romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
Another popular argument for affirmative action is the compensation argument. Blacks were mistreated in the past for a morally irrelevant characteristic of being black so society today should compensate for the injuries. This causes reverse discrimination in the form of preferential hirings, contracts, and scholarships as a means to ameliorate past wrongs. Many opponents argue that this form of reparation is morally indefensible because if blacks were harmed for being black in the past, then preferential treatment for this same trait is illogical. In addition, arguments are made that whites today who innocently benefited from past injustices should not be punished for something they had no control over. Therefore, they are being reverse discriminated against because they are receiving the punishment that should be given to people who willingly and knowingly benefited from discriminatory practices

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is a typical argument in favor of affirmative action?
A: compensation argument', '
Q: In the compensation argument, who should supposedly have to make up for past discrimination against blacks?
A: society today should compensate for the injuries', '
Q: Which argument is being made by those who oppose affirmative action in relation to the compensation argument?
A: preferential treatment for this same trait is illogical', '
Q: In terms of whites, what is an argument that is used to try and refute the benefits of affirmative action as it relates to the compensation argument?
A: whites today who innocently benefited from past injustices should not be punished for something they had no control over', '
Q: According to opposition believers, who should be punished for discrimination?
A: people who willingly and knowingly benefited from discriminatory practices']
Some opponents further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages groups to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the disenfranchised within better-off groups (such as lower-class whites and Asians).There has recently been a strong push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions, in reaction to the controversial and unprecedented decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or sex in admissions considerations. Some opponents believe, among other things, that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who belong to a group it's supposed to help, therefore making affirmative action counter-productive. Furthermore, opponents of affirmative action claim that these policies dehumanize individuals and applicants to jobs or school are judged as members of a group without consideration for the individual person.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Other than failing to achieve its goal, what else do opponents to affirmative action claim it has?
A: undesirable side-effects', '
Q: Other than benefiting more privileged people within minority groups, what is another argument against affirmative action?
A: may increase racial tension', '
Q: When was there a vote regarding affirmative action in Michigan?
A: 2006', '
Q: How many Michigan voters elected to ban affirmative action for university admissions?
A: 60%', '
Q: Which court case featured an unprecedented and controversial decision?
A: Grutter v. Bollinger']
In the US, a prominent form of racial preferences relates to access to education, particularly admission to universities and other forms of higher education. Race, ethnicity, native language, social class, geographical origin, parental attendance of the university in question (legacy admissions), and/or gender are sometimes taken into account when the university assesses an applicant's grades and test scores. Individuals can also be awarded scholarships and have fees paid on the basis of criteria listed above. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment. The Court said that "goals" and "timetables" for diversity could be set instead.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Where are racial preferences highlighted the most in the United States?
A: admission to universities and other forms of higher education', '
Q: What is another term for kids who get preferential treatment due to their parents attending the same university?
A: legacy admissions', '
Q: Which case that went to the Supreme Court resulted in a decision regarding public universities and affirmative action?
A: Bakke v. Regents', '
Q: What are public universities not allowed to do?
A: set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment', '
Q: Instead of being allowed to set numerical targets, what did the Court rule that universities are allowed to do?
A: "goals" and "timetables" for diversity could be set']
The racial preferences debate related to admission to US colleges and universities reflects competing notions of the mission of colleges: "To what extent should they pursue scholarly excellence, to what extent civic goods, and how should these purposes be balanced?". Scholars such as Ronald Dworkin have asserted that no college applicant has a right to expect that a university will design its admissions policies in a way that prizes any particular set of qualities. In this view, admission is not an honor bestowed to reward superior merit but rather a way to advance the mission as each university defines it. If diversity is a goal of the university and their racial preferences do not discriminate against applicants based on hatred or contempt, then affirmative action can be judged acceptable based on the criteria related to the mission the university sets for itself.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does the racial preferences debate indicate about universities and colleges?
A: competing notions of the mission of colleges', '
Q: What claim did Ronald Dworkin make about the expectations that a college application should not have?
A: a right to expect that a university will design its admissions policies in a way that prizes any particular set of qualities', '
Q: What does Ronald Dworkin believe admission should represent?
A: a way to advance the mission as each university defines it', '
Q: When can affirmative action be judged to be acceptable in terms of admissions?
A: If diversity is a goal of the university and their racial preferences do not discriminate']
To accommodate the ruling in Hopwood v. Texas banning any use of race in school admissions, the State of Texas passed a law guaranteeing entry to any state university if a student finished in the top 10% of their graduating class. Florida and California have also replaced racial quotas with class rank and other criteria. Class rank tends to benefit top students at less competitive high schools, to the detriment of students at more competitive high schools. This effect, however, may be intentional since less-funded, less competitive schools are more likely to be schools where minority enrollment is high. Critics argue that class rank is more a measure of one's peers than of one's self. The top 10% rule adds racial diversity only because schools are still highly racially segregated because of residential patterns. The class rank rule has the same consequence as traditional affirmative action: opening schools to students who would otherwise not be admitted had the given school used a holistic, merit-based approach. From 1996 to 1998, Texas had merit-based admission to its state universities, and minority enrollment dropped. The state's adoption of the "top 10 percent" rule returned minority enrollment to pre-1996 levels.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What did the ruling in Hopwood v Texas set a precedent for in terms of admission policies?
A: banning any use of race in school admissions', '
Q: What did the law passed by the State of Texas guarantee?
A: entry to any state university if a student finished in the top 10% of their graduating class', '
Q: Other than Texas and Florida, which other state replaced racial quotas?
A: California', '
Q: What is one example of what racial quotas were replaced with?
A: class rank', '
Q: After the state passed the top 10% rule, what happened to minority enrollment?
A: returned minority enrollment to pre-1996 levels']
During a panel discussion at Harvard University's reunion for African American alumni during the 2003–04 academic year, two prominent black professors at the institution—Lani Guinier and Henry Louis Gates—pointed out an unintended effect of affirmative action policies at Harvard. They stated that only about a third of black Harvard undergraduates were from families in which all four grandparents were born into the African American community. The majority of black students at Harvard were Caribbean and African immigrants or their children, with some others the mixed-race children of biracial couples. One Harvard student, born in the South Bronx to a black family whose ancestors have been in the United States for multiple generations, said that there were so few Harvard students from the historic African American community that they took to calling themselves "the descendants" (i.e., descendants of American slaves). The reasons for this underrepresentation of historic African Americans, and possible remedies, remain a subject of debate.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What was going on at Harvard University during the 2003 - 04 academic year?
A: a panel discussion', '
Q: What did two prominent black professors point out at the panel discussion?
A: an unintended effect of affirmative action policies at Harvard', '
Q: What portion of black Harvard undergraduates came from families in which all four grandparents were born into the African American community?
A: a third', '
Q: What did the African American students at Harvard that could trace their lineage back multiple generations begin calling themselves?
A: the descendants', '
Q: Other than the reasons for the under representation of African Americans, what else is still up for debate?
A: possible remedies']
UCLA professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004 issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of racial preferences in law schools. He noted that, prior to his article, there had been no comprehensive study on the effects of affirmative action. The article presents a study that shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam. The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended. Less qualified black students would attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched in abilities with their classmates and thus perform relatively better. Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibited the use of racial preferences by public universities in California. This change occurred after studies showed that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for whites.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: To which university does Richard H. Sander belong?
A: UCLA', '
Q: In which publication did Sander publish an article questioning racial preferences in law schools?
A: Stanford Law Review', "
Q: What did Sander's study show in terms of black law students rankings?
A: half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school", '
Q: How much does the article estimate the black lawyer population would potentially grow if affirmative action was ended?
A: eight percent', '
Q: Which legislative work prohibited the use of racial preferences for admissions in the state of California?
A: Proposition 209']
A study in 2007 by Mark Long, an economics professor at the University of Washington, demonstrated that the alternatives of affirmative action proved ineffective in restoring minority enrollment in public flagship universities in California, Texas, and Washington. More specifically, apparent rebounds of minority enrollment can be explained by increasing minority enrollment in high schools of those states, and the beneficiaries of class-based (not race) affirmative action would be white students. At the same time, affirmative action itself is both morally and materially costly: 52 percent of white populace (compared to 14 percent of black) thought it should be abolished, implying white distaste of using racial identity, and full-file review is expected to cost the universities an additional $1.5 million to $2 million per year, excluding possible cost of litigation.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What area of study did professor Mark Long have a degree in?
A: economics', '
Q: In which year did Long publish his study?
A: 2007', "
Q: How were rebounds of minority enrollment explained in Long's report?
A: increasing minority enrollment in high schools", '
Q: Who would supposedly be the beneficiaries of a class-based style affirmative action?
A: white students', '
Q: What percentage of the black population thought affirmative action should be abolished?
A: 14']
In 2006, Jian Li, a Chinese undergraduate at Yale University, filed a civil rights complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against Princeton University, claiming that his race played a role in their decision to reject his application for admission and seeking the suspension of federal financial assistance to the university until it "discontinues discrimination against Asian Americans in all forms" by eliminating race and legacy preferences. Princeton Dean of Admissions Janet Rapelye responded to the claims in the November 30, 2006, issue of the Daily Princetonian by stating that "the numbers don't indicate [discrimination]." She said that Li was not admitted because "many others had far better qualifications." Li's extracurricular activities were described as "not all that outstanding". Li countered in an email, saying that his placement on the waitlist undermines Rapelye's claim. "Princeton had initially waitlisted my application," Li said. "So if it were not for a yield which was higher than expected, the admissions office very well may have admitted a candidate whose "outside activities were not all that outstanding".

Questions and answers:
['
Q: With which organization did Li file a civil rights complaint?
A: Office for Civil Rights', '
Q: Which university was Li alleging racial discrimination against?
A: Princeton University', '
Q: Who was the Dean of Admissions at Princeton University at the time of the complaint?
A: Janet Rapelye', "
Q: What did Princeton claim the real reasons for the rejection of Li's application was?
A: many others had far better qualifications", '
Q: Even though Li did not get accepted, what was done instead of a straight rejection?
A: placement on the waitlist']
In 2012, Abigail Fisher, an undergraduate student at Louisiana State University, and Rachel Multer Michalewicz, a law student at Southern Methodist University, filed a lawsuit to challenge the University of Texas admissions policy, asserting it had a "race-conscious policy" that "violated their civil and constitutional rights". The University of Texas employs the "Top Ten Percent Law", under which admission to any public college or university in Texas is guaranteed to high school students who graduate in the top ten percent of their high school class. Fisher has brought the admissions policy to court because she believes that she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas based on her race, and thus, her right to equal protection according to the 14th Amendment was violated. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher on October 10, 2012, and rendered an ambiguous ruling in 2013 that sent the case back to the lower court, stipulating only that the University must demonstrate that it could not achieve diversity through other, non-race sensitive means. In July 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that U of T maintained a "holistic" approach in its application of affirmative action, and could continue the practice. On February 10, 2015, lawyers for Fisher filed a new case in the Supreme Court. It is a renewed complaint that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit got the issue wrong — on the second try as well as on the first. The Supreme Court agreed in June 2015 to hear the case a second time. It will likely be decided by June 2016.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Which University had a lawsuit filed against it?
A: University of Texas', '
Q: What did the plaintiffs claim the university had for an admissions policy?
A: race-conscious policy', '
Q: What did the admissions policy of the University of Texas supposedly violate?
A: their civil and constitutional rights', '
Q: Who concluded that the University maintained a "holistic" approach to affirmative action?
A: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit', '
Q: When will the Supreme Court likely hear the case for the second time?
A: June 2016']
On November 17, 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation, filed lawsuits in federal district court challenging the admissions practices of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The UNC-Chapel Hill lawsuit alleges discrimination against white and Asian students, while the Harvard lawsuit focuses on discrimination against Asian applicants. Both universities requested the court to halt the lawsuits until the U.S. Supreme Court provides clarification of relevant law by ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin for the second time. This Supreme Court case will likely be decided in June 2016 or slightly earlier.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: On which date were lawsuits filed against Harvard and Chapel Hill?
A: November 17, 2014', '
Q: Who filed the lawsuits against the Universities?
A: Students for Fair Admissions', '
Q: Other than Asian students, who else was allegedly being discriminated against?
A: white', '
Q: What is the Students for Fair Admissions an offshoot of?
A: Project on Fair Representation', '
Q: What are the Universities waiting for before proceeding with the lawsuit?
A: until the U.S. Supreme Court provides clarification of relevant law']
In May 2015, a coalition of more than 60 Asian-American organizations filed federal complaints with the Education and Justice Departments against Harvard University. The coalition asked for a civil rights investigation into what they described as Harvard's discriminatory admission practices against Asian-American applicants. The complaint asserts that recent studies indicate that Harvard has engaged in systematic and continuous discrimination against Asian Americans in its "holistic" admissions process. Asian-American applicants with near-perfect test scores, top-one-percent grade point averages, academic awards, and leadership positions are allegedly rejected by Harvard because the university uses racial stereotypes, racially differentiated standards, and de facto racial quotas. This federal complaint was dismissed in July 2015 because the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit makes similar allegations.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many Asian organizations were involved in filing the federal complaints?
A: more than 60', '
Q: Who did the organizations file the complaints with?
A: Education and Justice Departments', '
Q: Who was the target of the filing?
A: Harvard University', '
Q: What grade average do some students have that are being rejected?
A: top-one-percent grade point averages', '
Q: Why was the lawsuit eventually dismissed?
A: the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit makes similar allegations']
The competition is open to any eligible club down to Levels 10 of the English football league system - all 92 professional clubs in the Premier League and Football League (Levels 1 to 4), and several hundred "non-league" teams in Steps 1 to 6 of the National League System (Levels 5 to 10). A record 763 clubs competed in 2011–12. The tournament consists of 12 randomly drawn rounds followed by the semi-finals and the final. Entrants are not seeded, although a system of byes based on league level ensures higher ranked teams enter in later rounds - the minimum number of games needed to win the competition ranges from six to fourteen.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who is the competition open too?
A: any eligible club', '
Q: How many clubs competed in 20011-12?
A: 763 clubs', '
Q: How many rounds in the tournament?
A: 12', '
Q: How many games are needed to win?
A: six to fourteen', '
Q: What league can compete?
A: Premier League and Football League']
The first six rounds are the Qualifying Competition, from which 32 teams progress to the first round of the Competition Proper, meeting the first of the 92 professional teams. The last entrants are the Premier League and Championship clubs, into the draw for the Third Round Proper. In the modern era, non-league teams have never reached the quarter finals, and teams below Level 2 have never reached the final.[note 1] As a result, as well as who wins, significant focus is given to those "minnows" (smaller teams) who progress furthest, especially if they achieve an unlikely "giant-killing" victory.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What rounds are the qualifiers?
A: first six rounds', '
Q: How many teams in the first round? 
A: 92 professional teams.', '
Q: What league enters in the third round?
A: Premier League and Championship clubs', '
Q: In the modern era, has any non-league team reached the quarter finals??
A: never reached the quarter finals', '
Q: Has a level 2 club reached the finals ever?
A: Level 2 have never reached the final.']
Winners receive the FA Cup trophy, of which there have been two designs and five actual cups; the latest is a 2014 replica of the second design, introduced in 1911. Winners also qualify for European football and a place in the FA Community Shield match. Arsenal are the current holders, having beaten Aston Villa 4–0 in the 2015 final to win the cup for the second year in a row. It was their 12th FA Cup title overall, making Arsenal the FA Cup's most successful club ahead of Manchester United on 11.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What do winners receive? 
A: the FA Cup trophy', '
Q: How many FA cup designs have there been?
A: two', '
Q: How many FA cups have there been?
A: five actual cups', '
Q: When was the latest design intoduced?
A: 2014 replica of the second design, introduced in 1911']