The Instigator
FunkeeMonk91
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
sethgecko13
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

Affirmative Action (Specifically, Standardized Testing)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,720 times Debate No: 2759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

FunkeeMonk91

Con

Note: this debate is only about standardized testing; not any other type of affirmative action

These days, the principles of affirmative action have infiltrated the education system. The SAT gives out all kinds of bonuses and even deductions based solely on what race you are. This is not justified.

If you are black, you get a 200 point boost. If you are Asian, you get a 50 point deduction. Does this seem fair?

If you have one white kid and one black kid, both with the same grades and credentials, and both get the same (pre-adjusted) score, the black kid has a better chance of getting in to the college of his/her choosing, even though the white kids worked just as hard his whole life. This isn't only unfair, but, it's actually racist.

What is more racist than saying, "Hey, you can't do this on your own, because you're black. You need this point boost." Or even, "Hey, you are too smart to take this exam. Minus 50 points!" This is basically what College Board is doing. Changing test scores based only on race is unfair, racist, and plain stupid.

I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds. Good luck!
sethgecko13

Pro

There's a fundamental problem with the framing of your debate; you claim that the debate is only to be about standardized testing – but you go into several other types of affirmative action (like college admissions processes). In order to properly respond to your argument, one would have to go into those other areas that you've delved into – so hopefully you won't hold it against me when I do.

I would first ask that you provide evidence that the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) gives points-based bonuses (or detractions) to people based on their racial affiliation, because I can find absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Such a claim strikes me as patently false for two reasons.

First, identifying one's race on the SATs is optional so it is impossible to determine the race of the people taking the test (the question is also posed on the honor system, so if a white applicant wanted to apply for these alleged bonuses on the SATs, all they need do is fill in their race as African American).

Second, points-based affirmative action programs are unconstitutional per Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) so this system you're alleging of plus points for black applicants and minus points for Asian applicants would be unconstitutional.

What I think you may be referring to is admissions processes and criteria at universities (which use SAT scores among many other variables to determine access into popular programs that have restrictions on how many applicants they will admit). If this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify.

As to the general argument against affirmative action that you're making – you fundamentally misunderstand how affirmative action works. The premise of Affirmative Action is that, all things being equal, public institutions should attempt to foster a diverse environment. That's it. There are no quotas, no points systems and minorities are not automatically given preference over whites. If an institution already has a diverse environment that reflects the general demographic characteristics of society, it is under no obligation to give anyone preference based on race or sex. Universities also weight a variety of other categories as well that no one seems to have an objection to, such as geographic region (Michigan universities, for example, give preference to residents of Michigan).

Affirmative Action applies to ALL races and sexes; not just minorities and women. If whites or males are underrepresented in various academic programs (as they are in Early Childhood Education and Nursing) – affirmative action applies to them in those cases so they may be given slightly more consideration into those programs.

I disagree fundamentally with your claim that Affirmative Action is racist. I would contend, conversely, that it is anti-racist. What is racist (a fact borne out by the myriad statistical quality of life indicators that attest to the lingering racial biases that exist in our society) is not using a program like Affirmative Action to take the implicit racial biases that exist in our society into account because it perpetuates those existing racial biases.
Debate Round No. 1
FunkeeMonk91

Con

While I did mention the college application process, I was not using that as a separate topic. I was using that as justification for my standardized testing argument (in this case, and probably most of the debate), namely about the SAT. I was saying that the SAT is a huge part of the college admission process. Therefore, to have a bias SAT influence results of admission, creates an unfair system based solely on race.

Although I cannot speak for all standardized tests, the SAT does, in fact, award point raises to certain ethnic groups. I read this on in a College Board article, but I can't seem to find it. Once I find it, I will post the link in a later round, so, voters, do not penalize me for that just yet.

Your rebuttal about optional compliance with the race questionnaire is true, but irrelevant. Just because someone could, theoretically, select a race different to their own and gain any point boosts, doesn't make it any more justified.

Your point about Gratz v. Bollinger only helps me. It is unconstitutional, that is my contention. However, if you are arguing that because it was found unconstitutional, College Board wouldn't do that, then that still doesn't work. That ruling only applied to university admissions. Michigan's scale system was not based on testing, but rather, it was based on an overall ranking given to a n applicant based on their resume.

No, that is not what I'm referring to. I'm specifically talking about SAT adjustment based on ethnicity. It is both unconstitutional, and by definition, racist. However, as we get into Affirmative Action in this debate (which isn't the topic, but could lend itself to the argument at hand) I do want to clarify that I'm not necessarily referring to whatever laws related to Affirmative Action, but rather the reasoning or the philosophy behind it.

But universities do foster diversity. Just because one university is prominently white, doesn't mean that it is breeding segregation amongst minorities. Anyone is able to apply and go to any school. Isn't that enough? I'm sure that the principles of affirmative would not be implemented in a previously-all black college. Why isn't diversity fostered like it is in other places?

Again, off topic, but I'd like to see a source of your claim of white affirmative action in early education programs. Because, I'm pretty sure they don't give preference to whites for preschool.

Affirmative Action is racist, by definition: "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment." The whole principle of it is based on making up for racism in the past. That sounds nice, but it isn't reasonable for two reasons.

1) This country was founded on the notion that you didn't have to be held back by what your family did; you could advance your situation and start fresh. Sure, the things that happened to minorities over the last 400 years is awful, and we need to remember what happened. But why are people today being castigated because of things that they have no control over?

2) Affirmative action only builds barriers between groups. It gives people the impression that minorities need to be helped, and that they are not capable of doing it on their own. Sometimes, I think that many minorities themselves feel that way to a degree. In an equal country, everyone needs to be equal. White, black, Native American, Asian, or Latino, all people deserve a truly equal chances, specifically college.

P.S. They don't even have a Middle eastern bubble on the SAT. Talk about "promoting diversity."
sethgecko13

Pro

1) The SAT does not have a "huge" influence on the college admissions process.

SAT scores actually count for very little in the overall matrix used during the college admissions process. The University of Michigan is a great example (not just because it's a prestigious university, but because it was ground zero for the affirmative action debate and was the impetus for the two major AA supreme court rulings). The application process for universities exists to ensure that the population admitted (due to scarce space) will be successful in college. Universities have found that standardized test scores (and GPAs) are poor predictors of college success (because they can be studied for and they don't measure skills that lead to success in a college setting – and GPAs vary from school to school because the varying level of academic rigor at high schools).

At U of M, your GPA and SAT score only count a small bit in the overall decision to admit you. It's FAR more important to have a track record of things like "personal achievement" and "leadership and service" (even a factor like having lived in Michigan counts; out-of-state students are given less consideration - even the county you live in counts - they prioritize 'underrepresented counties' along with everything else). These quoted phrases come from U of M directly. I should also say that I work in higher education, so I have more than a passing familiarity with all of this.

The comparatively little value of the SAT has actually prompted some universities (like the University of California) to threaten to drop it altogether (which is why the College Board recently overhauled it).

2) I still maintain that points are not allocated based on ethnic minority status for the SATs. Better hurry up and find that article.

3) My point about the voluntary nature of the "race" question on the SAT is perfectly relevant because it illustrates how pointless weighting the scores based on race is. If one can cheat the results – there's no way they can assign extra points ESPECIALLY if that would count toward the college admissions process. Universities aren't stupid; there's no way they would stand for points being arbitrarily assigned on something completely unverifiable like an optional demographics question on a standardized test.

4) If it's unconstitutional for U of M to use a points-based system of affirmative action – it's ALSO unconstitutional for the College Board which is a taxpayer-supported not-for-profit entity just like the University. BOTH would be violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment because if a points-based system is unconstitutional in one area – the precedent is established that it would be unconstitutional anywhere else (including hiring). I'm very familiar with the U of M admissions procedure that was deemed unconstitutional – I would also point out that minority status only accounted for 20 of 150 points.

5) Affirmative Action doesn't apply only to the admissions processes at universities – it also applies to outreach and support activities – virtually all universities that have AA admissions policies also have these other policies. Yes, people can apply to attend college; but the problem is – your race and gender determine your chances of going to college or succeeding once you've been accepted. I would even argue that these outreach programs are more important because they help give people who otherwise wouldn't even think of trying to go to college a chance to see that it is a possibility.

6) Affirmative action is a voluntary practice adopted by educational institutions and is one way of responding to racial/sexual inequity. Historically Black Colleges are another way of responding to the pervasive racism in our society. Yes, the students at HBCs might benefit from a more diverse learning environment – but given that they WORK and LIVE in a diverse environment – it's not as though they have a shortage of opportunities to interact with people of other races/backgrounds.

7) When I say that there are affirmative action programs that apply (for example) to white males for fields like Early Childhood Education – I mean the programs encourage men to go into Early Childhood Education AS A DEGREE PROGRAM IN COLLEGE – not that they encourage whites to go to preschool.

As for evidence:

http://www.sjvhc.org...
http://www.careersandcolleges.com...
http://www.aacn.nche.edu...
http://www.minoritynurse.com...
http://www.journal.naeyc.org...
http://www.menteach.org...
http://www.nea.org...

8) AA is anti-racist. The status quo without AA has discrimination already built in, so your assertion that AA is discriminatory is meaningless because the net result of your opposition to AA is advocating for the continuance of discrimination that naturally exists. AA is a measure that fixes the discrimination that already exists in society with the goal of eliminating discrimination altogether. Right now one's race or sex determines how much access they will have to various career fields (as well as a lot of other characteristics about their life, like their likelihood to end up in prison or their household income). AA is fixing that (and has been since the 1960s when it was first implemented). Slowly but surely, the inequalities are being remedied.

What's racist is doing nothing to address past discrimination.

9) This country was founded by slave-owning white males who believed that if you were black, female, or you didn't own land – you shouldn't get to count in the governmental process. What the country was "founded on" in that respect is irrelevant today because we believe in markedly different things than the framers of the Constitution did. It's utter lunacy that you try to claim that the founding fathers were the patron saints of egalitarianism given the rampant inequities that they wrote into the Constitution (which had to be written out by later generations).

Your claim that you're somehow being put at a disadvantage because Affirmative Action exists is baseless – especially when it comes to higher ed. If minorities were being given spots at colleges that belonged to whites – the percentage of the college-educated US population would remain the same. It has not. It has steadily increased from around 12% in 1960 to over 27% today. AA is making room for more people; not excluding people.

10) You can claim that affirmative action builds barriers between groups, but you have no evidence for that claim. Michigan, which eliminated AA two years ago with Proposal 2 is the most racially-segregated state in the nation according to a Harvard University study (and is showing no signs of desegregating).

PS – I think "Middle Eastern" isn't on the SAT "race" question because "Middle Eastern" isn't a race; it's an ethnicity. Middle Easterners count as "Asians." Then again the whole notion of defining race is problematic and is a great example of the persistence of racism: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FunkeeMonk91

Con

1) Maybe the SAT isn't a huge factor at Michigan, but many schools find it to be very important in admissions. However, I do agree with the fact that the new trend is to make extra curriculars the priority. But that does not mean that the SAT isn't a big part of the admissions process.

2) I got it! This article outlines a study done and talks about SAT adjustment. Some of the statistics I gave were a little off, but still, the point boots they give are significant. Also, it says the boosts are given at "Elite Universities," so they aren't given at every college. But nonetheless, it is still unfair.

http://opr.princeton.edu...

3) My source above negates your third point, since even though it is optional, they do it anyway.

4) Once I reread the article, I realized that the points are not given from College Board, so that was my mistake. They are given from the university. And yes, it is unconstitutional. That is why I am against it. Maybe its not happening at Michigan, but it's still going on.

5) I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. But I will say this: it's unfair to allow something like race or gender become the kind of thing that you would put in your resume with your other credentials. In the application process into any institution, your admission should be solely based on the content of your character, and nothing else. Do you not agree with the scenario I proposed earlier (two students, one white, one black, same credentials, but the black guy gets excepted because of the color of his skin)? Yes, the African American population is not as affluent as some of the other demographic groups. But that does not give anyone the right to deny someone a chance at a great school, just because of that persons ethnicity.

6) AA only promotes social inequity. It sends out a message that minorities can't do this on their own and that they need federal help. This isn't a good message. In a truly equal society, there wouldn't be a debate about Affirmative Action because people will be looked at as students and employees; not as white students and black employees. Everyone will be so unconcerned about which race gets what and what is fair and unfair because people won't be thinking in terms of groups of races. They will be thinking in terms of people as people regardless of color.

Does that make sense? It's been a long day, so I hope I was clear.

7) Well, there's on problem with this point. The only reason why men are being so sought after in nursing and education is that there is such a shortage in women. Since the number of women interested in those fields is dropping, they are trying to expand their interest demographic, so that more people will go into those fields.

Also, those sources never said anything about men being given preference over women. All they talked about was getting more men involved, because there are so few people in those programs (both men and women). Those articles were merely explaining how the nursing and education programs are increasing their (for lack of a better word) fan base.

8. I never said that without AA there would be no racism. I basically have the same conjecture as you, but mine is that a sans AA society would, slowly but surely, (nearly) remove discrimination from the country. As I stated above, AA gives the impression that minorities are inferior and can only get in schools/jobs if they are helped by the government. Also, it can be argued that AA even creates more resentment because of the white guy that is turned down for the job, even though he was just as qualified or more than the other guy/girl of another ethnicity.

I know it's a movie, but a great example is the movie Crash, where Matt Dillon's character's father went out of business because of policies that resulted from affirmative action. As a result, Dillon's character carried that prejudice with him his whole life.

I'm not saying we should do nothing about past discrimination. But it is unjust and unfair to do it at the expense of people whom had nothing to do with it.

9). Yes, the founding fathers were hypocritical, but that doesn't make what a lot of what they said wrong. The idea that all men and women should have a chance at success started with them. It is irrelevant whether they followed that or not. For example, I could say never to play hop scotch on the free way, but do it anyway. That wouldn't make the first statement false.

So, you don't believe that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights, just because those things were written so long ago? The time of a document's birth has no relevance when discussing the truth behind it.

I'm not being disadvantaged. In fact, I gain a lot from Affirmative Action, because I am Latino. But that doesn't justify AA at all. But your claim that AA has increased college attendance is completely false. I think a more reasonably explanation would be the rise in education standards all over the country. I mean, that's almost a 50 year span. I mean, 1960 was only 6 years after Brown vs. Board of Education which over turned the "separate but equal" clause. 1960 is hardly a decent reference point, since things have changed so drastically.

10) Your claim that Michigan is the most racist state is no more valid than mine about barriers. You can't measure racism with statistics, so neither of our points can be proved empirically. However, I proved circumstantially that AA does build barriers. Cases like the police officer in Crash are everywhere. AA is building barriers for sure.

PS. Middle Eastern is not a race, but they have other ethnicities on that test as well. I have not taken a College Board test in a while, but I have seen ethnicities like Chicano/Mexican, Non-Mexican Latino, Pacific Islander (could be argued as race), and I think I even saw Carribean once. Of course, I have no way to prove that, but I know that they don't only have options for race on that test.

The reason I mentioned that is becuase my good Persian friend hates how there isn't an option for him. He can't put Asian, because of the point reduction, so he has to put other, which is basically the same as putting white.
sethgecko13

Pro

1) The SATs aren't a big factor at most universities; http://www.sourcebookscollege.com...

2) The Princeton study was interesting. With respect to their findings; that eliminating AA would result in markedly less diversity on campus doesn't mean that the system is unfair because part of AA is the outreach. The bottom line is that in order to get in the door, minority students still have to meet the criteria. No one who is unqualified is given an unfair leg up.

3/4) Points are not currently being assigned at any universities for minority status during the admissions process in the United States. The reference to the points-based system dates from 1980-1997; well before the Supreme Court decision that rendered such points-based systems unconstitutional. Further, the points were never assigned at the level of the SAT test, as I maintained.

5) One of the most important components of AA is to have programs in place to seek out minorities and women and solicit or recruit them into college. There are a many people who would never think of college because there are major perceptual barriers that people have about attending that need to be overcome.

I have no problem if two people are equal and the one of minority status is given preference. In the US, if someone of minority status attained equal credentials on the way to attending college as someone who is white – that means that they invariably had to work harder to get there given the latent biases people carry around with them and unconsciously apply to people of minority status. Some academics at Harvard have an excellent site that addresses this reality: https://implicit.harvard.edu...

6) The proof is in the pudding – since AA was implemented in the 1960s – our society has become MORE equal, not less. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the idea that AA sends out a message that is demeaning to minorities (and that minorities are then affected in terms of their achievement goals as a result of that).

You're right; in a truly equal society people would be judged by the content of their character and not their physical appearance. Problem is – we don't live in a truly equal society yet. AA will get us there. The good thing is that we've made a lot of progress, and interestingly – it appears that we've hit upon the first "post-racial" generation in US history (that is to say, the "Millennials" think about race in a profoundly different way even from Gen Xers – the irony is that this is making addressing racial inequities more difficult because Millennials don't view themselves as having racial biases, but they still do; they're just subtler and more difficult to pinpoint and eliminate)

7) The shortage of nurses is just one reason that there are recruitment efforts targeting men. The other reason is that there is a practical benefit to having people of different backgrounds working in a field; it helps guard against groupthink that stifles innovation and critical thinking. It also improves the quality of care by helping more patients more easily relate to their service provider.

It is for that reason that there are programs that try to recruit minority individuals into the police forces of most major cities. In addition to improving relations with the public by presenting a face that more accurately depicts the population at large, it breaks down groupthink and helps the rest of the force develop its cultural competence to understand the intricacies of the diverse population that exists in the US.

Those links didn't talk about giving men preference over women because they don't need it. The challenge is getting them to think about the field; once you've got them thinking about it – they transcend the barriers. That is to say, if you're white and male, you don't face the same perceptual barriers that minorities and women do.

8) It's possible that a society without AA would slowly equalize. Given this country's sordid and tortuously-slow progress when it comes to improving the station in life of minorities – we deserve no benefit of the doubt. If it were left to the south to voluntarily eliminate slavery – it's very likely we'd still have slavery today because the pressures to keep that institution are so strong (like the perceptual pressures today).

Crash is a good movie; I use it in the classes I teach. There are a couple of problems with the example of Dillon's character though: 1) he fundamentally misunderstands how AA works (less qualified people aren't given preference), and 2) he would be an angry bigot no matter what. Further – Dillon's character's anger only comes out in response to his father's poor treatment by the HMO (both when he molests Thandie Newton's character, and when he blows up at Shaniqua in the office after being denied out-of-network coverage).

The more significant example of racism in Crash, however, is Ryan Phillipe's character – who shoots Larenz Tate's character after he reaches into his pocket for his St. Christopher statue. It's the perfect embodiment of the most prevalent kind of racism in society today; the latent kind I've been referring to. Phillipe's character considers himself not to be a bigot – but when he has to make a snap-judgment, his biases come out (the implication of the movie – one I agree with whole-heartedly / and one that is borne out by Implicit Association research - is that he wouldn't have been as trigger-happy had the hitchhiker he picked up been white).

As I mentioned; the numbers of people in college have more than doubled since AA was implemented; I don't see that it has come at a cost to anyone else.

9) The founding fathers weren't hypocrites per se; they just believed in a different notion of equality and justice than we do today. In a factual sense – this country was not founded on true equality. Our understanding of true equality has evolved over time. I'm not disagreeing with the notion; I'm disagreeing with the historical presentation you were offering.

I don't believe that people were "created," but I do believe in inalienable rights (regardless of how old the concept is; in point of fact it predates the Declaration of Independence and even the Magna Carta).

I'm not being disadvantaged by AA either – and I'm white. As a result of AA, I've gained a great deal of new insights and perspectives through my higher education experience that I never otherwise would have had access to. This has helped me better understand cultural differences which allows me to better perform my job (which involves a great deal of cross-cultural communication).

I'm not claiming that AA has increased college attendance (although that's possible). I'm claiming that it AA hasn't hurt white college attendance – a fact borne out by the statistics (that is to say, increasingly higher percentages of whites attend college).

10) I didn't say Michigan is the most racist state – I said it's the most segregated state. There's a big difference. Actually one could measure racism with statistics; though it would be difficult to control for the impulse of people to lie on such a survey and give the answer that they believe to be the most socially acceptable (the questions would have to be very cleverly designed).

If you're claiming that AA is building barriers – it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate this with some sort of evidence other than a representation in a fictionalized movie portrayal.

You can tell your Persian friend not to worry about filling in "Asian" on his entrance applications: it would be unconstitutional for the university to deduct points from his application for that (and if they did – he'd have one whopper of a civil suit on his hands).
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mightymisfit 7 years ago
mightymisfit
ik...my grandpop got a free ride to MIT because of his native american herritage...but i am too white for anything
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
Try actually reading the Princeton study you posted:

"Using data from the National Study of College Experience on 124,374 applications for admission during the 1980s and the fall semesters of 1993 and 1997, they found that elite universities give extra weight in admissions to candidates whose SAT scores are above 1500, who are African American, and who are student athletes." (p. 293)

The Princeton article reinforces the following:

1) The College Board (which administers the SATs) DOES NOT give points to minorities. UNIVERSITIES add the points on to the SAT scores DURING THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS - NOT the College Board.

2) The research in the 2004 study came from 1993 and 1997, and as I said - points-based affirmative action admissions programs were ruled unconstitutional FIVE YEARS AGO and have been out of practice since that time.

3) As you'll note - extra points aren't meted out SOLELY based on RACE; they're also given out for 1) scores above 1500, and 2) student athletes.

Furthermore - the study argues that your claims about whites being denied access are vastly overblown:

"White plaintiffs in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) argued that they were unfairly denied admission while some less qualified minority students were accepted. Our results show that removing consideration of race would have a minimal effect on white applicants to elite universities. The number of accepted white students would increase by 2.4 percent, and the white acceptance rate would rise by just 0.5 percentage points—from 23.8 to 24.3 percent. Many rejected white applicants may feel they would have been accepted had it not been for affirmative action, but such perceptions probably exaggerate the reality. It would be difficult to tell from the share of white students on campus whether or not the admission office was engaged in affirmative action." (p. 298)
Posted by FunkeeMonk91 9 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
It actually isn't. I proved it with that Princeton study...
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
How can I possibly be losing the vote in this debate? My opponent's entire premise ("The SAT gives out all kinds of bonuses and even deductions based solely on what race you are. This is not justified") is false.
Posted by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
This seems like an interesting debate, but I don't feel like reading through all of it right now. I will come back at a later time to read and vote.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
I will try and look it up tonight , if not I will get to it tomorrow. I've been busy and I have to go watch Lost soon.
Posted by FunkeeMonk91 9 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
ericipomeroy,

To answer your question, I know that Hillary loves programs like these, but that is one of the few things that we disagree with. Although I lean liberal, I have some conservative tendencies, so there will never be a candidate that is in accord with me 100%.

As a tangent, I would like to point out that you should never believe in something because of the political party you belong to. When faced with a moral dilemma, you must use prudence and judge every situation individually. That is why I'm so against the bi-partisan system we have now. People get caught up in with the parties instead of what is right.

I enjoyed our last debate, and would love to do it again. Don't hesitate to send me a challenge.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
kels1123 -

Can you provide some more information about the incident you describe? I'd like to research it further.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
I agree with you 100%. It isn't right , it is the same with some of the civil servant exams. A group of minorities scored low on the test and sued saying they did poorly due to race and they won and their names were moved ahead of my husband who scored a 99%. and many others who scored high. They say they did poorly due to color and I find this to be ridiculous. I agree with you on the SAT thing as well.
Posted by ericjpomeroy 9 years ago
ericjpomeroy
My question is why are you voting for Clinton when she is strongly in favor of programs like these? I totally agree with you though, Affirmative Action is racism and not equality.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by MrHardRock 7 years ago
MrHardRock
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by lolarennt424 8 years ago
lolarennt424
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Aewl1963 9 years ago
Aewl1963
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by FunkeeMonk91 9 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DJBruce 9 years ago
DJBruce
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
FunkeeMonk91sethgecko13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03