The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Race-based and gender-based affirmative action should be banned in US universities.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 984 times Debate No: 79158
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Race-based, gender-based and sexual orientation-based affirmative action in universities is unconstitutional, as it shows that all men/women are not created, or judged, equally. It unfairly discriminates against many, mostly white and Asian males, and it doesn't have to be this way. Ironically, even though Asians are also a minority, they are hurt MOST by this affirmative action because they tend to have the highest university results, and for some reason people think it's a good idea to limit their number because that 'doesn't represent the population' as it's now almost politically incorrect to be homogenous. But the point is, if a university or faculty of one has a large number of a certain ethnic group/gender, it should not be IMPERATIVE to bring in people who are not of those ethnic groups/genders just for the sake of diversity if they are not good enough to get in on merit, at the expense of people who WOULD get in on merit. It is racist and it encourages being racist/sexist/discriminatory, both ways.

For all of those who say affirmative action is not racist/sexist, racism/sexism is discrimination both ways, so the only person who is completely anti-racist is the person who looks for complete equality. The unfortunate thing is, the majority of politicians today are racist, as Conservatives only think something's racist when it happens against whites, and Liberals only think something's racist when it happens against anyone else. Bottom line is, picking someone for their skin color/gender is unfair either way. There are different, less racist, and even more efficient ways of ensuring diversity in colleges that don't rely on skin color or gender, such as class affirmative action. Is being black alone a factor if your test scores are not good? No. It's just skin pigmentation. Is being a woman alone a factor if your test scores are not good? No. It's just different sexual organs. Is being from a low socioeconomic area a factor if your test scores are not good? It may well be, because the schooling system there might not be as good. And that's an actual factor that can influence test scores for universities, or even what degree you got for a job, and so on. It can even satisfy all of those people that crave diversity, as Blacks and Hispanics make up a disproportionately large number of poor people in America, but it doesn't exclude working-class whites and Asians, either.

Now you might ask- "Class-based affirmative action is hard to implement and easy to take advantage of". But there is no problem that class-based affirmative action has that race-based DOESN'T have. You can lie about your income, sure but you can also lie about your race or sexual orientation. Just look at Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King, both of whom made the public believe they had African American blood while they were actually white, which would have given them preferential treatment at most universities. In New Zealand, for example, there is the decile system, which gives each school a number from 1 to 10, 1 being the poorest and 10 the richest 10%. And as is sometimes seen, people from decile 1-3 schools get preferential acceptance at university. This system is not perfect, but at least it makes an attempt to address that the people in the poorer areas may not be getting a good enough education to get through on merit, but could still have potential. That simply does not work with people of varying skin colors and genders. If progressives always like to claim that skin color and gender don't matter anymore and that stereotypes don't exist, then they shouldn't give the impression here that only certain ethnic groups/genders can bring certain things to the table.

It's simply a fact that race-based and all the other affirmative actions outlived their real purpose after the Civil Rights era- to ensure equal opportunities. Back then, blacks couldn't get any jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK, women couldn't get certain jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE WOMEN and gays couldn't get certain jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY. That has largely changed today, with many employers actually BEING blacks or women, and most others simply caring about who does the best job or has the best entry grades. Minorities can now apply to virtually any university or job because it's their constitutional right to do so, as has been settled already in numerous court cases. The opportunities are endless for all people, now, and people shouldn't give minimal effort to get into a good school because they know they will be accepted based on what they were born with. Which, come to think of it, is discrimination at its worst kind, isn't it? Discriminating by what people are born with.

I'm not saying that blacks, Hispanics, women, gays ect. should be denied any entry at all, because like I said before this goes both ways. I'm just calling for a complete ignoring of race (and gender/sexual orientation) on university applications and that only class or other factors, such as certain disabilities, that can ACTUALLY INFLUENCE TEST SCORES should be taken into account. If class IS taken into account, it can still ensure a diverse student body without being unnecessarily racist. Because at the end of the day, does it matter how many people with dark skin, ovaries or partners of the same sex are studying in a certain class, or their ability and their will to do what they are doing?


if race was taken into account over test scores i might agree. but the way the supreme court has allowed affirmative action is where there is two test scores and other quantitative aspects of equal value, and only then can skin etc be taken into account. i dont see a problem with this. there is systemic racism such as blacks growing up in ghettos, and there's still general occasional racism in general. in short, white privilege does in fact exist.

"Back then, blacks couldn't get any jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK, women couldn't get certain jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE WOMEN and gays couldn't get certain jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY. That has largely changed today, "

sure it's not as bad as it was. but there are still some problems. and there's reparations for past wrongs, and there's current white privlege that must be overcome.
Debate Round No. 1


That doesn't happen in all cases. Often there are students with lesser test scores selected based on their race. Just look at Abigail Fisher as an example. Another example is that blacks and Hispanics actually get EXTRA POINTS on their SATs, while Asians get MINUS points. So no, skin color/gender is not taken into account only when the applicants are equal.
Sure, blacks are often poor, and you just don't seem to grasp the point that class affirmative action will help poor people, most of whom are minorities, WITHOUT discriminating against working-class whites and Asians. So basically what you are saying is that only blacks are poor because of racism, which is not true. And regarding 'white privilege', so whites do tend to be richer and more well-off, but it is unfair to penalize people who were simply born white and can't change that, just like it is unfair to penalize people who are black or Hispanic or women solely because of that.
"Reparation for past wrongs"? Like I said, it's unfair and hypocritical to punish the descendants of people who had greater privilege in the past. Anyone can apply to any university nowadays and can get in on merit if they are good enough and have equal access to education, and if they don't, class-based affirmative action can help regardless. But let me ask you something- what is a greater issue- that there are millions of Americans who are just scraping to live by who need to be assisted, or is the only issue that many of those happen to be black and Hispanic? And does it matter that whites tend to be more well-off ect. when there are virtually no barriers to people of color becoming that way? Why does it matter that whites tend to be more well-off at all? Is that just wrong? If so, that is racism, and it's just as bad as saying blacks shouldn't be able to hold high-paid jobs. It's interesting that you claim on your account to be against racial profiling.
Interestingly I found this: that Kennedy signed the bill for affirmative action in 1965 so that people would "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
Which is definitely not what goes on now, so that's further proof that it's not how it's meant to be at the moment.


if anything other than what i described is occurring it is unconstitutional. we're in agreement on the other types of affirmative action being bad. and im in agreement that class AAction can be a good thing. opponent hasn't really contested the system as i described it, he just said it doesn't exist that way. so that means he's probably in agreement that that isn't bad, if it's as i described? in that case we'd be in total agreement.
Debate Round No. 2


Who, may I ask, are you even talking to?
Anyway, apparently I didn't disagree with racial-based affirmative action, of which you have described being a supporter ? Get outta here. You can refer to literally any paragraph in this debate.
But anyway to make it even clearer, I am not in agreement to what you are suggesting. For one, the way you claimed affirmative action works is not always true, as I mentioned in my second argument. For another thing, as I have also said before, the system is unfair as it punishes the descendants of people who had greater privilege in the past. You can't just say that it's a reparation for past wrongs and make it sound fair. It's the same as 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. Equal treatment is simply the only way that society can actually move forward and lessen the race gap as a whole.
And regarding that system which you claim exists, even if it is being implemented all the time (which it isn't) it's hardly any more just. It just happens on a lesser scale, but the judging by skin color is still there. And let me ask you something- if your 'system' worked the same way, but favored whites, would you think it is unfair?
I can't even write anything else because you've ignored many of the points that I've written. Overall pretty disappointing to tell the truth.


i meant you haven't contested the system where the schools etc can only take race into account when all else is equal.

if you dont disagree with this then i dont see where we disagree.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ahjfcshfghb 2 years ago
@robertacollier You know what, if they take any offense to being treated equally, who gives a damn.
Posted by robertacollier 2 years ago
It looks like someone is upsetting the coloreds and feminists.
No votes have been placed for this debate.