Affirmative Action Should be Disallowed

= Final Rebuttals = Convenience The whole definition still applies to AA, as it makes admission is to college makes it "easier" to get into college. The amount of work needed to be accepted is somewhat less for minorities since race is also a factor, which makes it easier indeed. I only used the first part of the definition because it was more relevant to AA than the second part is, but the second part can still be applied to the practice. The initial purpose of AA was to to level the system of admission, but it cannot be argued that it doesn't make it easier for minorities to get in. Looking up "convenience" led to a definition with the word "convenient" included, and both need to be defined for convenience to make sense at all. The words are the same just in different forms of each other. Racial Bias If people are being proved to be racist then they should be dealt with and their job holding should be questioned. AA is the wrong way to address this problem, as it focuses on the students instead of the original source of the problem. Also, the study does not show that this bias happens in every school, only a few, so it doesn't make a legitimate argument anyway for schools who do not have people who are racially biased. Background I agree that background should be taken into factor when being admitted to college. If a student received a 3.8 GPA in a mediocre school and another student received a 3.4 GPA in a really good school, then the quality of the school should be taken into consideration, or something to the effect of the example you mentioned. The problem with AA is that it does not focus on background, it only focuses on race. By making the assumption that all minorities are poor and all whites and Asians are rich it is unfairly crediting people whether they are poor or not. Yes, there may be a correlation between poverty and race, but not all blacks and Hispanics are poor and not all whites and Asians are rich. If a rich black person gets an extra boost by AA versus a poor white person who doesn't, then the poor white person is being unfairly discriminated against. The system of AA is rigged when it comes to background because it cheats people of a majority ethnicity by holding them back to let a minority through even if that minority has had a richer background. Th fact that AA accounts for an extra variable, a variable that always remains constant, makes the bar automatically lower for minorities than whites and Asians. The majorities can't say "well, I need to work in that area" because they can't. It is impossible to change race but it is possible to change merit, which is why an unfair advantage is prevalent from the start. Like I said, they "you" problem still hurts minorities whether it is a social problem or not. Background is also a social problem, isn't it? One of the initial reasons for AA was to increase a minority's standing or placement, which can be regarded as social status. You even admitted in your last paragraph that AA "is one way to address social problems". Cheat Take it this way: AA is like legally cheating, being told that you have an unfair advantage in regards to other students. What I said is that supporters of AA are admitting that they want to make it through life unfairly especially since they are allowed to. The fact that they are allowed to do this doesn't make them at fault, it makes the legal system that is flawed a cheat. Conclusion AA unfairly gives certain people, regardless of their background, special boosts into college and jobs. This is discriminatory towards everyone else who worked equally as hard or better, and is hurtful to not only them but the minorities as well. To create a fair and equal system where people are judged not by race but by merit and background too, affirmative action must be disallowed. Thanks for the debate Con, it's been a pleasure.