Colleges and universities are justified in considering race in admissions decisions.

As inferred from the arguments presented by Pro, the debate before us today concerns affirmative action. Essentially this refers to a policy of "preferring" a minority or previously discriminated race over the rest. Examples of this policy include racial quotas and more funding for the welfare of these minority groups. Today's debate is about whether or not preferential treatment for this minority is justified and beneficial. As Con I will demonstrate that it is unjustified and detrimental to social progress. 1) Affirmative action is unjustified on grounds of meritocracy Meritocracy is the idea that the best person for the job should get the place. It has long been established as an important principle for civilisation and progress, because it enables society to distribute good opportunities to people who can utilise them well, as well as reward people for their effort and achievements. Affirmative action contradicts meritocracy by allowing a criterion (such as race) which is not relevant to the applicant's ability to study in the university (such as educational achievements) to influence the university's selection of students. After all, as colleges and universities are educational institutions and seek to deepen our knowledge of the world, the most relevant qualities are dedication to academia, expertise in the field, and passion for the subject. Whether or not the person is of a minority race does not affect his ability to do good academic work, so it is unfair to include it as a distinguishing criteria for admissions. In a nutshell, consider this scenario: Two equally matched candidates, but one is of a minority race, compete for the last place in the university. Both have put in tremendous effort, displayed passion for the subject, and have been lauded by their teachers for being outstanding students. But under Pro's situation, he would pick the one from the minority race for the last place. Is this fair? 2) Affirmative action is unjustified because two wrongs do not make a right This is a philosophical point about how preferential treatment today does not rectify or remedy the discrimination of the past. Punishments must be rendered onto the guilty party, as he or she committed the crime knowing that it was morally and legally wrong. However, these punishments are never the exact same crime that was committed in the first place. The reason for this is because the criminal act is inherently immoral. Committing the same act, even if it is with good intentions, is still morally wrong. Surely I do not need to demonstrate why discrimination on arbitrary factors is morally egregrious. Consider this: Is stealing from a thief morally justified? Certainly not. Stealing is morally wrong because it violates our right to property, regardless of the intention. 3) Affirmative action punishes the wrong person We accept as a well-established principle that the law should only punish individuals who are guilty or accessory to a crime. This is fairness - we should not punish people who played no role in the crime at all. Affirmative action contradicts this principle by effectively punishing the students who were denied university places because of racial considerations. These students were not the ones who spouted racist hate speech, advocated racial discrimination, or denigrated minority races. Yet, they are the ones who are being made to suffer for the intolerance and crimes of the previous generation. This is made even more ridiculous as these students, belonging to an environment which has safeguarded the rights of minority races, are more likely to be open to the idea of racial equality. Now, they will have less reason to. 4) Affirmative action is detrimental to social progress When we consider the morality of actions in the real world, we often must include both the intent and the consequences of the actions. After all, intent is hard to discern from the outside, and the consequences have real effects on other people. Extending this principle, even if college admission officers have good intentions (we want to admit more minority race students to remedy the discrimination of the past), this does not mean that positive consequences will result. So what might happen? Bringing back the scenario from my first substantive argument, there will be resentment towards minority groups from the other races. This is because they have perceived (and in some conceivable ways rightly so) that their opportunities are being taken away from them unfairly, using criteria which should not be part of college admissions. As we can easily accept the idea that university placings are important to people, this is not a light matter. In fact, such resentment will fuel xenophobic sentiments among the majority group, who become increasingly upset that their children's futures are being sacrificed for the minority. This would eventually become counterproductive for equality movements, as the majority group becomes less receptive to accepting the idea of racial equality. Subtle discrimination may worsen in the workplace or in other social environments, reversing any form of social progress we have achieved in racial equality. Thank you. I look forward to the rebuttal rounds.