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

An excellent opening argument made by the Opposition. I will start with refutations. 1) "Affirmative action is unjustified on grounds of meritocracy" Under this contention, my opponent states, "...because it enables society to distribute good opportunities to people who can utilize them well..." Race based admission is necessary to, in my opponent's own words, "distribute good opportunities." Discrimination is the reason some people cannot get into a good college. It starts when minorities are young and can't afford or obtain a good education. Affirmative action gives these well-deserving people the opportunity they need. We have to understand here that some people don't have the opportunity to get a good education, and this is where race admissions come in. Meritocracy is not a valid argument against affirmative action because my opponent fails to realize that affirmative action is only a "tie breaker" in a sense. Race is not the ONLY factor in what goes into the admissions process, & minority applicants would also have to have very high test scores & be an overall great student before colleges & universities even START to consider race. Also, we have to look at the main reason there are less minorities in colleges and universities. The main reason is the income gap, which I'll further elaborate on later. In a sense, an admission system which doesn't take race into account actually undermines meritocracy because it keeps the poor and disadvantaged from getting a good education when they could be just as smart -- or even smarter -- than their rich, advantaged counterparts. 2) "Affirmative action is unjustified because two wrongs do not make a right" Under this contention, my opponent states, "...preferential treatment today does not rectify or remedy the discrimination of the past." We have to realize here that it is inevitable to take from the rich if we want to help the poor. It"s called Charity. Charities require the fortunate to give things up to the less fortunate, & you don"t see people going around saying charities are unfair, do you? Likewise, affirmative action is taking from Caucasians to help minorities. As Americans, we have to give up some money from our own pockets to support the old, poor, disabled, etc. through government subsidy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Affirmative action operates on essentially the same ideal: to aid the poor, we take from the rich. Thus, judged by rules formed in our society, affirmative action is completely justified. 3) "Affirmative action punishes the wrong person" My opponent goes on about how affirmative action "...effectively punish[es] the students who were denied university places..." However, like I have stated previously, to help the poor we must take from the rich. Charity is not a punishment for anything. When we pay taxes, we know that some of that money goes to government subsidy programs I've mentioned before. Do we perceive this as the government punishing us? Of course not. Affirmative action does not punish anyone. All it does is level the playing field so everyone gets an equal chance to succeed. 4) "Affirmative action is detrimental to social progress" My opponent states, under this contention, that "even if college admission officers have good intentions...this does not mean that positive consequences will result." In using this argument, my opponent fails to realize that there are actually very positive outcomes of race based admissions. As I've stated in the previous round, and will further elaborate on later, colleges and universities owe much of their diversity to affirmative actions. Look around in America today. What do we see? Surrounding us are people from many different countries and backgrounds, races and ethnicity. I myself am of a minority race. By 2050, our nation will no longer have a clear racial majority. Should not the education environment model this reality? Furthermore, affirmative action in fact promotes equality in the long run. Since an equal education leads to equality in the real world, it follows that affirmative action leads to equality in the real world because it promotes equality in education for all races. Having refuted all of my opponent's points, I will go on to my own contentions. P1: It promotes equality by bringing higher education for all. P2: It spreads more racial diversity. P3: It is legally justified. P1: It promotes equality by bringing higher education for all. According to 2010 US Census & Bureau of Labor Statistics: The average minority earns about 35-40% less than the average Caucasian. Higher education is the single best leveler that you will find to bring equality amongst all races, & race admission is the way to do it. So, what is the problem? Only 14% of minorities over age 25 have a College degree while 35% of Caucasians over age 25 have a college degree. The question is- why are the percentages for minorities so low & what can we do improve these numbers? Race admission is the way to do it. According to Urban League"s State of African-American 2004 Report: African-American males mean income is 70% of Caucasian males, a $16,876 gap. In most areas of everyday life, Americans are still divided along racial lines, & economics was listed as the most significant racial disparity. The median wealth for most minorities, according to the report, is 10 times less than it is for Caucasians. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one"s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy " by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded. P2: Race admissions spreads more racial diversity. According to the Guardian: 21 Oxbridge universities took NO African American students since 2007. This just shows that colleges & universities not only are more inclined to discriminate against minorities, they don"t have enough racial diversity, which is why we need race admissions. According to the U.S. Dept. of Education: On average, 2 times more minorities are admitted to colleges after race admissions, putting the number of minorities & majorities in the college at about equal. According to the University of Michigan: A racially diverse group was better at solving complex problems than experts. The reason is that people with similar qualifications or professional training, the experts, often think alike. Adding people of different races means different skills, backgrounds & life experiences, which tended to improve the group's performance. Race admission will provide this! P3: It is legally justified. As I've stated in the previous round, the topic specifically states whether or not race admissions is justified, & our team has provided evidence stating that the Supreme Ct. has justified it in 2 cases. According to 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Ct. case: The Supreme Ct. decided in a close 5-4 vote that race admission is to be allowed & justified. At end of the day, we need to comply with the topic at hand, which is whether or not race admissions is justified. Our team has proved that race admissions has been ruled legal by the Supreme Ct. in multiple occasions, & this is what should be considered over all else. Not only does race admissions provide diversity, it is considered legal & justified, it will level out the playing field for all races, & will give minorities the boost they need due to discrimination & lower level education from an early start, maybe even in Kindergarten. I've proven that affirmative action is justified, as specified by the topic. Now to my opponent. Looking forward to the response!