Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
6
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5941
“Affirmative Action” DEI Programs In Colleges & Corporations Are Stupid & Very Unprogressive
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1545
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Here are just some terms that need to be clarified before the debate:
“Affirmative action” programs are the programs in which colleges and companies admit or hire people for their race, sex, or sexual orientation, and the identity of the candidate is placed in higher priority than qualifications.
“Critical Race Theory,” or CRT is the philosophy that white people are inherently advantaged and that American society is rooted in systemic racism (white privilege). A common CRT theory is that white people should pay African-Americans reparations for slavery and segregation.
“DEI” stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. DEI is the core philosophy that encompasses affirmative action, critical race theory, and other supposedly “progressive” and “inclusive” policies associated with the modern Democratic Party.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Four years ago, DEI took the country by storm. It's centered on creating opportunities for "disadvantaged" groups of people, including racial minorities, women, and LGBTQ+. It sounds good. And DEI is definitely derived from good intentions. But intentions mean nothing. What actually matters is: does DEI actually enable equality for all? No. Definitely not.
Affirmative Action
One of, if not, the biggest tenet of DEI is affirmative action. This practice is typically used in companies, colleges, and K-12 public schools. In companies and colleges, DEI programs usually hire or admit racial minority candidates over white candidates that might even have better qualifications than the minority candidates. It completely undermines the good American system of merit. Just pick the candidate with better qualifications! It doesn't need to be about race! I mean, does anyone actually benefit from affirmative action? Let's see, the company or college gets employees or students who might not be as skilled or as dedicated as other candidates. The candidates who got their job or college admission just for their race learn the wrong message, which is that if you just play the victim (even if you have a very easy life), you'll always get whatever you want. And the other candidates who were denied the job or college of their dreams just for their race miss out on the higher education or dream job that they've worked towards their entire lives, a miss-out which can very negatively affect them financially or mentally for the rest of their lives. There was actually a landmark Supreme Court case in 1978, Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California, in which the Supreme Court ruled that rigid racial quotas were unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights in universities. Of course, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to completely outlaw the consideration of race in college admissions, but it set an important precedent: it is a clear violation of civil rights when you intentionally deny someone a job or college admission just for their race. Because guess what, Sherlock? You can be racist to white people, too. There are also some programs in school districts in which minority students who bully other kids won't be punished as harshly as white kids. I don't think I even need to say anything further than that, because it's pretty clearly a disgusting practice.
Ultra-Sensitivity & Playing The Victim
Those who support DEI get offended very easily by literally everything that comes their way. If some bad event happens to anyone other than a straight white man, that bad event is somehow the result of discrimination. A man fair and square beat a woman in the presidential election? That's sexism. Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants who have criminal records? That's racism. It's pure stupidity! It's called the merit system, Einstein: maybe the things that happen to you are because of what you did. Maybe it's not about race, or sex, or discrimination. I know, crazy thought there. There's also the generalization factor. For example, Black Lives Matter and Defund The Police. That whole movement assumed that since there was one bad police officer who killed a black guy, therefore all police officers are everywhere are terrible, evil, racist people who therefore deserve to lose part of their salary and police departments deserve to lose funding. Oh, that's a great idea. Let's just stop funding the thin line that holds society from falling into complete chaos just because you're offended by something.
In Closing
In closing, is DEI really helpful towards ending racism? No, it's just reverse racism. It runs on the idea that whites who might be great, accepting, and inclusive people are inherently evil, racist, and responsible for what other white people did to minorities a long time ago. So if modern white people are responsible for what white slave-owners did over a century ago, are African-Americans responsible for the enslavement practices that African tribes used against each other? Are Chinese people responsible for what Mao Zedong did? Are modern Hispanics the reason that Fidel Castro oppressed his political enemies? If we ran on this idea, everyone would be responsible for everything, and every good person on Earth would always be paying for what someone with the same skin tone as them did 200 years ago. For a supposedly "progressive" program, DEI seems very unable to make progress. It is the program that fails to move forward, and instead spends every waking hour denying opportunities to good, hard-working, deserving people just for the color of their skin. Seems like a violation of basic civil rights to me.
Granted, my definition of DEI may be different from your definition of DEI. It seems that that's how it usually goes. So if you have a different idea of DEI, then by all means, explain it to me. And then we can continue the debate.
Con
#2
First, I’d like to thank Sunshineboy217 for starting this debate.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
While “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” or “DEI” has become a bit of a buzzword over the past 5 years, it has existed for decades. Despite what many would say, DEI is not about placating the “hurt feelings” of “overly sensitive” people. It is about ensuring that underrepresented demographics have the resources to succeed in life, health, work, education, etc.
Dictionary.com defines DEI as “a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.”
DEI isn’t about superficial virtue signaling. It can offer real strategies, resources, and tools that can have a positive impact on the day to day experiences, livelihoods, and health of many people:
- For those with disabilities, DEI programs offer assurance that they are working and/or learning in accessible environments and using accessible technology. This might look like ensuring that services like closed-captioning, sign-language interpreters, or virtual translators apps are available when needed. This would also look like providing resource materials to educators or employers that offer understanding on how help better people with disabilities in the workplace or classroom. [1]
- For black Americans, DEI programs can offer education to healthcare professionals on which health issues black people are disproportionately affected by compared to the rest of the population. For example, black women are 17% to 50% more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Black women on average have significantly denser breast tissue than white women do on average. This makes detection of breast cancer much more difficult, as first-line screening methods like mammograms often don’t reliably detect breast cancer in high-density breasts. This knowledge allows medical professionals not only to offer more effective treatment plans for their patients, but it allows them to educate their patients so they can better advocate for themselves and know what to watch out for in their own health. [2]
As mentioned in the Dictionary.com definition above, DEI includes marginalized groups but is not exclusively centered around them. Other demographics can also benefit. For example:
- DEI programs often provide specifically tailored resources for Veterans like mental health services, academic support, career transition assistance, etc. that recognizes the specific challenges that they face. [3]
Affirmative Action
In the 1960s, we see the introduction of affirmative action. Many misconceptions surround affirmative action, namely that it offers “unfair” preference to “under-qualified” candidates who belong to certain marginalized demographics. This is not true, but before I get into what implementation of affirmative action actually looks like, I want to explore one core aspect of why it exists to begin with:
Uneven Playing Field
It is difficult to discuss the “fairness” of affirmative action without addressing the lack of “fairness” that exists in the experiences of different demographics. Certain groups face obstacles when it comes to obtaining work or an education in the United States that other groups don’t experience at the same rates. Here are some obstacles black Americans face with both finding work and education:
- A 2004 study found that “black sounding” names were less likely to receive a call back for a job interview than “white sounding” names despite similar qualifications [4]. More recently, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Chicago expanded on that premise, filing 83,000 fake job applications for 11,000 entry-level positions at a variety of Fortune 500 companies. They found that the presumed white applicants were around 9% more likely to receive a call-back from a potential employer than the black candidates were. That number rose to around 24% for the worst offenders [5].
- In academics, researchers reported that teachers who were asked to rate students’ academic abilities scored black children far below their white peers with identical scores. [6]
- Teachers are more likely to label black students as troublemakers than they are white students with the same number of infractions. [7]
Affirmative action is meant to act as a weight to retain balance against these inequities that exist in society.
How Affirmative Action is Implemented
Contrary to what Pro argues (and many believe) affirmative action is not meant to give preference to lesser qualified candidates. The process typically breaks down like this: you have two candidates with similar qualifications, what might be the tie breaker? Universities look at many factors outside of grades and test scores when weighing the value of a potential student: extra-curricular activities, volunteering, sports, if they have family who are alumni, location, etc. And yes, factors such as race and sex can play a tie-breaking role as well. Additionally, affirmative action can simply be about being proactive in finding qualified candidates in under-represented or marginalized demographics, and requesting they apply.
But, as mentioned at the beginning of this post, it’s not just groups who are considered marginalized who have benefited. As the rates of men pursuing higher-education have declined over the years [8], certain universities have admitted to actively recruiting men to help maintain “gender balance” among their populations. [9]
Benefits of Diversity
Beyond trying to lessen the negative impact of the obstacles that exist for certain demographics, the goals of affirmative action and DEI efforts also center around creating more diversity in different environments. The benefits of diversity among employees in a workplace or among students at a university is the ability to gain wider understanding of different perspectives, experiences, and ideas that may be missed if that diversity were not present.
Some examples:
- Research conducted by the Harvard Business Review found that teams and companies that are diverse in terms of composition are 70% more likely to capture a new market than firms that are not diverse. [10]
- This study published in the Academy of Management Journal shows that racial diversity in both upper and lower management has positive impacts on productivity and output. [11]
- Research has shown that there is a strong relationship between diversity in culturally diverse teams and overall team creativity. The more diverse your teams in terms of characteristics, backgrounds, skills and experiences, the more increased the likelihood of generating a wider range of new and fresh ideas.[12]
Additional Rebuttals
Pro attempts to downplay the prevalence of racism by stating that the Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police movements were based on "one bad cop who killed a black guy." This is false. Both movements were motivated by numerous killings of black people between the years 2014-2020 [13]. These movements weren't just about the killings, but the overall inequities black people face within the legal system. For example, black offenders get longer sentences than white offenders with similar history and crimes [14], black defendants are 25% less likely than white defendants to have their principal initial charge dropped or reduced to a lesser crime, and white defendants with no prior convictions receive charge reductions more often than black defendants with no prior convictions [15].
Sources:
[1]https://www.higheredtoday.org/2020/10/19/higher-educations-challenge-disability-inclusion-campus/
[9] https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/the-truth-about-the-gender-gap-on-college-campuses/
Round 2
Con
#4
Sunshineboy217 has forfeited this round, but I look forward to reading their arguments in round 3.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I can fully understand everything that you said. I think you beat me. Well done. However, I do have two things:
1. Regardless of whether white privilege exists in a system, the solution to racism is not to give minorities a better guarantee at a college application or a job than a white student with the same qualifications. The system should be based entirely on merit, because if we do that, racism is probably less likely to happen. Think about it: favoring minority candidates over white candidates with the same or better qualifications is, in itself, racism. You can be racist to white people.
2. I understand that Black Lives Matter and Defund The Police were because of multiple racist incidents. However, I still do not see how multiple violently racist cops who were punished and are in jail (which is what they deserve, hate crime is never okay) could justify defunding the entire police department. In most cases, it is the police who keep people safe from hate crimes. The solution to mitigating racism is not putting innocent heroes out of their jobs and defunding the force that is built to stop hate crimes. There are plenty of good cops. Most cops are good.
Con
#6
1. Regardless of whether white privilege exists in a system, the solution to racism is not to give minorities a better guarantee at a college application or a job than a white student with the same qualifications. The system should be based entirely on merit, because if we do that, racism is probably less likely to happen. Think about it: favoring minority candidates over white candidates with the same or better qualifications is, in itself, racism. You can be racist to white people.
Merit
To address your point on merit, I’ll refer back to a point I made in Round 1: “Universities look at many factors outside of grades and test scores when weighing the value of a potential student: extra-curricular activities, volunteering, sports, if they have family who are alumni, location, etc.”
Academic performance is not always going to be enough in the final determination of an applicant’s acceptance. For certain universities (typically Ivy League), they do not have enough room to accept every applicant who academically qualifies (via test/exam scores and project/essay grades). The school has to broaden the scope of how an application is judged, they have to look at additional criteria beyond academic performance, and these “tie-breakers” (mentioned in Round 1) are introduced.
Academic performance is not always going to be enough in the final determination of an applicant’s acceptance. For certain universities (typically Ivy League), they do not have enough room to accept every applicant who academically qualifies (via test/exam scores and project/essay grades). The school has to broaden the scope of how an application is judged, they have to look at additional criteria beyond academic performance, and these “tie-breakers” (mentioned in Round 1) are introduced.
Fairness
The question of “fairness” can be asked at every point during a review of an application:
When we speak about academic merit, the playing field for the opportunity to excel academically is not even. A student who receives a private education (which often comes down to whether or not the parents can afford it) typically gets a higher standard of education and is more likely to be accepted into college/university (especially high-ranking and Ivy League schools) than a student who received a public education[1]. Ultimately, the students with the better academic performance should be prioritized, but why they have the better academic performance is not always fair.
To provide some broader context, I would argue that it is less fair than affirmative action that a typical application to an Ivy League schools has a 1% chance of acceptance, but if that application is from a recruited athlete that chance of acceptance jumps up to 98% so long as that student meets the bare minimum requirements for academic performance. This means that recruited athletes have the highest chance of acceptance into Harvard than any other group[2]. Yet we don't see the same outrage over this that we see over affirmative action.
Racism
Racism is rooted in prejudice, or a belief that one race is superior to another race. The act of sometimes favoring a black candidate over a white candidate is not rooted in prejudice or a belief that black people are “superior” to white people, it’s meant to combat the racism that already exists within the educational system. In addition to the examples of this racism I mentioned and sourced in Round 1, studies have also found a link between black students being suspended at disproportionately higher rates than white students (for the same behavior), and black students performing more poorly on standardized tests than white students[3].
If we accept the reality that there are multiple obstacles that black students often face that white students don’t typically face (to be clear: this is not to suggest that white students face no obstacles, but that that there are typically less obstacles for white students), then there should be little concern in-regard to certain schools attempting to recruit academically qualified black students, or sometimes favoring a black candidate over a white candidate with the same qualifications. We can't claim that affirmative action has oppressed the opportunities of white students because white students still make up the largest race demographic of students at the schools that utilized affirmative action[4]. Furthermore, black students are still more likely than white students to report experiencing discrimination in higher-education, and the likelihood for reports of discrimination against black students coincides with the level of diversity within the student body (less diversity = more reported instances of discrimination)[5].
2. I understand that Black Lives Matter and Defund The Police were because of multiple racist incidents. However, I still do not see how multiple violently racist cops who were punished and are in jail (which is what they deserve, hate crime is never okay) could justify defunding the entire police department. In most cases, it is the police who keep people safe from hate crimes. The solution to mitigating racism is not putting innocent heroes out of their jobs and defunding the force that is built to stop hate crimes. There are plenty of good cops. Most cops are good.
BLM
Many of the incidents that inspired the Black Lives Matter movement did not immediately result in proper investigation or punishment of the police officers involved, often that would not come until after footage went viral and protesting began. So, the problem wasn’t just that the brutality or deaths occurred to begin with, but that the police departments involved didn’t do their due diligence to hold appropriate parties accountable.
For example: In the case of Eric Garner’s death, Garner was killed by a police officer named Daniel Pantaleo. Prior to Garner’s death, Pantaleo has was the subject of two civil rights lawsuits where the plaintiffs had accused him of falsely arresting them and abusing them (in one of the cases Pantaleo and two other officers allegedly ordered two black men to strip naked on the street for a search and the charges against the men were dismissed)[6].
For example: In the case of Eric Garner’s death, Garner was killed by a police officer named Daniel Pantaleo. Prior to Garner’s death, Pantaleo has was the subject of two civil rights lawsuits where the plaintiffs had accused him of falsely arresting them and abusing them (in one of the cases Pantaleo and two other officers allegedly ordered two black men to strip naked on the street for a search and the charges against the men were dismissed)[6].
Another example: The protests and outrage following Michael Brown’s death lead to a DOJ investigation of the Ferguson Police Department and found that “officers in Ferguson routinely violated the constitutional rights of the city's residents, by discriminating against African Americans and applying racial stereotypes, in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law.”[7]
"Defund The Police"
Regarding the purpose of “Defund The Police”, it is not to defund “entire police departments” or to fire police officers en masse, but to reallocate some of the funds that go to the police departments, and direct them to other social services like youth programs, housing, education, healthcare, and other community resources that can be used to help combat crime and offer public safety and help[8]. Many in favor of "defund the police"as well as members of the police force have argued that police are being asked to do too much, specifically tasks that should be left to other specialized organizations, groups, or departments (from handling a mental health crisis, to playing animal control and chasing loose dogs)[9]. Reallocating a portion of the billions of dollars that go to the police force to other social services would actually help police departments, not hurt them.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/articles/private-school-vs-public-school
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/02/15/athletic-recruiting-offers-greater-odds-of-ivy-league-admissions-than-legacy-status/
[3] https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Are-Achievement-Gaps-Related-to-Discipline-Gaps-Evidence-from-National-Data
[4] https://blog.collegevine.com/the-demographics-of-the-ivy-league
[5] https://www.higheredtoday.org/2023/02/16/new-report-highlights-black-students-experiences-and-challenges-in-completing-a-college-degree-or-certificate/
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner#Daniel_Pantaleo
[7] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
[8] https://www.closeup.org/what-do-defund-the-police-and-police-abolition-mean-and-what-do-they-not-mean/
Round 4
Pro
#7
The school has to broaden the scope of how an application is judged, they have to look at additional criteria beyond academic performance, and these “tie-breakers” (mentioned in Round 1) are introduced.
It is unclear as to what sort of "tie-breaker" you are referring to here. Considering the context, I will assume that you meant the word "tie-breaker" as a candidate's racial qualities; whether the candidate is a minority, or "disadvantaged," can be considered a tie-breaker. If that is not what you are saying, please correct me. But if that is what you're saying, it makes no sense. There are countless other "tie-breaker" qualities that could be considered when examining candidates for a job or college. Example: community service, club participation, youth leadership positions (Eagle Scout is a big one), etc. Race does not need to be the first option when considering candidates. In fact, it should never be an option, even as a fallback last-resort. If you want to help disadvantaged students, look at that specific individual's housing, their income, where they live, etc. You know, actually indicators of disadvantage. Race can be a very inaccurate gauge as to whether or not someone is disadvantaged. You could be a dirt-poor white kid with a terrible home life, or a well-off black kid with a stable, loving family.
To provide some broader context, I would argue that it is less fair than affirmative action that a typical application to an Ivy League schools has a 1% chance of acceptance, but if that application is from a recruited athlete that chance of acceptance jumps up to 98% so long as that student meets the bare minimum requirements for academic performance. This means that recruited athletes have the highest chance of acceptance into Harvard than any other group[2]. Yet we don't see the same outrage over this that we see over affirmative action.
I do agree that the athletics scholarship program is not fair in that respect. Typically, colleges just look at how much revenue the student athlete could generate for the school, instead of examining their actual academic qualifications. But that's not an argument against affirmative action, it's an argument against the athletics scholarship program. Just because one thing is less fair than another unfair thing doesn't mean that we should only do away with the less fair option. Example: Hitler sent many more people to die than Stalin did. Does that mean that we should only focus on how terrible Hitler was and just ignore the villainy of Stalin? Absolutely not. Just in the same way that we shouldn't ignore the issues with affirmative action programs just because the athletics scholarship program is "more unfair" (definitely debatable).
Racism is rooted in prejudice, or a belief that one race is superior to another race. The act of sometimes favoring a black candidate over a white candidate is not rooted in prejudice or a belief that black people are “superior” to white people...
I never indicated any belief that favoring a black candidate over a white candidate is rooted in prejudice or a belief of racial superiority. You don't need to openly believe in a superior race to do something racist. Those who favor black candidates over whites due to affirmative action are clearly not intentionally committing an offensive act. They are attempting to right the wrongs that they see in the world. Righting injustice is a noble cause. But affirmative action is not a noble solution.
In addition to the examples of this racism I mentioned and sourced in Round 1, studies have also found a link between black students being suspended at disproportionately higher rates than white students (for the same behavior), and black students performing more poorly on standardized tests than white students[3].
I am not going to question your source. I am certain that the report you are detailing was carried out and put together by perfectly able, intelligent professors. And it is an unfortunate thing: some educators out there are still racist, and are more biased against students who do not look like them. It is also unfortunate that black students perform more poorly on standardized tests than white students. It is our duty, as Americans, to right these wrongs. But using race as a determining factor in college and job applications is not a solution. This is the same thing that whites used to do before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal: hiring a job or college applicant for the color of their skin. It is actually against the law. Racism is a double-edged sword: racism can happen to anyone. And the way I see it, "affirmative action is intended to reimburse minorities for the damages done to them by whites" is essentially another way of saying "two wrongs make a right."
...then there should be little concern in-regard to certain schools attempting to recruit academically qualified black students, or sometimes favoring a black candidate over a white candidate with the same qualifications.
You're right. There should be little concern in regard to certain schools attempting to recruit academically qualified black students or sometimes favoring a black candidate over a white candidate with the same qualifications. Do you know why I agree with you? Because I never said that colleges or companies shouldn't do that. I said that they should not shun white candidates with better qualifications in favor of minority candidates with worse qualifications. You can go back through this argument, I never said that when there is a tie in qualifications, whites should always win. In fact, I've said quite the opposite: colleges and companies should use the merit system, and race should never be a factor in considering someone for a job or college. You are debating with an opinion that I never even expressed.
For example: In the case of Eric Garner’s death, Garner was killed by a police officer named Daniel Pantaleo. Prior to Garner’s death, Pantaleo has was the subject of two civil rights lawsuits where the plaintiffs had accused him of falsely arresting them and abusing them (in one of the cases Pantaleo and two other officers allegedly ordered two black men to strip naked on the street for a search and the charges against the men were dismissed)[6].
That is disgusting and wrong. No man who would ever do that should ever be given a police badge. I get it: some cops have done terrible things. They weren't punished properly until there was a considerable amount of public outrage. But that doesn't justify Black Lives Matter (not that I disagree with the statement "black lives matter," I disagree with the tactics used by the organization Black Lives Matter) protesters burning down buildings, trashing private property, and committing actual crimes to people who did nothing wrong. Once again: two wrongs don't make a right.
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Thanks!
I like the argumentation so far. I like that you cite a lot of items too!
No problem, looking forward to reading your arguments.
I apologize for missing my last argument, I will continue to participate.
Good point. Thanks for the advice. I’ll try harder next time to put better definitions.
I think I was pretty clear, but a couple pieces were a little implicit, so…
1. I’m one of the most active voters.
2. I consider the definitions in the description to be a type of Scarecrow Argument (but there are other fallacies it could soundly be called), rather than valid definitions from any authority.
3. Because the description is so ingenuine, I will not dogmatically obey it in my vote.
You will still likely win. However, if your argument consists of pointing to the fallacies you put into the description instead of offering sound reasoning, your case will be crippled by it.
Looking forward to the debate. The definitions are a tad biased, and I don't entirely accept their accuracy, but I will cover that within the debate.
What?
As a voter, I will not be obeying the Scarecrow Arguments (aka strawman) in the description.