Equal opportunity: Is Affirmative Action necessary to achieve equal opportunity?
No
Yes
Affirmative action is only way to level
playing field There are many ways in which
society is unequal today, and which cannot change
without institutional help: 1. Past historical
discrimination severely limited access to
educational opportunities and job experiences. 2.
Ostensible measures of "merit" may well be biased
toward the same groups who are already
empowered. 3. Regardless of overt principles,
people in positions of power are likely to hire
people they already know or people from similar
backgrounds, or both. This means that racism may
not change on its own, and requires an
institutional approach such as affirmative action to
level the playing field.
Anomaly of "poor white Appalachian" less
important than broad racismOpponents of
Affirmative Action argue that it is unfair to the
"poor white male from Appalachia" to give the
wealthy black neurosurgeon's son an advantage in
school admittance. Yet, the problem with this idea
is that ignores the fact that there are for more
poor blacks as a result of institutional racism. This
relative disadvantage of blacks is what drives the
need for affirmative action. As Charles R. Lawrence
III and Mari J. Matsuda write in their 1997 book
"We Won't Go Back: Making the Case for
Affirmative Action": "All the talk about class, the
endless citings of the poor white male from
Appalachia, cannot avoid the reality of race and
gender privilege."
Going to top universities is more important
than good grades. 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.
Predominantly black schools offer fewer AP
classes. 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.
Affirmative action is discrimination by
another name. Affirmative action discriminates
against non-minorities in order to compensate non-
minorities. This is institutional discrimination.
Laws should be "race-blind" to counter
discrimination: Because Affirmative Action
descriminates against non-minorities, it is wrong
and should be replaced by "race blind" laws that
give no consideration at all to race, background,
religion, or any other factors other than merit.
Affirmative action does more harm than good
to minorities. 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.
Affirm action wrongly considers race over
econ/edu factors 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.
Affirm action mismatches bad students with
difficult classes. 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 value of degrees
earned by minorities: Affirmative action creates
an impression or a concern that black individuals
that earn a particular degree, do so with the help of
affirmative action, rather than by their own merits.
This diminishes the value that job-seekers and
society place on these degrees, relative to ones
earned by non-minorities who did not have the help
of Affirmative Action.
Meritocracy: Is it OK that Affirmative Action contradicts notions of meritocracy?
No
Yes
Affirmative action allows the best to rise by
countering systemic exclusionAffirmative
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.
Affirmative action makes race only a small
"plus" for candidates. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. "Affirmative Action". October 10th,
2007: "racial or ethnic background, at Harvard,
might be deemed a 'plus' in a particular applicant's
file, yet it does not insulate the individual from
comparison with all other candidates for the
available seats.This kind of program treats each
applicant as an individual in the admissions
process. The applicant who loses out on the last
available seat to another candidate receiving a
plus on the basis of ethnic background will not
have been foreclosed from all consideration for
that seat simply because he was not the right color
or had the wrong surname. It would mean only
that his combined qualificationsdid not outweigh
those of the other applicant. His qualifications
would have been weighed fairly and competitively,
and he would have had no basis to complain of
unequal treatment under the Fourteenth
Amendment."
Affirmative action contradicts the notion of
meritocracy. In a meritocracy, equal opportunity is
essential. Every individual must have the equal
opportunity to demonstrate their merit, and gain
reward on the basis of that merit. Yet, Affirmative
Action creates race as a factor in providing
individuals with rewards. Instead of earning a
reward such as a certain high paying job through
merit, Affirmative Action opens the potential that
race will be the determining factor for that reward
being assigned to an individual. It makes unequal
access to opportunities, violating both the notion of
equal opportunity and meritocracy.
Affirmative action promotes mediocrity by
undermining meritocracy.Affirmative action
undermines meritocracy by placing other
considerations above merit. This subsequently
promotes mediocrity by underming the incentive of
the best minds to work hard and achieve, as their
efforts may be for not under such a system.
Affirm action fills key jobs with less
productive individuals. Affirmative action results
in less qualified and effective candidates filling
positions, resulting in lower economic productivity
for companies and a nation.
Affirmative action damages ethos of more
qualified non-minorities.Affirmative action
damages the ethos and confidence of non-minority
individuals who work hard to try and achieve in the
world. It risks causing them to work with less
passion and vigor, as they might as "what's the
point, somebody else who is not working as hard
will probably get the job?"
[Justice: Does affirmative action justly compensate past wrongs?
Yes
Affirmative action justly compensates
groups for past wrongs. It is important for
injustices to be redressed. Slavery and
institutionalized racism have not been redressed
yet in America and around the world. 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 through affirmative
action.
Affirmative action only deprives whites of
unearned opportunities. Michel Rosenfeld.
"Affirmative Action and Justice: A Philosophical
Inquiry." New Haven, Connecticut. Yale University
Press. (1991): "affirmative action plan is precisely
tailored to redress the losses in prospects of
success [by blacks and women] attributable to
racism and sexism, it only deprives innocent white
males of the corresponding undeserved increases
in their prospects of success."
Affirm action justly asks whites to sacrifice
for common good: 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.
No
Affirmative action wrongly takes from one
group to give to another.Punishing one group in
order to compensate another is inherently wrong,
particularly when the wrongs are generations in the
past. This is what is happening in the case of
affirmative action. Whites are being deprived of
opportunities simply on the basis of the color of
their skin and how that relates to past injustices
done by their white ancestors to blacks (or other
minorities). This action of taking from one group to
give to another is wrong.
No group should benefit or be punished for
ancestral wrongs. Given that most people in the
current generations have never been harmed
individually or unequally by government (in the
sense of institutionalized racism, it is impossible to
compensate them for harms that never occurred to
them personally. Affirmative action wrongly
attempts to perform such compensation.
Diversity: Is diversity in all areas of society a valuable social good?

Yes

Greater ethnic representation at all social

levels is beneficial. Proportional diversity in all
levels of society is very important in establishing a
health society, as it entails greater interaction and
communication between these groups, and thus
greater understanding and reduced conflict. It also
enables the sharing of interesting cultural customs.
Understanding different perspectives reduces the
potential for misunderstanding, racism, and conflict
among groups.

Diversity improves group decision-

No
making Stephen Cranston. "The argument for
diversity." Financial Mail. December 4, 2009: "in
the US, experiments by Scott Page of the Minority schools disprove perceived value of
University of Michigan found that a diverse group diversity. In order for a diverse learning
was better at solving complex problems than environment to be seen as important or necessary,
experts. The reason is that people with similar minority schools (homogeneous) must be
qualifications or professional training often think demonstrated as a bad idea. Yet, they are a widely
alike. Adding people with different skills, considered a good idea, as the engender a
backgrounds and life experiences tended to comfortable and supportive learning environment.
improve the group's performance. And there is no
doubt that the monocultural management at Anglo
and Barlows was no longer appropriate in the Diverse schools receive poor ratings from
1990s and beyond." students "Diversity and Affirmative Action: The
State of Campus Opinion". Stanley Rothman, S. M.
Lipset, and Neil Nevitte. 2002: The article shows an
Affirmative action helps create diverse inverse relationship between the number of
learning environment. A diverse educational minorities on campus and the favorable ratings
environment produces major benefits for students students give of the quality of their education.
and society. Students on majority-white campuses were shown
to be more negative about the quality of their
education the more blacks the campuses enroll.
Diversity is supplimentary to goal of
This study does more than indict affirmative action
fairness. While diversity is a good goal, it should
if taken at face value; it provides a reason for
be understood as secondary to the more important
resegregation!"
goal of helping blacks and minorities gain footing in
an environment that continues to carry the legacy
of instutitional racism. Therefore, while the Cultural exchange does not require diversity
diversity argument adds to the case for affirmative in workplace. When most people use the word
action, it should be understood as only part of the diversity, they are usually misusing the term and
bigger case. actually are referring to the strength of the concept
of unity and of cultural exchange. But, this can be
achieved by other means than affirmative action.
Schools have right to improve diversity in
ways of their choosing "Affirmative Action."
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April 1, 2009: Affirmative Action uses a definition of
"Diversity is many thingsso many things, in fact, "diversity" that is too narrow.
that institutions will think it worthwhile to
concentrate on some diversity factors rather than
others. One college may emphasize admitting
foreign students; another may make its mission to
educate poor students; a third may specialize in
getting science students who have shown unusual
promise in high school. If colleges have a legally
protected interest in choosing a diverse student
body, why don't they have a legally protected
interest in deciding which part of the diversity
spectrum to single out for special attention? If they
can single out a part of the spectrum, why can't
they use a simple device like set-asides to effect
their purpose?"