Affirmative action is showing a preference for selecting and/or promoting members of a

demographic that has a history of discrimination. Legally, such a preference may be acted
upon only when candidates are comparable in quality. This leads to three key issues that
are debated:
1. Is it proper to show a preference on the basis of a demographic?
2. If it is proper to show a preference on the basis of a demographic, to what extent
can/should said preference overshadow differences in candidate quality?
3. Can affirmative action contribute effectively to eliminating demographically-
based discrimination?
Another point that is sometimes debated is what constitutes a history of discrimination.
For example, although both Jews and Asians (both ethnic/racial minorities) have
historically experienced significant discrimination in the United States, they are generally
excluded from affirmative action efforts. It should be noted that affirmative action also
holds for several other types of minorities, including homosexuals and transgendered
people.
Arguments For And Against Affirmative Action
Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action
The primary argument in support of affirmative action is its potential to increase diversity
in companies and reduce the extent to which certain demographics face discrimination.
One way in which this result comes about is by showing proof-of-concept. If minorities
are given the opportunity to enter or rise in a field at a greater frequency due to affirmative
action, this can increase the number of people who believe that the field and its upper
echelons are open to them. In turn, the field will benefit from a more diverse applicant
pool and a more diverse set of leaders.
A second argument in favor of affirmative action is that it can overcome biases that are
entrenched within a company. For example, if the leadership of a company is all of the
same demographic, it is unlikely that they will select someone of a different demographic
to join their ranks. But, through affirmative action, minorities could gain more of an
opportunity to rise into a leadership position, foregoing management's apparent 'hire-like-
me' biases.
A third argument for affirmative action is that certain groups of people are at an
untenable disadvantage and have neither the means nor the opportunities to enter and rise
in certain fields. Because of this, there is a systematic barrier that blocks out an entire
demographic of people, and only through affirmative action will minorities have a chance
at getting into the field.
Arguments Against Affirmative Action
The primary argument against affirmative action is that it involves making decisions based
on demographics when the role does not have a demographic inherent to it. For example,
many universities are showing preferences for hiring women because, statistically, there
are very few women who are rising to the top levels of academia. Opponents argue that
gender has nothing to do with how well someone can perform the role of a
professor/dean/provost, and thus the preference is introducingan artificial demographic
bias (which, to some, implies sexism).
A second argument against affirmative action is that it reduces the value of achievement.
Rather than earning one's way into a position, people are entering into positions on the
basis of a demographic preference. This could present a problem with respect in the
workplace. Moreover, there would be an assumption of lesser competence for the minority
candidate, which in turn produces stereotype threatand creates inordinate pressure upon
the candidate to show that (s)he can fulfill the requirements of the position successfully. In
addition, some contend that when people sense that they aren't likely to get a position
because of affirmative action, they reduce and/or eliminate their efforts to be highly
productive and successful because they feel that they cannot get a position regardless of
their capabilities and qualifications. Some argue that this gives members of the majority a
taste of the minority experience, which is payment in kind for past wrongs. Others
contend in return that the members of the majority demographic in this day and age have
not promoted or perpetuated the injustices of the past, and thus they should not be
punished for something they had nothing to do with.
A third argument on this matter pertains to the people who lack the skills and competence
of other candidates, but still get a position through affirmative action (regardless of the
much-debated frequency with which this occurs, it does happen). In such cases, candidates
end up failing in the position, which further reinforces both the contention that affirmative
action is ineffective and also, potentially, bias against minorities. Likewise, it's argued that
the very existence of affirmative action implies that minorities cannot enter or rise in
certain fields in any other way, which ends upreinforcing the bias against the very
minorities that affirmative action is meant to help. As such, it becomes a vicious cycle that
makes affirmative action impossible to end naturally once it's started.

Social justice and affirmative action
Affirmative action is generally thought of as public policy that helps the state attain social
justice. It achieves this end through quotas or by giving priority or some benefits to people
that are members of a minority or a discriminated group.