According to Paul Kivel in his essay “Affirmative Action Works”, affirmative action is essential to creating an equal environment for “people of color” (such as African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics). He starts out arguing that people against affirmative action are ignoring some of its qualities (such as economics and children) and only focusing on the affects it has on people of color. After five paragraphs on the above topic, he brings up the subject of racism and how it is still at large in society today. He also comments on segregated areas and a federal law passed to publicize job opportunities. This leads to his discussion on preferential treatment given to colored people by affirmative action and how it is needed to balance out preferential treatment given to white men by society.
In contrast, Ward Connerly says (in his essay “One Nation, Indivisible”) that affirmative action leaves minorities helpless to defend for themselves. According to him, affirmative action “diminish[es] the value of the individual in ways too numerous to mention.” He also says that it caused a “lack of confidence in young blacks.” He attributes this to “individuals identify[ing] with their group” more than as individuals and “preferences based on race and ethnicity diminish[ing] the value of the individual.” Throughout his essay he quotes the Declaration of Independence and, in particular, the famous quote “all men are created equal”.
In Kivel’s second paragraph he starts attacking the opposing stance, stating that they are “not challenging traditional forms of preference and discrimination that favor the rich, the educated, white people and men.” This is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy as he is attacking the motives of the people against affirmative action instead of the position itself. Furthermore, the title and main premise of this article is that “Affirmative Action Works”, yet in the third paragraph he states that it has “led to a huge over-representation of white people, men and people of middle, upper middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities, in well-paid jobs, and in the professions.” This is a special pleading fallacy as he is excusing policies made for colored people from the negative affects seen with “white man” policies. So, in fact, he is doing what he earlier accused the opposition of doing.
In his sixth paragraph Kivel states a report where a white person and a black person were recorded by ABC through one day of his life. After this incident he concluded that, generally, blacks are given fewer opportunities than whites. However, this is an example of a composition fallacy as he is attributing how one man is treated in one day to the treatment of all men of a certain ethnicity all the time. However, the fact that his article (as well as Ward’s) is out of date hinders how well I can perceive his point of view.
Later on he discusses how racism prevents “people of color” from getting good jobs, but then says that it’s merely “unfortunate” that white males now loose jobs because of racial preferences. This in itself is racist as all people should be considered equal, not based on the color of their skin.
In contrast to Kivel, Ward Connerly kept his essay short. He also used the words of important people and documents from the past to support his philosophical approach to affirmative action. In my opinion he had a calmer tone to his essay than Kivel did, leading to a focused and well-organized essay. Each point lead smoothly to the next with only a couple of spots that may offend people. The headings he used also helped to break up the monotony and made the main point of each clear.
That is not to say that he never made a mistake. At one point he called the opposition “…politically correct big corporations, politicians, the media, and race advocates, who hid behind the moral fig leaves of “diversity” and “inclusion,”…”, which, although mild in comparison to Kivel’s assumptions, still is a stereotype to be avoided. It assumes that all big corporations, politicians, so on are as shallow as he says. Granted, some may be, but not all. Ward continues to use “politically correct” through the rest of the section, but doesn’t focus on it for long. Near the end of the essay he says, “Does it ever occur to them…” which leads into a more condescending tone for the rest of the paragraph. He does have a point, however. Many people with a set viewpoint rarely take the time to consider the views of others, especially those that are against them.
Before reading both essays I didn’t have a strong opinion one way or another. I had a slight leaning towards Ward’s point of view, but I did not let it cloud my logical reasoning. After looking through both essays from a logical standpoint, I have begun to see how affirmative action as a whole is an egregious use of the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy. Society, for the most part, commits a wrong by giving whites preferential treatment. Affirmative action commits the same wrong by giving everyone else preferential treatment and assuming that this wrong will counteract the other. However, both wrongs combined make an even larger wrong on society as a whole.
I admit that I didn’t get all the way through Kivel’s essay. Half-way through it I was already burnt out on his circular reasoning that defended a position that supposedly didn’t need defending. He was also striking out against his opposition in a more personal manner than necessary and constantly contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Because of this, I was more inclined towards Ward’s standpoint, although still much more neutral on the subject than either writer.
