Affirmtive Action-美国“权利法案”的英文辩论稿

Con: When there exists discrimination, then there comes Affirmative Action. As we all can see, although racial segregation 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 cases is actually discrimination against the majority. It is not only against the constitution because 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 obviously h urts 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 prej udice rather than a new type of discrimination. Those 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 classes. That is eventually frustrating them, not helping them.

Con: But we have offered them opportunity. Fair opportunities. Once these opportunities are offered, it will depend on themselves to achieve their success. The example you mentioned might be caused 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. According 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 set 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 itself to discriminate some specific races.

P ro: Diversity? I don’t think specifically promoting some races’ rights would improve diversity. The implementation is often solely based 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