Affirmative Action Should be Disallowed

Counter rebuttals Convenience [not re-quote to save space. See above] From your own source, you cheery picked the definition of convenience [your source 1]. adjective1.suitable or agreeable to the needs or purpose; well-suited with respect to facility or ease in use; favorable, easy, or comfortable for use.2. at hand; easily accessible: Further, you defined and linked to the definition of “convenient” NOT convenience. [2] noun1. the quality of being convenient; suitability.2.anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc., as an appliance, utensil, or the like.3.a convenient situation or time:at your convenience.4.advantage or accommodation:a shelter for the convenience of travelers.5.Chiefly British, water closet (def 1). adjective6.easy to obtain, use, or reach; made for convenience:convenience utensils that can be discarded after use. My point. My reason to twitch. The word implies that affirmative action is an attempt to make it "easy" and "comfortable" for minorities during the admissions processes. That is NOT the purpose at all. The purpose of affirmative action is to level the process for known systemic inequity. Minorities aren’t saying "sure is easy getting into colleges now with affirmative action". They have to struggle to match credentials that are easier to obtain for non-black students (see my last round). It’s like saying we put wheelchair ramps in to buildings to make it easy, just plain old fun for handicapped students to get into the admissions buildings. I will move past the "Convenience" issue, but it bothers me more that you so obviously cheery picked your support for it. I would have been comfortable if you had said that is how you intended to use the word, but not that that’s what the word means. Racial Bias [not re-quoting full text to save space. See above] “The distinction here must be made between names and race… (see above) That is absolutely irreverent to the study. That “black sounding names” were discriminated is the point. If a white person has a black sounding name and is passed for an interview, the problem stems from the same source. Racism. If a black person is more likely to get an interview with the name “John”, that’s the very point! The name skewed the screening process because of underlying racism. “…only shows that school suspension and arrest rates are higher for blacks than whites. It doesn't state that this ethnic difference was caused because of racism, it just states that there is a difference…. (see above) Again, you are blowing past the point. It makes NO difference what causes the initial problem in primary school. If the suspension rates are higher in poor and minority schools, it will have a negative effect on college admissions. Unless you think minorities are genetically prone to behavioral problems, the environment is the issue. “One cannot "adjust for inequity"… (see above) There we are at “better qualified” again. Let’s break this apart just a bit. Qualified for what exactly? To make the best use of the education? To be the best employee for the job? That’s what is wanted, right? The assumption you make is that the student with a SAT of 2270 is "more qualified" than a student with a score of 2040. Mathematic, 2270 is greater than 2040. Fine, on this point, the one student has an objectively better score. But, my job is to get the best students for my university. The student with a moderately higher SAT score just may not be the best student. There is much more to the selection criteria. The student with a SAT of 2270, from an affluent white family may have taken the test several times, with SAT prep throughout. The other took the test cold. The marginal difference in score is immaterial. In another case, one student has more extracurricular activities than another. Well, above I linked to a study showing the inequities in access to extracurricular activities for minority students. As an admissions person, I "level" this discrepancy. I have not lowered any bars. I have not kicked anyone out of their seats. I have made the BEST choice for my university, finding the best possible students. I have used thoughtful decision making vs. casual and narrow focus on one or two metrics. The students haven’t earned anything unjustly, either white or black. The process has been leveled. Hurts Minorities “You mentioned that blacks tend to live in poorer communities than whites… (see above) Very common misconception. Since you spoke extemporaneously, I will too. At the private day school I attended, and the private boarding schools my siblings attended, there was little worry about acceptance, paying for, or any other bar between us and the college of our choice. That a student has to “work hard” is all well and good. The idea that a student would be “lazy” because of advantage is understandable, but inncorrect. My classmates had plenty of “points stocked up”, but still had to work hard. Affirmative action is not some free ride. The students have the SAME bar to pass as any other student. The only difference is, admissions is accounting for additional variables. “…AA was propelled was to fix the "you" problem that was perceived of minorities…. (see above)” It is a "you" problem. You are looking down on minorities because YOU think they have been given an unfair advantage. They have reason to believe YOU are the one in receipt of an unfair advantage. It has no part in this discussion. It is a personal/social problem. “I never said that whites and Asians are biologically better than blacks,…” (see above) Right! So, if there is no biological difference, then it is environmental. Accounting for the environmental problem is part of good use of metrics. “By placing race over merit…” (see above) “There you go again” – Ronald Reagan. Affirmative action is not placing race over merit. It is including an additional metric in the evaluation process. Merit is not one data point, it is all data points. "Is a student that takes attends a predatory school a cheat? Is the young job applicant who secures a job with a friend of a father a cheat?" -Con No, that's not what I'm saying at all…” (see above) “beneficiaries of AA who support it are admitting that they want to cheat their way through life.” – Pro. That’s exactly what you were saying. It’s the recipients of affirmative action that are the cheats. Unfortunately Con's response was cut off at the end, so I will just extend the previous arguments that I made. I would recommend not doing paragraph-by-paragraph quotations to avoid maxing out the character limit again. I apologies for the issue. I pasted and posted quickly. I saw the issue, cut it down and posted before time ran out (my time, and the debate time). I will address the points with the last few characters I have remaining in this round. “Blacks and Hispanics should be able to show that they are intellectually able to make it to the harder schools…” (see round 2) They are. You seem positively stuck on the concept that the ability to “make it” is entirely derived from single data points, like SAT scores. “…The way to solve this problem is by addressing cultural breakdown, not installing racial preferences…” (see round 2 above) Affirmative action is one way to address the systematic social problems. That you recognize that they exist, and want to address the problems, conflicts with success that affirmative action has been. [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...