Con's choice

My opponent has made a good argument about my father and aunt, and since there is no way to prove it, I concede that point in this debate. "The first one never says it is because of affirmative action that the university is doing it. Rather, it is because the university wishes there to be a more diverse student body. Justice Scalia said in the last line of this page "...it would also dramatically change the character of one of the nation's top public universities. There is an important place in higher education for those universities and research institutions that attract the best and the brightest. Without a diverse student body, however, those schools - and all who attend them - would be the poorer. So would our society as a whole." He specifically says that a diversity of people HELPS our society. So that link specifically goes against the only argument you have presented in this debate." Yes the university wants a more diverse student body, and those in favor of affirmative action, want more diverse workers. I am not saying that minorities are bad, and don't deserve jobs, but My opponent has made a good arguement about my father and aunt, and since there is no way to prove it, I concede that point in this debate. It is about affirmative action, it is a standard set by affirmative action that they LOWERD THE SANDARDS FOR MINORITIES ONLY, to fill the quota set by affirmative action, thus it has everything to do with it. Less people, who are qualified for the education given by the collage, are able to get in because of lower qualified minorities, if it was vise versa, it would still be a problem. Skin color, and gender should not have ANYTHING to do with who gets the education, devotion, hard work and good grades should be. Yes the university wants a more diverse student body, and those in favor of affirmative action, want more diverse workers. I am not saying that minorities are bad, and don't deserve jobs, but affirmative action is discrimination. Thus the three things a company should look for in an employee should be: "The first one never says it is because of affirmative action that the university is doing it. Rather, it is because the university wishes there to be a more diverse student body. Justice Scalia said in the last line of this page "...it would also dramatically change the character of one of the nation's top public universities. There is an important place in higher education for those universities and research institutions that attract the best and the brightest. Without a diverse student body, however, those schools - and all who attend them - would be the poorer. So would our society as a whole." He specifically says that a diversity of people HELPS our society. So that link specifically goes against the only argument you have presented in this debate." Regardless of what my opponent may think it means, or what he is trying to make you believe, the link I have posted is direcrly related to racism/affirmative action. The fact that the university had lowerd the standards for minorities, but not white males, is directly related to affirmative action, because it affirmative action means that there needs to be a certain amount of minorties per capita, so they lowered their standards, for them in order to meet the goal, which is a form of racism. Here is a definition for affirmative action: http://www.answers.com... doesn't sound bad does it? However, this is the present not the past, we do not own slaves, woman have just as many rights as men. Thus trying to right the wrongs of past actions are not neccessarily just. I did nothing to desearve being punished, it was my ancesters. In fact My ancesters may have fought it you never know. Here is another: http://www.merriam-webster.com... here is the deffinition that one provided: "an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons" So the minorities and women would not get the job otherwise? They need handounts? How is that not racist, and wrong? An effort to help disadavtaged persons, so that is like in the olymics, when that girl hurt her leg, she had less time put on, because of her injury. Would that be fair to everyone? Was it her fault she was hurt, no. Neither was it anybody else's. The fact is when someone has a disadvantage, there is no fair thing to do so you need to look at the greater good. For no reason should that person not get the job unless [s]he is unable/unwilling to do the job well, and is good with other people. Thus affirmintive action is unjust and should not be considered when employing someone, but this should: 1) Best qualified- someone who meets the needs of the business or company. 2) Best fit for company- someone who gets along with the other employees best. 3) Conduct in interview- If a white male and a black male appear identical on paper, but in the interview you see they get along well with people with no apparent anger issues, but the white person shows up early, and the black person shows up late, it should g to the white person, and vise versa, color once again should not be an issue. I have presented my case and my stance, now I await my opponent's argument. As it stands, I urge you to vote against racism, thus for Pro.