Affirmative Action should be abolished

Rebuttals Observation 1 Con says that Affirmative action requires the person that is receiving the benefits to be from a negatively discriminated group of people in the community, but there isn’t a set criteria provided by the federal government which highlights a certain race is eligible for Affirmative action. Con doesn’t give us a reason as to believe why whites aren’t a negatively discriminated in the community they live in, otherwise there wouldn’t be any Affirmative Action for those whites (which I gave sources for). So, my point still stands. Contention 1 Con argues that with Affirmative Action, we would be able to see different types of knowledge from those that have a different background from us. I can easily refute this, and say that students can learn about the different cultures of others through their studies. Student’s do not nessarily have to talk to those of different backgrounds, to learn about their culture. Another point I’d like to make is that the purpose of going to a university of job is not to learn about the culture or background of somebody, rather the fact you are there to learn the course or program you took, or to do your job in the company you work for. Learning about other people is something secondary, because it is not the purpose of the job itself. On top of that, Con needs to show me that that learning about different cultures outweighs somebodies chance of getting an education in the first place, because i already have shown that students can learn about different cultures through other ways. My rebuttal for SA is similar to SB. Con needs to show that working with different groups of people is outweighs the chance of somebody getting a job in the first place. I actually do disagree with Con here. “only AA can allow us to have this, because it allows us to merge with other people of other cultures and socialization” Con seems to believe that people will different cultures need AA to be accepted. I already showed in my case, that Asian Americans are in the workforce, and they do not have the same culture as white people. Contention 2 In Con’s 2nd point, she argues that AA helped 6 million women enter the workforce. I do not deny that this is a positive, but note these stats were from 1995. I already have said, Affirmative Action was successful in the past, and that it no longer needs to be implemented anymore. The only argument Con makes for present day discrimination is that there is still discrimination. I have no reason to believe this. ( I do, but for argument sake) There isn’t any sources for these arguments. I bring my other point from my other argument. Just because it has helped women, is it right to discriminate again somebody who isn’t a women? This actually directly contradicts my point about how Affirmative Action is no longer needed. Contention 3 Con’s 3rd point is about how University professors like diversity, and the only way diversity can be maintained, is if students of different cultures are accepted. I have to go back to my rebuttal where I say banning affirmative action won’t prevent diversity. Con says that banning Affirmative Action will cause minorities to be denied simply because of the groups that they belong to. This is merely an assumption, because Con has not provided sources, to back up the claims. It sounds like Con is saying without Affirmative Action, minorities have no way of getting into university. I have already showed in my arguments, that Asians-Americans are minorities and are preferably exceptionally well. So, regardless of what professors like, I dispute this argument, because diversity shouldn’t be put in-front of skill, because no body can change their race, whereas the skill factor is something everyone can control. In Con’s 2nd sub point, she says that when Affirmative Action was banned, “ "UC Berkeley had a 61 percent drop in admissions of African American, Latinos, and Native American students, and UCLA had a 36 percent decline.” Her reasoning for this however, is that minorities are less persuaded to go to college. I find this statement baseless, because there really is no direct correlation that this was the actual reason for the decline. It makes more sense for me to assume that the numbers went down, because all races were judged on an equal factor, rather than holding lower standards for a certain race. I also see no evidence of banning education for minorities. I don’t think there is a law banning blacks from higher education. These are my rebuttals.