Race Based Affirmative Action in Universities

To answer their questions:1. I would disagree with this statement. A college may choose to accept their candidates in any manner they wish. If they choose to create a more diverse campus, then it is indeed their job to accept students with race as a factor.2. I would also disagree with the second question. Although I am a bit unsure about what it means to "push over the edge," from what I understand most applicants who would not have received acceptance without RBAA, would not receive it with RBAA.3. I would disagree with this question as well, as I clearly showed how people who receive at least some college are more likely to vote, and therefore can make themselves more represented politically. Even with political manipulation, such as gerrymandering, having more people vote does make a difference, and with enough voters, they could elect legislators with goals to eliminate these unfair and biased political practices.4. I would like to abstain from answering the final question. I have no real answer myself, and there is no clear data to show the effects of not implementing RBAA. For these reasons, I choose not to answer. To rebut my opponents argument:My opponent claims that RBAA has little effect on how minorities get elected, yet I showed data which proved that more educated people (people who have received some college) tend to have a higher voting turnout that those that haven't. Therefore, if minority races are accepted to college based off of regional proportions to the population, they will have a higher chance of being represented better politically, as they will have a tendency to have greater voter turnout. With a higher voter turnout, it can ultimately lead to the ability to elect legislators who wish to rid of political nuisances, such as gerrymandering. Without this higher voter turnout, it is not so likely these unfair rules will be overturned. My opponent also claims that RBAA does not decrease racism in our society, however this is clearly not the case. It forces more diverse campuses to exist, bettering the integration of minority groups into society. Moreover, the other two well-known minorities that aren't advantaged by RBAA (Asian and Jewish) are considered to have a great enough socioeconomic status and therefore are already well integrated into society. By stating that my claim that RBAA "allows for these racial groups, whom have been previously oppressed and who have lower socioeconomic status than the majority group, to be better represented," is flawed and that "ccolleges do not have an obligation to admit based on population proportions" only shows that more legislation looking over RBAA must be created, to have colleges accept the racial minority groups based off of regional proportions. By saying that voter participation does not enter the equation is blatantly false. Receiving a better education not only makes one more likely to vote, but it also teaches them about the issues facing them directly, allowing them to make more educated voting decisions which help them individually or as a certain group. Although it isn't a direct solution to the problem of low voter turnout among minorities, it is a solution that does indeed work. My opponent also claims that disclosing one's race on an application optional would be a solution to intrinsic racism among society and preventing racism during the application process. However, the college may infer race from the name, or other information which may give away the race. Moreover, what would occur when a college wishes to interview their students to learn more about them. Sadly, this solution is quite theoretical and in fact a bit unrealistic to implement. Although RBAA may not be a direct solution to fixing problems with under representation in politics, it serves as a working solution, and therefore should remain implemented along with the reason that it prevents much of the possible racism that may prevail during the application process.