Affirmative action in colleges/universities

Your argument is like reading a book, it's way too long, and with something like an argument being too long, it has a problem, and you have the burden of proof. Without further ado, here are my rebuttals. 1. "Affirmative action is just another form of discrimination. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy popularized the use of "affirmative action" upon the issue of Executive Order 10925. According to this presidential directive, it originally intended governmental employers to "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". By this interpretation, the initial concept of affirmative action disregarded a person"s college or job applicant"s ethnicity in order to create a fair competition among others, rather than giving special treatment for those who have been historically discriminated against. On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. , an African American national icon of the Civil Rights Movement, declared in his prominent "I Have a Dream" speech, that "people [should] not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character". Similar to President Kennedy, Martin Luther King believed that a person"s ethnicity does not define their ability to perform in order to achieve the same accomplishments as others. In a study conducted by Princeton University professors Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, an analysis was performed on 9000 SAT and ACT scores of students from 1997 who attended 10 of the most prestigious colleges in the nation. White applicants were established as the baseline to be compared to other ethnic groups to achieve the same chances of admission at a competitive university. For example, a 130-point Hispanic SAT "advantage" means that a Hispanic student with a 900 SAT score has the same chances of admission as a white applicant with a score of 1030. According to this table, a White applicant needs to score 310 SAT points higher than a black applicant to achieve the same odds of acceptance. Remarkably, an Asian student would have to score even higher, by 450 points for the same chances of admission. Assuming all other variables are controlled among the applicants such as grade point averages, extracurricular activities, and economic status, Asians are the most academically disadvantaged relative to all other ethnic groups. With these statistics provided, Asian and white students are placed at higher standards than Hispanics and blacks. " You brought no sources or links to back this huge claim up, so you have a burden of proof, that means this whole argument is wrong, and the burden of proof is on you. 2. "Even if affirmative action were to allow more low-qualifying applicants among Hispanics and blacks to attend a 4-year university in place of those with higher academic records, the likelihood of dropping out is higher. According to the data provided by the ACT Condition of College and Career Readiness 2016 and the College Board SAT 10-Year Trend, Asians and whites have scored significantly greater than blacks and Hispanics/Latinos in terms of composite SAT and ACT scores. On the SAT in 2010, Asians scored an average of 1636 points, whites scored 1580, Hispanics scored 1358, and blacks scored an average of 1277 points. The ACT data also shows that Asians have scored an average of 24 points, whites with 22.2, Hispanics with 18.7, and blacks with an average of 17 in 2016. Not only have Asians consistently scored higher over the years, during a 10-year change from 2000 to 2010, Asians have had an increase of over 20 SAT points in critical reading and mathematics, while whites, blacks, and Hispanics have had little or no change. In reference to the graduation rates among first-time bachelor"s degree seeking students at 4-year colleges from 2007-2014 provided by the National Center for Education Statistics, Asian students have had higher graduation rates than every other race. The graduation rate within 6 years among Asians were 71%, 63% for whites, 53% for Hispanics, and 41% for blacks. Knowing that Asians and Whites have scored significantly higher on standardized tests and having higher rates of graduation, it is no secret that affirmative action, which tends to favor underqualified blacks and Hispanics, does not increase their graduation rates among 4-year universities. Given this information, it can be established that admitting black and Hispanic students due to "underrepresentation" does not benefit underqualified applicants since many students will not have the ability and academics skills required to survive in a competitive college environment. Opponents of affirmative action argue that economic status affects the scores of individuals such that lower income households tend to score lower than families with higher income levels. Although this is true, the scores of other races within the same income levels are not taken into consideration. According to a 1991 table 7.2 by the College Entrance Examination Board that displays a table comparing the mean SAT scores by race and household income levels, Asians and whites scored at least 903 points or higher in the income bracket of $30,000 to over $70,000 while blacks only ranged between 753 and 860 points within the same income levels. Though Hispanics are not provided in this data, based on historical trends and patterns, it is reasonable to assume that their scores should be somewhere between whites and blacks. The data displays that low-income whites and Asians still scored significantly higher than blacks regardless of their income. " Still, no sources, the burden of proof is still on you, even though you argue with something that looks factual, but it isn't because you provided no sources or links to back it up. 3. "Several court cases involving affirmative action have been subjected to historical landmark decisions affecting students of various races across the nation. In a 1978 case, Allan Bakke, a white student was rejected twice to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke had higher qualifications than required while minority applicants were given preference due to racial quotas present during the time. The Supreme Court ruled that the institution violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment in the United States Constitution, which holds that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and has banned the use of racial quotas in admissions processes. However, in the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that the same clause from the 14th amendment did not prohibit the University of Michigan school of Law from considering race as long as other factors were taken into consideration. Provided that affirmative action is accountable for more negative effects and drawbacks than its intended benefits, its policies should be terminated to prevent further discrimination against highly qualified candidates in among colleges and universities. Although affirmative action subsequently compensates for historical discrimination against blacks and Hispanics, Asians and whites who are considered the "majority" in colleges, should not be punished for something they did not commit. Its policies are outdated and places emphasis on an applicant"s ethnicity rather than their skills and qualifications. Several states including Washington, California, and Michigan have banned race-based affirmative action, which should be encouraged among other states to ensure that colleges create an environment where students conform to the theory of the "survival of the fittest. " Still, no sources to link it or back it up. Conclusion: 1. Con provided no source to back his claims up. 2. Con has burden of proof. 3. You don't use or make any claim without backing it up.