BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students would be able to benefit from being able to use resources at other universities

Having paid for access to universities and the materials they provide for research students have a right to expect that they will have all the necessary materials available. Unfortunately this is not always the case. University libraries are unable to afford all the university journals they wish to have access to or need for their courses. Therefore any student who wants to go into areas not anticipated by the course they are enrolled with will find that they do not have access to the materials they require. They then face the cost of getting individual access to an online journal article which can be up to $42, despite there being almost zero marginal cost to the publisher.[1] This even affects the biggest and best resourced university libraries. Robert Darnton the director of Harvard University’s library which pays $3.5million per year for journal articles says “The system is absurd” and “academically restrictive” instead “the answer will be open-access journal publishing”.[2] [1] Sciverse, “Pay-per-view”, Elsevier, http://www.info.sciverse.com/sciencedirect/buying/individual_article_purchase_options/ppv [2] Sample, Ian, “Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices”, The Guardian, 24 April 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
Universities deserve to profit from their work

Universities are providing a service just like almost any other business. They provide a service in terms of educating students who are enrolled with them and secondly they conduct research on a wide range of subjects. In both of these cases the university deserves to make a profit out of their work. When acting as an educator universities are in an educational free market, this is the case even when the cost is provided by the state. All universities are aiming to attract as many students as possible and earn as much as possible from fees. If the university is successful it will be able to charge more as it will attract students from further afield. While Universities may make a profit on research or even teaching this profit is for the benefit of society as a whole as the profits are usually simply reinvested in the University’s education and infrastructure.[1] [1] Anon. “What does the money get spent on?” The University of Sheffield, 2013. http://www.shef.ac.uk/finance/staff-information/howfinanceworks/higher_education/money_spent_on
Making everything free to access will damage universities ability to tap private funding

For most universities even if the government is generous with funding it will still need for some projects require private funding. When providing money for research projects the government often requires cost sharing so the university needs to find other sources of funding.[1] Third parties however are unlikely to be willing to help provide funding for research if they know that all the results of that research will be made open to anyone and everyone. These businesses are funding specific research to solve a particular problem with the intention of profiting from the result. Even if universities themselves don’t want to profit from their research they cannot ignore the private funding as it is rapidly growing, up 250% in the U.S. from 1985-2005, while the government support is shrinking.[2] [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research & Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan. http://orsp.umich.edu/funding/costsharing/cost_sharing_questions.html [2] Schindler, Adam, “Follow the Money Corporate funding of university research”, Berkley Science Review, Issue 13. http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue13/funding.pdf
Overcomes prejudice

There is little or no evidence of bias in universities admissions procedures. Universities admissions departments go to great lengths to ensure fairness, not least because it is in their own self-interest to take only the best applicants, to maintain the intellectual credibility of their institution. Any overt or explicit discrimination would be illegal, and should be guarded against by using a wide range of admissions procedures and interview (where applicable) by more than one academic. Any charge of prejudice would be an argument for ‘colour-blind’ (or school-blind) admissions, in which the background of the applicant is hidden from the admissions officer, so as to prevent any possibility of discrimination, subconscious or otherwise. The presence of positive discrimination would, if anything, raise the incidence of racism and prejudice on university campuses, with lecturers and fellow students resentful of members of the university perceived to have been given a helping hand.
Changes negative perceptions of university life

Positive discrimination will increase negative perceptions of university. Far from changing attitudes about campus life among disadvantaged groups, positive discrimination is likely to be seen as patronising, belittling of the achievements of ethnic minorities and the working class, and serve to reinforce negative stereotypes15. By making the statement that disadvantaged groups are so far behind the rest that they need discrimination in their favour and quotas, universities will alienate themselves from the group they are seeking to help, and will come over as elitist. Survey evidence suggests that affirmative action is usually opposed by the target group, affirming the view that people wish to achieve things for themselves, without being given a ‘leg-up’ by the state. Moreover, positive discrimination devalues the achievements of those who would have been accepted into university even without the assistance, and these people are likely to be deterred from applying.
Increase the number of Minorities

Quotas create stigmas and enforce negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities. It means that students from these groups are incapable of entering universities on their own. And during their time at university, the students may face the stigma of being known as a “quota student”. This may cause students to feel inferior and lose self-confidence, and this may ultimately affect their academic performance. In addition, quotas do not solve the root cause of the problem. The best way to help the poor and ethnic minorities is through investments in public schools and basic services so that at the end of the day, admission tests are a true reflection of academic ability and not as a result of economy and geography.[1] [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010, http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=661
Achievements should be earned not given

By having more students from disadvantaged backgrounds get into university and ultimately have access to top professions, and more likely to enter politics, law, or become the heads of major corporations, affirmative action will generate more role models for the poor and ethnic minorities. As a consequence, the aspirations of disadvantaged youths will change – it will become more realistic for them to see themselves in public life, and will thus have a better incentive to work hard at school. Not only is this good for their own development, but it will also help wider society by tackling social problems such as petty crime and truancy.
Affirmative action can create social tensions

Social tension, especial in poor areas and minority groups, does not come as a result of unfair affirmative action policies, but as a result of inadequate funds available to the communities which result in individuals struggling for limited resources. Affirmative Action creates an opportunity whereby more politicians and businesspeople rise up from humble backgrounds are given the chance to change the political and economic structure of society. By “giving back” to their community, they will be able to assist the less well-off, for example by expanding welfare systems and ensuring greater equality of opportunities, or through different hiring practices.
Equality of opportunity

Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated.[1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities.[2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones.[3][4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. 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. [1] Sagar, P. “The truth about Oxbridge admissions: a reply To Dave Osler”. Liberal Conspiracy. May 21, 2010. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/21/the-truth-about-oxbridge-admissions-a-reply-to-dave-osler/ [2] Vasagar, J. “Twenty-one Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year”. The Guardian. December, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/06/oxford-colleges-no-black-students [3] Orfield, Gary, et al., 'Losing Our Future; How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis', Urban Institute, 25 February 2004, http://www.urban.org/publications/410936.html [4] Marklein, M.B. “Minority enrollment in college still lagging”. USA TODAY. October, 2006. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-10-29-minority-enrollment_x.htm
Overcomes prejudice

Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1][2]  Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist. [1] Bertrand, M. “Racial Bias in Hiring”.  Spring 2003. http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html [2] BBC News Magazine. “Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?” August 27, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657
Changes negative perceptions of university life

Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist.[1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term. [1] Ancis, J.R. “Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race”. Journal of Counselling and Development. Spring 2000. http://alumna.brynmawr.edu/diversitycouncil/documents/Ancis.pdf
Increase the number of Minorities

College admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities.[1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses. [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010, http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=661
Achievements should be earned not given

There is a great possibility that beneficiaries of positive discrimination may not be regarded as good role models as their achievements may be viewed as unearned.[1] A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model. [1] The British Psychological Society. “The Hillary Clinton effect - how role models work for some people but not others”. http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2011/03/hillary-clinton-effect-how-role-models.html
Affirmative action can create social tensions

Under the policy of affirmative action, there is a real danger that social tensions become inflamed. This is because in the process of benefiting minority groups it helps to disenfranchise the majority. For example in the 2001 riots in Oldham and other cities of Northern England one of the main complaints from poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding.[1] There was a possibility that the more privileged from minority groups such as upper-class blacks will be favoured at the expense of the marginalised within majority groups such as lower-class whites. Therefore, rather correct racial bias, affirmative action may inevitably deepen it. [1] Amin, A., 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity.’ Environment and Planning, 34, pp.959-980, p.963
Affirmative action will not work

The underlying issue which affirmative action tries to gloss over is the embedded social problems which put the poor and ethnic monitories in continual disadvantages generation after generation. This policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools, real parental choice in education, and accountability through the publication of comparable examination data would all drive up standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their potential.[1][2] [1] Gryphon, M. “The Affirmative Action Myth”. Cato Institute Policy Analysis. No 540. April 13, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3722 [2] Rosado, C. “Affirmative Action: A Time for Change?” March 3, 1997. http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/aff-action.html
Equality of opportunity

Though affirmative action wishes to create an equality of opportunity for the poor and ethnic minorities, it also creates an unfair situation in which talented students lose their places. Ability may ultimately not be rewarded as the whole point of affirmative action is to promote a less able applicant ahead of a more able one, measured by their test scores. It undermines the fairness of the system if reasonable objective measures of a person’s ability, such as exam performance and aptitude testing, are overlooked. Under a system of positive discrimination, able students from the majority group or who went to private school are required to achieve more than others to get the same reward. Furthermore, positive discrimination is bad for the talented students from the target group who would get into university even without affirmative action: the policy will undermine their achievement, making their peers (and even them) believe that they only got to where they were because of different standards. It would create a two-tiered university system, in which the achievements of one group were elevated above the achievements of another.
Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access

Generic drugs are much cheaper to produce, which is ideal for Africa’s struggling population. While there has been significant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Africa, the actual distribution of wealth is relatively unequal. According to Afrobarometer, 53% of Africans still feel that their economic condition is poor[1]. This restricts their ability to purchase high cost drugs. Generic medication would reduce the price of these drugs, making them affordable to the average citizen. The patented drug Glivec, used for cancer treatment, costs £48.62 for 400 mg in South Africa while its generic equivalent (produced in India) costs £4.82[2]. Increased access will result in higher levels of treatment, which in turn will reduce death rates from preventable diseases in Africa. [1] Hofmeyr, Jan, ‘Africa Rising? Popular Dissatisfaction with Economic Management Despite a Decade of Growth’ [2] Op Cit
Savings can be used in other sections of medical care

The decreased cost of pharmaceuticals allows African states to focus on other aspects of medical schemes. Pharmaceuticals are not the only aspect in treatment, there needs to be sufficient staff, medical equipment and infrastructure[1]. These requirements cost money, which the savings made on pharmaceuticals provide. In Europe, 50% of dispensed medicines are generic yet they cost only 18% of pharmaceutical expenditure, with a similar model predicted for South Africa. This allows the state to focus on other aspects of medical schemes[2].  [1] Ibid [2] Health24, ‘South Africans embrace generic meds’
Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs

The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade[1]. Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality[2]. The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places. [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid
Unfair to apply same patent laws universally

It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000[1]. To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices. [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’
Dominance of generic drugs will reduce reinvestment and innovation in donating countries

The production of high quality generic drugs endangers pharmaceutical progress. In order to export high quality generic drugs, some countries have suggested allowing generic drug manufacturers access to patented drugs. In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Access to Medicine Regime (CAMR) would have forced pharmaceutical research companies to give up their patents[1]. This is problematic however as research based companies invest a large proportion of their profits back in to the industry. The requirements proposed for some Western countries for obligatory quantities of generic drugs to be given to Africa have been accused to removing any incentive to invest in research to combat disease[2]. [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] ibid
Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers

The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies[1]. These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted[2]. [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’
Most vital drugs are already generic

Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions[1]. This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000[2]. The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent. [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013
Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access

Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug[1], as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States.[2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa.  [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/features/getsmart/