NationStates Jolt Archive

Affirmative Action
Pro
Oksana
The Cat-Tribe
Deleuze

Con
Kanabia
Neo-Anarchists
Jordaxia

Rules: The Pro side will start the debate off with reasons why they think affirmative action is a good policy, and why it should stick around. After the Pro side has been given a good amount of time to state their opinions (or until all Pro-side participants have replied), the Con side will then reply. I will be judging this debate, and keeping track of each sides' response. This is supposed to be something fun, so don't take it too seriously. Please also have an open mind.

Disclaimer: The success of this debate depends on all of you in being active, and posting as often as you can. Anyone else who is not named in this post should not make any comments in this thread.

Perhaps we could set a date for this debate? I think it will make it more organized. :)

A date might be useful, but the debate should be ongoing.

Anyway, I'd like to start with a few statements -- largely related to what is "affirmative action."

1. The umbrella term "affirmative action" refers to a broad array of gender, race, national origin, ethnicity or color-conscious programs (what I will call "gender- and race-conscious"). It includes outreach programs, targeted at specific groups, to notify them of education, employment and contracting opportunities. And it includes programs that favor -- among similar candidates, all of whom are otherwise qualified--members of historically subordinated and still underrepresented groups.

2. People can, in good faith, worry about the times affirmative action operates in the wrong way. In the name of affirmative action, for example, some employers have used illegal quotas and have hired unqualified people. They have done it; they were wrong to do it; and I will not defend them or their programs. But every serious study concludes these abuses of affirmative action are exceptions -- indeed, exceptions more prevalent in the very early years of affirmative action than in today's world.

3. People may well have other concerns or objections to affirmative action. But at least they should accurately describe the affirmative action programs I am defending (and they should insist others do the same). Here again is what those programs do: In an effort to make available opportunities for those groups still not much represented because of historical and contemporary discrimination, in an effort to draw upon diverse skills and sensibilities, affirmative action takes gender and race into account in deciding which otherwise qualified candidates deserve a chance at education, employment, or government work.

4. But let me be more explicit. Affirmative action programs should not impose -- and the programs I defend do not impose -- criteria that substitute a search for gender and race in place of a search for qualified candidates. Merit doesn't just matter as a part of affirmative action programs. Merit is and should be at the heart of every defensible outreach, educational, employment and contracting program. Because merit matters, it is wrong if an unqualified person gets a job, a scholarship, or a government contract over a qualified person. It is wrong if an unqualified white man gets a job over a qualified woman or minority. And it's every bit as wrong if an unqualified American Indian, Latino, African American, Asian Pacific American or woman gets a job, a scholarship, or a government contract over a qualified white man.

5. It is not presumptively wrong, however, to award a qualified woman, Asian Pacific American, African American, American Indian, or Latino a job, a scholarship, or a government contract over other qualified candidates (perhaps white men, perhaps other women or people of color), even those with, say, more experience, or better standardized test scores. Merit rarely means -- and rarely should mean – automatically concluding that the person with the highest test score or the most years experience is demonstrably the best candidate. No single test or predictor reveals everything (or often very much about what) we might want or need to know about a candidate, and even the best tests and predictors are imperfect. Institutions regularly find themselves, in applying even the most trustworthy predictors, making carefully considered but necessarily tentative distinctions between qualified candidates. Done well, that is not violating merit or thwarting merit. That is taking merit seriously -- fully aware of its promise and limits.

6. Affirmative action traces its moral roots to several related goals: (1) fighting discrimination, (2) compensating for past injuries, (3) striving for a fair distribution of opportunities and responsibilities, (4) seeking social well-being, and (5) promoting diversity.

7. We should keep the grounds we are debating clear. If you wish to disagree with my definition of affirmative action, that is fine. But you wish to insist affirmative action as it exists is something different, you should be clear exactly to what you are referring and be prepared to defend your definition. I believe my statements are consistent with affirmative action law and general practices. If you wish to provide an alternate theoretical definition, you should be clear what your definition is and why it is relevant.

Also, there are distinctions between public and private affirmative action programs, programs that are court-ordered as a remedy for discrimination, etc. Affirmative action arises in a number of situations, but is most often discussed in terms of education or employment. If you are going to make an argument based on a specific context, you need to be clear. Specificity is your friend.

Finally, as many of you may be unfortunately aware, I can go off on the law. If you wish this to be a debate about the legality or constitutionality of affirmative action, I can do so, but I will try not to go there unless you do.

The debate can start whenever the Pro side can put up their opinions, which they seem to have already done. :)

We're still developing a few of our arguments...they'll be up soon.

Before we start, quick idea. Do you think it would be a good idea to create a commentary thread partway through the debate for people to discuss what they think of the debate, who's "winning," who's articulate, and who has no idea what they're talking about?

Anyone else who is not named in this post should not make any comments in this thread.I'm almost positive this is borderline on the rules. If private, two-person conversations aren't allowed, why would closed debates be? I can understand the desire to have an higher level of discourse, but such silly restrictions are arrogant. If you want to restrict discource in this manner, you ought to conduct your debate over email, and not in a public forum.

Anyone else who is not named in this post should not make any comments in this thread.
We Moderators will allow this thread to remain open. HOWEVER, be aware that closed debates have the potential for abuse as one side can be arranged to deliberately "lose" the debate. Thus, Moderators will not honor requests to remove on-topic posts by people not named by you as participants.

We will deal with flaming, trolling, off-topic posts, et cetera as usual.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I understand the moderators' concerns, so in order to allay your fears - there's a list of the participants' viewpoints already in existance, so it would be difficult to fix a debate without it being found out.

First post coming later tonight!

Maybe we should have the debate through telegram.

We Moderators will allow this thread to remain open. HOWEVER, be aware that closed debates have the potential for abuse as one side can be arranged to deliberately "lose" the debate. Thus, Moderators will not honor requests to remove on-topic posts by people not named by you as participants.

We will deal with flaming, trolling, off-topic posts, et cetera as usual.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Thanks Cogitation!
The only problem we'll have is that people will probably come in and post their opinions, and I won't request that they be deleted. I'll just have the main participants ignore it.

bump