Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

To continue on with the debate. ==Rebuttal== "In no way does affirmitave action ban the use of the interviewing process. If a school did indeed want to interview a potential student, it is well within their rights. If it is still a tie after an interview, affirmative action then applies. However affirmative action for colleges is much more efficient. It is not in most colleges interests to interview students of similar academic standing, since it would take a gratuitous amount of time. Also interviews allow for people to put on a fake face and tends to favour people who are better at sucking up to the interviewer." I agree in that affirmative action does not ban the use of the interviewing process, but PRO's job is to uphold affirmative action. My opponent says that affirmative action should apply after the interviewing process, and that as a whole it is an easier process. However, it is also a lazy process. Instead of going through each applicant and choosing the best, they are choosing a group and taking users based on wo is in that group. The group in this case the area. Let's see how affirmative action makes things worse for the parties involved: Making things worse for the students: - If the students are not chosen on intellect rather than race in a "deadlock" or tie, then the varying levels of intellects will not benefit the students. Test scores or transcripts do not fully reflect the abilities of a person. People get nervous in tests, "blank out" or cannot study properly. Especially when its the test that decides your career. - When affirmative action applies, colleges tend to have 2-3 ethnic groups which are dominant. For smaller ethnic groups, this can be problematic. They can be bullied, mugged, and in general life can be made worse for them. Although other process's don't stamp it out, it is not as bad. Making things worse for the lecturers and tutors: - As aforementioned, if the students have varying levels, things can be made hard for lecturers and tutors to keep everyone on the same level at the same time. Making things worse for the college: - A lower level of intellect is bad for any college. It lowers it's reputation, and past students can have a harder time finding jobs. Whilst Affirmative action may make things fairer, it can make things worse for the college. "ike I said, you get the grades and have the qualifications, you will get in regardless of race. AA settles "ties", if they do occur (which often times they don't). If an Asian doesn't get in, it is because he/she did not work hard enough to get in, not because of ethnicity. However the system that "screwed" him (screwed is inaccurate since it's his fault he wasn't accepted) will actually help him getting into a college where the Asian population is high.!" I have observed two things from my opponents comment: -1)Affirmative Action is used sparingly, and has very little applications. -2) Affirmative action is racist. 1) My opponent says Affirmative Action is only used in tie-breakers, and by the context of these they aren't common. The interviewing process is used by many colleges before scores are looked at, which is acceptable, whereas Affirmative Action before looking at scores is unprofessional. 2) My opponent concedes that if someone Asian can't get into one college, move to an area with more Asian people. This ideology supports separatist movements of races. It tells a race that you should move to an area with more of your own race. This is a dangerous way of thinking, as it is racist and close minded. It also favours the race of one area, which is a form of racism. I await my opponents response, alas!