'm ignoring the fact that I can't stand that second publication, and it didn't cite any sources, but whatever.

What would be your opinion if affirmative action was scrapped and, instead, the system looked at socioeconomic status?

I would like it better, but we've still got the issues with academic standards being different. Maybe if the system came with a program that would help disadvantaged students prepare for college, it might be worth it. But I don't think just making admissions easier is necessarily going to help.

(I do agree with promoting low-cost vocational programmes. They are actually very good. Too many people rush into university these days because we are led to believe there is no other option.)

The college system is a business. And the results aren't always pleasant.