My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

Thanks for the quick response, Pro. I'll be titling Pro's rebuttals as paragraphs, such as: P1, P2, etc. I'll either list my criticisms as C1, C2, etc, or I'll incorporate them into my responses to Pro's rebuttals. P1) For matters of simplicity, I stated that I will be referring to blacks as minorities, and whites as the majority race. I may have not been clear, but this means that the term "black" will be accounting for other minorities, such as Latinos, Native Americans, etc. Also, socioeconomic standards will be measured by income, assets, etc. Similarly, qualifications will be measured by grades, extra-curricular activities, among other accomplishments that would qualify a student for a particular college. As for what will amount to a significant difference between socioeconomic status and qualifications, the specifics could hypothetically be A vs. C students, or middle-class students vs. lower-class students. For example, if two white and black applicants applied to the same college, both were A students, but the black had a household income of 30K, while the white had an income of 15K, the white would be accepted. However, if the white's income was 27K, while the black's was 30k, that would be a marginal difference, and the black would be accepted under my AA policy. I hope this clears things up for my opponent. P2) My opponent's system, as described in this rebuttal, is ruling race out of the equation and admitting applicants under fully equal rules of opportunity. However, this does not accomplish the goal of overall fairness, which is to accelerate blacks (among other minorities) forward within the American economy and American society. In effect, the racial gap between whites and blacks will remain, and the goal of AA is not satisfied. In my system, blacks receive preferential treatment, which will help them climb the economic ladder and attain equality, which is fair when considering that blacks are unequal due to past and current oppression. Rather than just ignoring these racial inequalities, which have been arbitrarily injected into American society, my AA policy will work to actually remedy these issues by helping blacks obtain secondary education. P3) Pro brings up equality between individuals, which according to him, should not be affected by the totality of where one race might stand over another. The problem is that the average black *individual* is less well-off than the average white individual, demonstrating racial inequality, which AA is meant to diminish. My opponent's policy isn't fair in the long-run because blacks will not be in equal standing with whites. At first, Pro's system of equal opportunity seems like the obviously fair approach to take, but when realizing the historical and contemporary circumstances that led to this issue, it becomes apparent that this system glosses over the very goal of these programs, which is to attain fairness. When black *individuals* sit many rungs down on the economic ladder, which has been largely driven by past segregation and current racism, there is a crisis of fairness that need be accounted for, but under Pro's AA policy, this problem isn't addressed nor solved. Contrarily, my opponent advocates a policy that would pretty much ignore this lack of fairness, which doesn't meet the goals of AA. P4) Pro cites a hypothetical example, but there are factual inaccuracies within it. The black immigrant may be successful in net terms, but in real terms, when compared to the rest of the population, this average black immigrant is far behind his/her average white counterparts. This, once again, represents racial inequality, which isn't fair, so it must be countered in some way or another. The AA policy that I propose will deal with these issues by accelerating blacks ahead by using the educational medium, which actually deals with this problem, thus being more fair/better than my opponent's system of choice.