The Instigator
DoctorZhiva90
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
WestDebater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Racially-Based Affirmative Action in College Admissions Should be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
DoctorZhiva90
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,350 times Debate No: 18240
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

DoctorZhiva90

Pro

This is a third and (hopefully successful) re-post of the previous argument that was spammed. The user has been blocked (all his accounts, and I've set it so that only higher-ranked people can answer), so I'm looking forward to a legitimate debate on a subject I feel strongly about. As a white male college-bound student, the idea of affirmative action in the admissions process has struck me as unfair for quite a while, even before I got to this age. To set something straight though, I'm not at all a racist, and I invite anyone of any race to challenge. I'll just reserve this as an acceptance round, and also the 4th round can only be a rebuttal; no new evidence can be brought up. Anyone who wishes to be my first ever *legitimate* challenger?
WestDebater

Con

Your points are not valid!
Debate Round No. 1
DoctorZhiva90

Pro

I gratefully thank my opponent for accepting the challenge, after a long period of frustration with trying to engage with an intelligent opponent. To give ample background, I have not actually applied to any colleges yet, so I am doing this to go on a soapbox about how I got rejected from my dream school and an under-qualified minority applicant probably ended up in my spot (which I know has an extremely ow chance of actually happening). My qualms are with AA existing period. I believe that with a rise in applicants at many prestigious schools, AA proves to be a hindrance towards allowing the most qualified applicants in. It is a form of "reverse racism", in that it ends up hurting the minorities it claims to help the most. These points will be substantiated in my ensuing arguments, but beforehand I feel it is necessary to state that AA is defined as "positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded". I have no problems with this concept, as it is a noble goal. However, AA has ultimately devolved into a discriminatory practice filled with unwarranted preferential treatment. When I refer to AA, I mean everything that the government and universities have done to try and artificially increase this representation - be it preferences, quotas, etc. I look forward to a good debate, and with no further ado my opening arguments:

1. Affirmative action ends up putting minority applicants into places they aren't qualified for. This problem accentuates when talking about law/med school. Take the work of Richard Sander, a UCLA professor who gathered data about studens who entered law school in 1995. [1] Without affirmative action, 14 percent less black applicants would be admitted. However, if it were abolished, the percentage of successful black students would rise. Consider the following:
-Blacks were six times as likely to fail the bar exam, but the pass rate would have likely been 22% higher without those "preferential" applicants
-Starting with the law school Class of 1995, 48% of blacks graduated and passed their bar exam on the first try, compared to a 78% rate for white applicants. Without the AA-admitted black applicants, that rate would likely have been around 74% - almost exactly equal to the white pass rate.
As can be seen, AA ends up hurting the applicants it claims to help. If they aren't academically qualifed to get in to a particular law school, they shouldn't be getting in no matter what race they are.
2. Affirmative action entails that a black applicant from a wealthy family still gets a racial preference over a white applicant from a poor one. Why should children of Michael Jordan, Barack Obama, etc. get a racial preference on the supposed grounds of "trying to equalize the admissions process" while the white male living in the projects doesn't get that same benefit?
3. Affirmative action is essentially just creating a collective sense of white guilt, and is discriminatory against whites and Asians. Yet apparently racism isn't racism when directed at white people, because it's "justification" for the injustices that black people suffered a long time ago. Beyond the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, none of the college-bound seniors of today had any involvement in the enslavement of blacks or the discrimination in the 50's and 60's. Not to mention that Asians had no role in that said injustice, but they also feel the effect of AA when they are deemed an "over-represented minority". So if today's college bound applicants of the over-represented minorities had no role, why should they face a disadvantage in the admissions process. And it's undeniable that race does provide that significant disadvantage. Look at UVA's college board profile, under the Admissions tab. [2] Among the "very important" factors: the usual grades, rigor of classes, recommendations...and racial/ethnic status. Why someone being black or Hispanic, an intangible factor, should eve be in the same category of weight as a high GPA which someone worked hard for is beyond me. And yes, I'll admit that this is a bit atypical of situation, but a great deal of universities still consider it to some extent.
4. The 14th amendment does not protect AA like many courts like to stipulate, if anything it should prohibit it. Most recently, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a constitutional amendment in Michigan banning AA violates the 14th amendment. [3] If anything, having AA around is the true transgressor of the equal protection clause, since whites and Asians do not have the benefit of their race as a preferential factor in college admissions. But once again, it seem that racism towards white people isn't actually racism, because the actions of less than 5% of the entire Southern population 200 years ago justify it. That aside, AA clearly disadvantages white and Asian students in the application process. If a college which has a "deficiency" of Hispanics has one spot left, and it's between and Asian and Hispanic applicant who have identical applications (let's assume a hypothetical situation), you can bet any money they'll take the Hispanic applicant solely because of his race. Now how is that not discrimination?
5. It's not like it would be impossible for URMs to go to college if AA didn't exist. There are 105 historically black colleges, which have a considerably large black majority in terms of students. [4] That doesn't mean that blacks will be limited to those schools. Like I said before, I firmly believe that (putting economics aside, that's beyond the scope of this debate) a racially-blind application process will result in the fairest system for all applicants at any school. Merit alone will serve as the determining factor. Plus, there will be no detraction from the feeling of acceptance for these minorities. Unfortunately, AA leads to racial profiling of accepted URMs at top universities, in which it is incorrectly assumed that they got in because of their race. Without AA, URMs and most of their fellow students would have no doubts that they are academic equals who deserve to be at the school.

In short, AA is a form of disguised racism, and it boggles my mind as to how it can be considered constitutional. I hope that my opponent will consider what I have stated and realize that AA rests on shaky ground, as even members of the black and Hispanic communities consider it to be nothing more than a discriminatory measure for both sides. The question of "Cui bono?" - who benefits - begs to be asked with AA, and I believe that I have sufficiently proved that the answer to that question is neither side.
WestDebater

Con

WestDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DoctorZhiva90

Pro

Won't offer anything further, since it would be unfair to my "opponent"
WestDebater

Con

WestDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DoctorZhiva90

Pro

Although I certainly don't think its fair to give me the win due to my "opponent's" account closure, I'd still like some honest opinions in the comments section if anyone disagrees with my views. I still wish to have some form of debating on this topic.
WestDebater

Con

WestDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Doctor, just so you know, Juggle has been contacted and there should be a larger and fast moderation presence starting monday.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
His account is closed rofl

You are getting trolled Doctor.

I would have been really suspicious of his first post. "Your points are invalid!" is not much of a debate potential xD
Posted by DoctorZhiva90 5 years ago
DoctorZhiva90
Eh, I know but what can you do? Unfortunately, I posted my response since I was just so eager that it was someone who wasn't Nono, but maybe that wasn't the best thing...oh well, if this one doesnt work out then I'll just try contacting a mod or something to see whether they can delete these first three, and then I will try to use the approach that you suggested F-16. I really don't want to post it a 4th time just for it to be meaninglessly replied to again.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
DoctorZhiva90, it sucks that you have to deal with this crap again and again and again when you just wanted an honest debate on affirmative action. I suggest you look through people's profiles and PM the people who are for AA and start a debate with them.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"I've set it so that only higher-ranked people can answer"
That doesn't work, since you haven't finished your three debates. Looking at your profile, you have a percentile of zero, which is still lower than your opponent (who appears to have no serious intention of debating)'s, which is at approximately 58...
Posted by DoctorZhiva90 5 years ago
DoctorZhiva90
Well, that must say something about AA's public perception if everyone so far has said they agree with me.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
If only I didn't agree. I would be a legitimate opponent :)

I don't like subjects that are hard to debate, like this. I like policy for that reason.
Posted by DoctorZhiva90 5 years ago
DoctorZhiva90
Tarzan, my opinions exactly. Plus, children of Michael Jordan, Barack Obama, George Lopez, etc. aren't at a disadvantage because of their race. To give them such an advantage, along with URMs in a similar situation, makes no sense. I actually have statistics that corroborate your second paragraph, taken from law school applicants over a ten year period. I won't reveal too much since I plan on presenting it in the actual debate, but in summary they show that the applicants admitted due to AA had significantly lower bar exam pass rates and much higher dropout rates.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I think the Con side of this argument is about the cycle of poverty and/or restorative justice, but I'm not really convinced that either of those carries much weight. While I would agree that many blacks and latinos (perhaps I'm generalizing, but I assume they receive the most AA help) are educationally disadvantaged, it seems that the real solution to the problem is not to give them an artificial leg up into an institution they otherwise would not have gotten into on the merits... it seems that the solution is to improve the systems that leave them at the disadvantage in the first place.

Or look at it this way - Suppose you accept, say, 5% of an incoming class as AA admits who are otherwise not academically eligible for admission. Then they come to school, can't do the work because they don't have the background and flunk out (which means they have no degree AND a debt load) or they come to school and are saddled with remedial coursework to correct the problems they faced in primary and secondary schools... and they have lower self-esteem, and a higher debt load from taking more credits...

It's lose-lose for AA admits unless they could succeed on their own merits - in which case, why use AA to admit them? I just don't understand AA at all.
Posted by cobiader 5 years ago
cobiader
I agree, as well. I'm sitting here trying to think of everything I can just to debate. It's not working. It'll definitely be interesting if you get a real contender.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
DoctorZhiva90WestDebaterTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Uh oh. Another troll. 7 points to Pro for giving a good argument while his opponent forfeited multiple rounds and is most likely a troll and got banned.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
DoctorZhiva90WestDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: WestDebater....I can only sign as I read your only argument, "Your points are not valid!" in comparison to DoctorZhiva90's well-thought out arguments...