Con: When there exists discrimination, then there comes Affirmative Action. As we all can e, although racial gregation has been banned lawfully, discrimination still exists everywhere. For example, jobs and opportunities of receiving education were distributed unfairly. The colored people and woman who suffer from low levels of early education were always having trouble to find jobs or go to universities. It’s not equal at all. As minorities, they can hardly beat the majority, so it’s necessary to protect their rights lawfully.
Pro: The thoughts might be good, but the action has gone too far. It is out of the question to fight against discrimination with the help of discrimination, only to change the target from minority groups to the majority group. Giving advantages to the minority when it comes to job finding or other cas is actually discrimination against the majority. It is not only against the constitution becau of its actual inequality, but also hurting the better educated but less racial advantaged groups.
Con: This is not a reason to blame the affirmative action. In fact, equality should not be always pursuing when you are formulating policies. For example, taxing more to the rich ob
viously hurts the principle of equality, but it’s fair. Fairness is better to be pursued within policy formulation. Affirmative action is such a kind of inequal but fair policy. Also, it’s not actually discrimination, it’s inclusion. It’s an effort to overcome prejudice rather than a new type of discrimination. Tho who benefit from the action would say it.
Pro: But how did the action proceeds? Through quota? The creed of the action is undoubtedly good, but the ways to do the action are rigid and unreasonable. The quota is a fixed number, but the real situation might be so complicated that a number can never be fitful every time. Results have shown that about half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their class. That is eventually frustrating them, not helping them.
Con: But we have offered them opportunity. Fair opportunities. Once the opportunities are offered, it will depend on themlves to achieve their success. The example you mentioned might be caud by a lot of reasons, it is unfair to just blame the affirmative action. I can give a better example that women are actually benefiting from the action. Ac
cording to a 1995 study, there are at least six million women who simply wouldn't have the jobs they have today without the action.
Pro: But how about Asians? The situation that Asian Americans are still suffering from low university admissive rates shows that the affirmative action doesn’t let people of all races enjoy that so-called fair opportunities. Asians are actually suffering from it. They are still facing prejudice.
Con: It is not the fault of the affirmative action, but the long-standing stereotype that Asians are congenital advantageous in academics. They always have better ranks in exams, therefore, some conventional white Americans may t implicit quotas to restrict them. That’s what the affirmative action are fighting against too. The affirmative action is trying to make sure that diversity in workplaces or universities is guaranteed, and it to some extent has achieved the goal. There is no reason for the action itlf to discriminate some specific races.
Pro: Diversity? I don’t think specifically promoting some races’ rights would improve diver
sity. The implementation is often solely bad on superficial factors rather than really-in-need sorts of diversity such as aspect diversity and viewpoint diversity. The truth is that taking only superficial conditions in consideration can never really achieve fairness that the action want to achieve. The inner class inequality might destroy the beautiful dreams. It turns out that people benefit from the action tend to be middle- and upper-class African Americans and Hispanics. But lower-class white Americans as well as Asian Americans are suffering from it. In a word, the whole action is just like a compensation action rather than an action aiming at fairness and equality.
Con: You have totally mistaken it! The affirmative action is aiming at distributing opportunity fairly among all of the racial groups. Property, family fame and other factors should not be considered in this situation. Let the welfare policy do the job. The affirmative action is made to protect the lawful rights of the minorities. I admit that there shall be more relevant policies to prevent the situations that you have mentioned, but the action itlf is necessary to make them receive fair opportunities.
Pro: But as I have mentioned, in regarding to the rever discrimination that it has caud, such kinds of imperfections are harming universal human rights. And, since it may beneficial to the minorities at a short period, it is harmful in a long term. Affirmative action carries with it a stigma that can create feelings of lf-doubt and entitlement in minorities, which will never contribute to racial equality.
