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

Thanks to Pro for his speech. I will begin with rebutting his speech. Issue 1: Does affirmative action uphold the principles of meritocracy? In Pro's case, he argues two things. Firstly, that there are minority races in the status quo who are disadvantaged by the system. Secondly, this disadvantage can be rectified by enabling colleges and universities to "consider race in admissions decisions", which essentially means setting an informal quota on how many students of a minority race they would accept. My response to this: 1) There really isn't any evidence coming from Pro showing conclusively that minority races are disadvantaged. Currently, schools are obliged to take in students regardless of race, and they will be prosecuted should they reject any student based on his race. Therefore, schooling opportunities do not suffer from any 'discrimination'. 2) Perhaps Pro's case is the idea that students of a minority race do not have as much resources as students of the majority race, thereby making it unfair. This is incorrect because resource inequality exists even within the students of the majority race, and in fact college admissions do make provisions for people who come from poor backgrounds. Financial assistance also exists for these students who are struggling; needy students who make the cut are given financial bursaries by the government to continue their studies. Hence, even without as much resources, they can still enjoy as much opportunities as their peers. 3) Pro also argued that minority applicants must meet the minimum standard of grades before their race can be considered. If this is true, then we should also consider the situation when there are much more deserving applicants for the school than they can take in. This means that everyone has made the minimum cut, and the selection will then become about choosing the best out of all the deserving applicants. In that case, considering race and thereby prioritising a minority race candidate would rob another candidate of their place in the college. 4) Finally, is this truly the best way to rectify the income inequality between the races? In fact, must we live with stereotyping certain races as "poor" or "rich, when in fact these labels apply equally to all races? The most optimal solution for helping bright students from poor backgrounds to enter universities is to increase spending on all state schools, provide excellent education, and increase financial bursaries and scholarships for talented but needy students. This truly ensures fairness, because those who work hard will be given a helping hand by the government. Therefore, I'm thankful that Pro agrees that meritocracy is important. What we disagree on is whether or not the status quo provides a level playing field for people to compete fairly for opportunities. I've argued that 1) the playing field is rather level already, and 2) there are better ways to level the playing field, such as needs-based financial help. Issue 2: Is affirmative action a fair "punishment"? Pro's case is essentially the idea that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is charity, and charity is good. My responses: 1) This is an untrue distinction. You are not merely taking away opportunities from the rich, but also from the student who is poor but happens to be of a majority race, and also from the student from an honest middle class family. You are also not merely giving it to the poor, because not all families of a minority race are poor. While it serves as good rhetoric, this isn't true of the sacrifices involved. The real payoff is taking from the majority of society, and giving to the minority. 2) As I've mentioned in my earlier argument, I do believe that financial help is the solution. I think that race-blind financial help is the most effective in this case, so I'm glad we agree on this. This still does not answer my argument about how you are punishing the current generation for the intolerance of the former generation. This is akin to punishing your children for a mistake you committed. Is this truly fair? 3) Dealing with the point on taxes, there are two reasons why it's a faulty analogy. Firstly, taxes are willingly given by the population. Should you choose to disagree, you can vote for a different government or leave the country. However, in the case of college admissions, students cannot choose to pass on their opportunities to minority race students, it has been chosen for them by the college who cannot be removed or challenged by the students. Secondly, just because people agree that poor people should be helped does not mean that they agree how they should be helped. For example, I would definitely agree with you that poor people should be given assistance when applying for colleges. However, if you proposed giving each and every individual under the poverty line a free scholarship for college, then I would disagree with you. If colleges started implementing minimum quotas for minority races, do you think that the majority race would readily agree with the policy? I honestly doubt so. Issue 3: Does affirmative action bring more benefits than harm? Here I will deal with his substantive points. 1) "The first benefit is that it brings higher education to everyone." - There is a very dangerous assumption here that everyone is capable of "higher education". We have seen the famous college dropouts Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. People are gifted in different areas, some in academia, others in vocational skills, and others in the arts. Just because you send everyone to college doesn't mean everyone will successfully earn a degree. Therefore, expanding higher education to everyone does not necessarily mean a rise in graduates. - Taking this point further, consider the ramifications when minority race students, who were less qualified than other applicants, do not do well in college. They will fuel racist rhetoric against their entire race, because they were given priority to college but did not do well with the opportunity. - Pro stated that "The median wealth for most minorities, according to the report, is 10 times less than it is for Caucasians." If this is true, government schemes to benefit the poor would lift most minorities up anyway. Government subsidies for education would help minority race students to compete with richer students in academia, allowing those that strive to continue their education. Why should we implement an additional and unnecessary policy when current policies already help those who need it? 2) "The second benefit is that it spreads racial diversity" - I agree that racial diversity is important and a good thing. But the issue here isn't about whether or not racial equality is a good thing (it definitely is), the issue is how best can we achieve this racial diversity? - In the case of the motion, it is effectively a top-down approach to racial diversity, where colleges artificially inflate the population of minority races to make their college appear "diverse". Are we truly satisfied with such a facade? I argue that it would be much better if minority races, through their own effort and merit, qualified for more places in college and hence created a more diverse environment. - The question here is: is it better to engineer a racially diverse environment, or to provide the right conditions for one to flourish? The most prominent problems of artificially creating one is that lies dampen the spirit of racial equality. When colleges are exemplified as paragons of racial diversity when it is known that racial quotas exist, it makes a mockery out of the equality movement and its achievements so far. Issue 4: "Legally justified" This deals with the final substantive on Pro's case. Firstly, just because something is legal does not make it morally correct. A good example is slavery, which was once legalised because African slaves were legally declared as 'not human'. However, we all know how slavery is morally heinous. Secondly, even if Pro counter-argues that the legality of an act is part and parcel of today's morality (therefore, slavery was moral by the standards of the past because it was legal in the past), this is still faulty logic. Pro must demonstrate conclusively that legal standards set moral standards, and not the other way round. Here I will show you why society's moral standards dictate legal standards, thereby disproving Pro's substantive by showing that it has the causation the wrong way round. - The people who set laws are the legislative body. In the US, this is Congress. In the UK, this is the Parliament. Hence, if Congress or Parliament decides to pass a new law banning alcohol for every person below the age of 21, then this become legislation and will be enforced by the police (executive branch) and the courts (judicial branch). - The lawmakers are democratically elected by the people through state/county/other geographical denominations elections. Therefore, it can be said that the aggregate opinion of the Congress or Parliament is representative of the aggregate opinion of the population of the country. People make their moral standards evident through the outcome of voting, when they select a candidate who is pro-abortion than anti-abortion. Therefore, laws are reflective of society's opinions on what is right and wrong, because people, with their own moral standards, elect a representative whom then passes legislature which enshrines these moral standards as law. - This proves Pro's case wrong because laws cannot be said to be the predominant force for shaping society's moral standards. Even for children, parents and social norms are much stronger tools for moulding the child's moral compass compared to the law. In conclusion, it's unjustified, unnecessary, and counterproductive to true racial equality.