Affirmative Action is Fair

I would like to begin by pointing out a few misunderstandings on the part of my opponent. Also, I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part. First of all, when I stated that the second Sotomayor quote could apply to any Affirmative Action beneficiaries, my purpose was to prove that they could all be successful, because their experiences were just as valuable and useful as the knowledge attained by receiving a better education. This argument has nothing to do with inequality or fairness, as my opponent thought. It's simply pointing out that Affirmative Action can be very successful. Therefore, I'm assuming that the example my opponent posed in that paragraph is an extension of their own second argument, that Affirmative Action doesn't take into account economic status, and I will treat it as such. Second, in the second paragraph of their round three arguments, my opponent referred to their argument I addressed as both of their points combined: "Back to the point I mentioned in my previous post about poor Asian Americans being rejected for rich African Americans." From my understanding, these are two different points. The first is "Asian-Americans being disproportionately harmed", and the second is "Affirmative Action doesn't take into account economic status." Although they both have an effect on Asian-Americans, they are separate points, which I addressed separately in my first post. In the second paragraph of their round three post, my opponent addressed my rebuttal "Asian-Americans being disproportionately harmed." I just wanted to make sure this is clear. My opponent provided further supporting evidence to counter my rebuttal to their second argument ("Affirmative Action doesn't take into account economic status"). There are two key flaws with this evidence, that basically render it invalid: First, and most important, is that it is the logical fallacy of 'Cherry Picking' evidence. After going into detail on the admittedly unfair policy of a single Law School, my opponent stated that Harvard does the same thing, as well. This brings me to the second flaw, which is in the Harvard example. In my opponent's own words, the actions of Harvard admissions officers only "strongly imply" that they care about race more than economic status. So basically, my opponent's entire warrant for claiming that colleges neglect economic status in favor race more is based on only a single example. The fact is, the majority of colleges and employers do take economic status into account. It's not just a dehumanized, automatic selection process for them. They will take economic status into account. Also, the very existence of Affirmative Action does not imply that it is mutually exclusive with giving priority to Asians or Caucasians of low economic status. They could easily both be true, especially since colleges and prospective employers almost always put time, effort, and consideration into the selection process. There is no reason why they can't give an advantage to both an impoverished caucasian, and an African-American of a slightly higher income level. My opponent attempted to address by rebuttal to his point about Asian-Americans being disproportionately harmed. However, the evidence they presented does not address the key point of my argument. Colleges may want applicants who demonstrate a more individualized personality. They want applicants who don't conform perfectly to each and every standard. This is because they desire diverse thinkers, as they want to be progressive and innovative. The pressure from families, mentioned in the article my opponent sited, may be the reason why some Asian-American students all conform to similar standards. The reason why a lower proportion of Asian applicants are accepted could also be because more apply. The main point is that there are a huge array of different possible reasons, which my opponent did not consider. Jumping to the conclusion that Affirmative Action is the cause is justified, because my opponent has failed to consider any other plausible causations. Lastly, the only one of my arguments that my opponent actually tried to rebut was the one on discrimination. They stated that Asians are minorities as well, and thus they suffer from discrimination. Yes, Asians do suffer from some degree of discrimination. But so do Caucasians. So do every race, no matter if it is the majority or not. There is going to be some degree of stereotyping, no matter which race one is. But as my opponent admitted, Asians do not suffer to the same degree as African-Americans or Latino-Americans. In fact, much of the stereotyping that Asians are subject to is actually positive stereotyping, in regards to their education opportunities. The most widespread stereotype about Asian-Americans is that they are smart. This is likely to motivate them, and will certainly not serve as a hindrance to most. On the other hand, the stereotyping and discrimination that Latino-Americans and African-Americans often face is almost universally negative, especially when it comes to ignorant assumptions about their intelligence. So to conclude on this important point, the overcoming discrimination is only really an accomplishment when it is negative discrimination. When it is something that might otherwise limit a person from achieving their goals. Not something that pushes them forwards.