Contents

Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups ............................................................ 2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Sample Affirmative Case ........................................................................................................................... 6 Negative Sample Case ........................................................................................................................... 9 Affirmative .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Lack of Policy Fuels Inequality ............................................................................................................ 12 Current policy proves that favoritism is needed................................................................................. 14 Policy in schools is absolutely essential for all sectors of society ....................................................... 15 Favoring groups that have been historically disadvantaged isnt discriminatory .............................. 16 Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary now ................................................................................. 17 Affirmative Action doesnt stigmatize those that it favors ................................................................. 18 Affirmative Action helps create lasting changes in education............................................................ 19 Rumors about Affirmative Action are NOT TRUE ............................................................................... 20 Negative .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Affirmative Action will not solve systemic problems.......................................................................... 22 Current Policy Ignores the Root Cause ............................................................................................... 23 Policies that privilege the historically disadvantaged fail ................................................................... 24 Preferring historically disadvantaged groups has horrific unintended consequences is bad for society ................................................................................................................................................. 25 Affirmative Action for women is failing .............................................................................................. 26 Affirmative Action doesnt create real diversity ................................................................................. 27 Collegiate interventions are too late .................................................................................................. 28 Affirmative Action Stigmatizes those it is supposed to help .............................................................. 29 Affirmative Action creates false diversity ........................................................................................... 30

Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups
Addressing the systemic inequalities in America has facilitated the contentious debate over what most effectively can help to undue past wrongs and promote a better future. Although this resolution does not use the specific term, affirmative action, favoring groups that have been historically disadvantaged by their membership in certain groups such as sex or race has been the definition of affirmative action that the United States has repeatedly used and courts have considered. The United States Commission on Civil Rights defines affirmative action as any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, that permits the consideration of race, national origin, sex, or disability, along with other criteria, and which is adopted to provide opportunities to a class of qualified individuals who have either historically or actually been denied those opportunities and/or to prevent the recurrence of discrimination in the future. The Supreme Court has issued several parameters for what is legal favoritism. In 2003, the Supreme Court heard Gatz v Bollinger and found that public colleges and universities cannot admit students solely on the basis of race or award points in the admission process that would guarantee the admission of every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, because it is not a narrowly tailored method to create diversity (Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. qtd in Chace). In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Court eliminated schools ability to use racial quotas, but preserved schools ability to consider race in admission decisions. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court ruled that narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause (Grutter v. Bollinger et al. qtd in Chace). This debate provides for adequate ground on each side of the resolution. On the affirmative there are several key arguments that can be made equaling the playing field, helping diminish exclusion in education, and removing the stigma that surrounds historically disadvantaged groups in education. The gist of the effectiveness argument is claim that affirmative action allows for public colleges and universities to consider the status of a person, in addition to other measures to promote diversity. This is important because many historically disadvantaged groups attend schooling prior to college that has left them less able to compete with students who do not come from these backgrounds. It can be argued that affirmative action diminishes inequality in the education system as it considers prior access to educational resources while actively trying to diversify the student body, which at a minimum helps to reduce some structural inequality on an individual basis. Another main argument on the affirmative is reducing stigma. Affirmative action allows for students to break down educational stereotypes about the groups they belong to and other barriers to success; which challenges the validity of these believes and the policies and the dehumanization and social mistreatment that go along with these attitudes and beliefs. The negative also has several key arguments at their disposal. The first is the ineffectiveness of affirmative action; while it is clear that some progress has been made, there are still massive inequalities that systematically abuse certain sectors of the population, which undermines the purpose and functionality of affirmative action. A second important negative argument is focusing on the ways that affirmative action policies come too late as an intervention; because often disadvantaged populations attend failing schools, which prevents the affirmative from accessing total solvency for education. While affirmative action does help some students, it leaves the vast majority of certain populations without access to adequate educational resources or opportunities; thus, it can be argued that it is simply a band aid for larger social problems, which allows bigger problems to go on solved. Lastly, the argument that affirmative action stigmatizes the people it is supposed to help is a valuable tool in this debate. There is a dearth of literature that suggests that affirmative action stigmatizes those admitted and undermines

their educational success. This stigma undermines the value of peoples success, and often times their personhood, as it reifies stereotypes that certain groups are not able to achieve educational successes on their own and are less competent than their peers

Definitions
Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups Admission
1. The act of allowing to enter; entrance granted by permission, by provision or existence of pecuniary means, or by the removal of obstacles Source: Dictionary.com 2. Right or permission to enter Source: Dictonary.com 3. Acceptance for a position, office, etc. Source: the Free Dictionary 4. Allowing to enter Source: American Heritage Dictionary 5. To give entrance or access Source: Merriam Webster Discussion: This term shouldnt become too contentious; however, it is plausible that this term could become important when it is paired with the definition of affirmative action that doesnt include a component that stipulates that individuals from historically disadvantaged groups will be similarly qualified. If qualifier is absent, the negative could make arguments that the policy the affirmative is advocating sets up disadvantaged students for failure.

Public/Public College
1. Public institutions are established either by state constitution or by statute, and they receive funding from state appropriations as well as tuition and endowments. Source: Dictionary.com 2. Maintained at the expense of, serving, or for the use of a community: Source: Dictionary.com 3. Public colleges and universities have funding that comes directly from their state Source: College to Career 4. Maintained for or used by the people or community Source: American Heritage Dictionary 5. Relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation Source: Merriam Webster Discussion: Public will only come into debates where the funding of an institution is called into practice, which is highly unlikely. Ought 1. Used to indicate duty or correctness Source: Oxford English Dictionary 2. Used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like Source: Dictionary.com 3. Used to express obligation

Source: Merriam Webster Used to indicate advisability or prudence Source: American Heritage Dictionary 5. Used to indicate desirability Source: The Free Dictionary 6. Should Source: Dictonary.com 4. Discussion: Despite the fact that ought appears in many LD resolutions, it is still strategically important to define this word. This resolution is largely framed by the way that ought is defined, as it characterizes affirmative action as an action or as a concept. If you are running a traditional case, or a critical case, choose a definition that casts the resolution as a moral dilemma; definitions such as 1, 2, 3 would be most appropriate. For example, argument concerning the necessity of affirmative action to remedy structural violence would be best supported by defining ought as an ethical question. If you intend to run a plan, definitions 4, 5, 6 would be more effective, as they designate a course of action. Should (definition 6) directly dictates a policy action, thus a plan would be justified if ought is defined this way.

Favor
1. The state of being approved or held in regard Source: Dictionary.com 2. Support or advancement given as a sign of approval: Source: Oxford English Dictionary 3. A privilege or concession Source: American Heritage Dictionary Discussion: This term is important if a specific policy is mentioned. Otherwise, it would be most prudent to describe the specific act of favoring in the definition of affirmative action, as that more directly addresses what type of considerations each side is willing to defend.

Historically Disadvantaged
1. Individuals as those who face challenges because of their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other similar factors. Source: Minority Medical Faculty Development Program, 2. Any person, category of persons or community, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination before the Constitution took effect; Source: Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 3. American Indian, Hispanic, Black individuals Sources: The Urban Institute Discussion: This term is really tricky to define. The federal government uses race and sex as the basis for affirmative action policy; however, historically disadvantaged isnt defined. Most often, historically disadvantaged is simply stated and no indication to which groups qualify as historically disadvantaged, which makes this term tricky to define. The first two definitions come from affirmative action programs that have been accepted as legal favoritism. The most important thing about this term is its propensity to become the focus of the debate; depending on what categories are included, certain groups could be added or ignored such as individuals with disabilities or individuals of lower socioeconomic status. Since this is a term of art, it is important that the historically and disadvantaged be defined together.

Sample Affirmative Case

Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups Definitions
Admission: Right or permission to enter- Dictonary.com Ought: Used to indicate obligation or duty- Dictonary.com Historically: in the past - Merriam Webster Disadvantaged: lacking in the basic resources or conditions- Merriam Webster Affirmative Action any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, that permits the consideration of race, national origin, sex, or disability, along with other criteria, and which is adopted to provide opportunities to a class of qualified individuals who have historically or actually been denied those opportunities and/or to prevent the recurrence of discrimination in the future.

Value: Maximizing Social Justice : Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural
law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice.( The business dictionary)

Criterion: Minimization of Structural Violence Michelle Maiese Associate Professor of Philosophy at Emanuel College 03
Social and political institutions set the context for individual and group behavior and are meant to provide the resources individuals need to survive. How people act and live is shaped in large part by the social structures in which they find themselves. Social justice is, in part, a matter of ensuring that these structures and institutions do in fact satisfy basic human needs. In some cases however, a society's social institutions are characterized by exploitation, political exclusion, and unequal access to resources. These structural forces often create a system of winners and losers in which people become trapped in a particular social situation. Structural violence often results, in the form of power inequity, poverty, and the denial of basic human rights. Basic human needs go unmet, and groups suffer from inadequate access to resources and exclusion from institutional patterns of decision-making.[ Unjust structural forces and divisions also contribute to discrimination, lack of education, and inadequate employment opportunities. An example of this sort of structural violence is the effect of deindustrialization on minority and working-class communities in the United States - Affirmative action is one way that unfair social structures can be broken down and social justice can be promoted. Social justice is achieved when groups are emancipated from structural forces that subordinate them; denying this policy ensures that the unfair social structures will continue to abuse sectors of the population.

Contention 1: Affirmative Action is necessary Preferencing is essential and does NOT harm Students in the racial majority William M. Chace, Professor of English at Stanford University and former President of Wesleyan and Emory Universities, Winter 2011 Affirmative Inaction, The American Scholar,
http://theamericanscholar.org/affirmative-inaction/ What happens if the handicapping is taken away? The same authors found that the outcome would be dramatic, with acceptance rates falling for African-American applicants from 31 percent to 13 percent and for Hispanic applicants by as much as one-half to two-thirds; Asian-American applicants would occupy four out of five of the seats created by fewer African-American and Hispanic acceptances. The Asian-American acceptance rate would rise by one-third from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Most astonishingly, it turns out thatcontrary to the assumptions of those who contend that affirmative action puts white students at a severe disadvantagewhite applicants would benefit very little from the removal of racial and ethnic preferences; their acceptance rate would increase by less than one percentage point. Given the probable results of eliminating affirmative actiona student body consisting almost wholly of whites and Asian Americansno chief administrator of a respectable college or university would happily oversee the erosion of the presence of black or Hispanic students. -Affirmative actions primary goal is to minimize structural violence through narrowly tailored preference of students, which opens up opportunities that in many cases would be denied to students. Affirmative action policy maximizes social justice as it helps to decrease discrimination and help stop the perpetuation of unequal social structures.

C2: Affirmative Action is Effective Affirmative Action improves recruitment opportunities for minorities Bill Maxwell, author for the Saint Petersburg Times and professor of journalism at Stillman College, 2000, St. Petersberg Times,
http://www.sptimes.com/News/120300/Columns/A_good_argument_for_a.shtml One positive result is that the universities now have greater reason to recruit minorities. Unlike in the recent past, when most institutions of higher education saw themselves as ivory towers of theory and intellectuality, many now consider supplying specific companies with minority recruits to be one of their key missions. - Affirmative action generates opportunities for people that last after college, which challenges structural violence within the educational system and beyond that point. Social justice is best achieved when structural violence in minimized.

Policies are essential to lessening current inequalities and solving for future inequality Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary I think the question answers itself. I think anybody who thinks that we can solve a 400-year pattern of systemic discrimination with 20 years of good behavior is absolutely delusional. I think that if you look at our society, if you look at the human rights abuses that have been documented by the United Nations, it's been made very clear, and it's known throughout the world, that the United States is still a two-tiered society. If you look at quality-of-life factors such as education, economic equality, mass incarceration, etc., you see that people of color still live a very different reality from people whose ancestors were not subject to discrimination. You see, affirmative action is not just a matter of dealing with what I've gone through as an African-American male, and the discrimination I've experienced. It's a matter of dealing with the fact that there is inequality that was created in my life long before I was born because of what my ancestors were not able to leave to me. They were not able to leave wealth to me. They were not able to give me power to inherit.So ultimately, if you really want to make America the country that we claim that we've always wanted it to be, you have to dig a little deeper than to just have a couple policies that run for a couple decades. Structural violence and social justice are best upheld when public colleges and universities help dismantle the structural violence that underpins many institutions, only then can structural violence be dismantled.

Negative Sample Case

Resolved: When making admissions decisions, public colleges and universities in the United States ought to favor members of historically disadvantaged groups Value: Responsibility- having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable-Dictionary.com Criteria: Minimization of Structural Violence Michelle Maiese Associate Professor of Philosophy at Emanuel College 03
Social and political institutions set the context for individual and group behavior and are meant to provide the resources individuals need to survive. How people act and live is shaped in large part by the social structures in which they find themselves. Social justice is, in part, a matter of ensuring that these structures and institutions do in fact satisfy basic human needs. In some cases however, a society's social institutions are characterized by exploitation, political exclusion, and unequal access to resources. These structural forces often create a system of winners and losers in which people become trapped in a particular social situation. Structural violence often results, in the form of power inequity, poverty, and the denial of basic human rights. Basic human needs go unmet, and groups suffer from inadequate access to resources and exclusion from institutional patterns of decision-making.[ Unjust structural forces and divisions also contribute to discrimination, lack of education, and inadequate employment opportunities. An example of this sort of structural violence is the effect of deindustrialization on minority and working-class communities in the United States - Affirmative action does nothing to change these structures; rather it simply allows some people to gain access to structures they wouldnt be able to. It is our responsibility to challenge these structures and the policies that prop them up.

Contention 1: Affirmative Action is ineffective Affirmative action ignores the real problems behind educational inequality
Hugh B. Price,former president of the National Urban League and expert on criminal justice, equal opportunity and civil rights, Robert L Woodson, is founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise (NCNE), 2009, Race and Society, Black America Today, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/society/debate1.html I disagree with affirmative action because it is trying to apply a downstream solution to an upstream problem. I agree with Hugh that there must be increased emphasis on boosting achievement levels of K-12 children of color. If we put the energy that has gone into arguing affirmative action into improving our education system, we would not have to be arguing about affirmative action. The responsibility to minimize structural violence cannot be fulfilled when the education system serves as a glaring beacon of inequality. Affirmative action only affects a minimal amount of students, compared to the multitude of students who are being subjected to inequality in the education system.

Affirmative Actions will not undue institutional racism William M. Chace, Professor of English at Stanford University and former President of Wesleyan and Emory Universities, Winter 2011 Affirmative Inaction, The American Scholar,
http://theamericanscholar.org/affirmative-inaction/ If African-American males are underrepresented in colleges or universities, they are overrepresented in federal, state, and county prisons, jails, and juvenile detention facilities. About one in three black men will go to prison in his lifetime, compared to one in 17 white males. One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 already lives under some form of correctional supervision or control. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that some 186,000 black males between the ages of 18 and 24 were behind bars in federal and state prisons and local jails in 2005.No amount of affirmative action, at either private or public colleges and universities, will free these men from jail. Nor will affirmative action be able to reach into the homes, neighborhoods, and schools to rectify the distressing situations poverty, drugs, families customarily without either husband or fatherthat once served such men, and will now serve others, so badly. Nothing that colleges and universities can do will be enough to rewrite the history of racial inequality that has, for decade after decade, poisoned this nations history . Black men in prison are a function of that poisonous history, and affirmative action is a societal antidote to this and other existing effects of racism. We must not forget - History has shown that affirmative action still allows for discriminatory educational environments. It is irresponsible to intervene at the collegiate level with a selective policy which only helps a few at the expense of many. Justifications for affirmative action only legitimizes these abuses and claims to solve them later, while excusing the structural violence it causes in the mean time

Sub Point B: Affirmative Action causes stigma the root cause of discrimination Even the mention of affirmative action causes stigma Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Division 14 of the APA,2012, ,
http://www.siop.org/AfirmAct/siopsaarnontarg.aspx Majority members typically view women and minorities selected through AAPs to be less competent than those selected without affirmative action, and this effect may generalize to evaluations of the target group as a whole. Such findings occur when affirmative action is operationalized as strong preferential treatment and when affirmative action is not defined procedurally, that is, when affirmative action is simply mentioned. This stigmatization may be eliminated by providing clear and compelling evidence of the woman or minority member's competence. A frequent criticism of affirmative action is that non-target group members will stigmatize target groups members, as found in this research. Affirmative Action simply perpetuates stigmas associate with minority and education and allow for these stigmas to be applied to entire minority groups. Stereotypes and stigmas have been habitually used as a justification for denying individuals adequate access to education due to their group membership. Affirmative action policy directly undermines its goals and serves as the justification for dehumanizing groups of people through racism and sexism. It is our responsibility to take a stand against this structural violence. The ballot functions as an action of micro political action, voting negative is a vote against the systematic violence directed against minority groups caused by affirmative action and an endorsement of the responsibility that we all have to fight policy that reifies discrimination and stereotyping,

Affirmative

Lack of Policy Fuels Inequality

Preferential treatment is necessary to help racial minorities gain access to higher education. William M. Chace, Professor of English at Stanford University and former President of Weslean and Emory Universities, Winter 2011 Affirmative Inaction, The American Scholar,
http://theamericanscholar.org/affirmative-inaction/The history of affirmative action includes the graduation of thousands of young men and women who otherwise would not have passed within the gates of a college or university. Many of those graduates have gone on to professional careers where their success has helped to reinvigorate the American dream. They have become physicians, diplomats, lawyers, Army officers, stockbrokers, journalists, high government officials, scientists, and business leaders. Why, advocates of affirmative action now ask, should their number not be augmented?But before all else, its worth asking whether affirmative action is really needed. For all their differences, both critics and advocates acknowledge that some classes of students, particularly African-American and Hispanic, cannot gain admission to many colleges and universities solely on the basis of their academic preparation. They need preferential treatment to enter the model commonwealth. The College Board last measured mean Scholastic Aptitude Scores by Ethnicity in 2008; the results are sobering:In critical reading, African-American students scored, on average, 83 points below AsianAmerican students, who in turn scored less well, by 15 points, than white students. But in mathematics, Asian-American students trumped both whites and African Americans, by 44 points and 155 points respectively. In writing, whites did just about as well as Asian Americans (two points higher) and considerably better than African Americans (94 points higher). And in every category, Mexican Americans did less well than whites and Asian Americans but better than African Americans. With such dissimilar scores facing them over the years (the year 2008 being little different from the previous five years), admissions officers at colleges or universities have introduced handicapping measures in order to admit applicants with weaker scores. Those measures have hardly been trivial.One important set of studies, by Thomas Espenshade of Princeton University and his colleagues, examined the records of more than 100,000 applicants to three highly selective private universities. They found that being an African-American candidate was worth, on average, an additional 230 SAT points on the 1600-point scale and that being Hispanic was worth an additional 185 points, but that being an Asian-American candidate warranted the loss, on average, of 50 SAT points.

Preferencing is essential and does NOT harm Students in the racial majority William M. Chace, Professor of English at Stanford University and former President of Weslean and Emory Universities, Winter 2011 Affirmative Inaction, The American Scholar,
http://theamericanscholar.org/affirmative-inaction/What happens if the handicapping is taken away? The same authors found that the outcome would be dramatic, with acceptance rates falling for African-American applicants from 31 percent to 13 percent and for Hispanic applicants by as much as one-half to two-thirds; Asian-American applicants would occupy four out of five of the seats created by fewer African-American and Hispanic acceptances. The Asian-American acceptance rate would rise by one-third from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Most astonishingly, it turns out that contrary to the assumptions of those who contend that affirmative action puts white students at a severe disadvantagewhite applicants would benefit very little from the removal of racial and ethnic preferences; their acceptance rate would increase by less than one percentage point. Given the probable results of eliminating affirmative actiona student body consisting almost wholly of whites and Asian Americansno chief administrator of a respectable college or university would happily oversee the erosion of the presence of black or Hispanic students. That is why no such institution has volunteered to be first to proclaim that it will formally jettison affirmative action. In order to protect what they see as the positive results of the practice and also to protect themselves against litigation by a white plaintiff arguing that his or her chance of admission has been jeopardized, colleges and universities have increasingly relied on admissions standards that depend less on SAT scores and more on intangible and personal attributes: having leadership skills, having the strength to overcome social and economic circumstances, or being the first in the family to seek higher education. With such careful consideration, the candidates can then be admitted (or rejected) one by one.

The Supreme Court has already supported narrowly tailored preferencing and rejected admission solely on race William M. Chace, Professor of English at Stanford University and former President of Weslean and Emory Universities, Winter 2011 Affirmative Inaction, The American Scholar,
http://theamericanscholar.org/affirmative-inaction/ The two celebrated cases emerging from the University of Michigan, about which Justice OConnor made her memorable remark, illustrate the situation faced by a leading public institution practicing affirmative action. The Supreme Court employed strict scrutiny in reaching its decisions. And, as the Court saw, when the university itself employed careful scrutiny in its admissions procedures, it was entitled to an important victory.One case addressed the admissions policies of Michigans law school (Grutter v. Bollinger et al.); the other addressed undergraduate admissions in its college (Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al.). The former found for the university, declaring, The narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. The latter decision found against the university, noting that its current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity .

Current policy proves that favoritism is needed

Schools that have removed policies are already seeing negative effects Hugh B. Price,former president of the National Urban League and expert on criminal justice, equal opportunity and civil rights, Robert L Woodson, is founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise (NCNE),2009, Race and Society, Black America Today,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/society/debate1.html We've already seen the damage that ending affirmative action has done at highly selective public colleges and universities like the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Texas at Austin. Heightened reliance on quantifiable measure of merit, like SAT and ACT scores, overwhelms consideration of valid qualitative indices of talent, merit and potential, like drive, determination, leadership and communications skills. This trend has placed black and Latino youngsters at a decided disadvantage in the admissions process at highly selective public institutions. All of that said, there must be increased emphasis on boosting the achievement levels of K-12 children of color.

Affirmative action is still needed to help undue the current discrimination National Organization for Women (NOW), 2012,Talking About Affirmative Action,
http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html. Despite the enormous gains made by the civil rights and women's rights movements, women and people of color still face unfair obstacles in business and education. An astonishing 70% of schools are not in compliance with Title IX, the federal equal education opportunity law. For every dollar earned by men, women on a whole earn 74 cents, African American women earn 63 cents and Latina women earn 57 cents. According to the Census Bureau, only 25% of all doctors and lawyers are women. Less than 1% of auto mechanics are women. And women are only 8.4% of engineers.

Policy is necessary to equalize education against racism and sexism Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary I think it's interesting that we have this big problem with preferences in that context, but white kids were getting affirmative action long before the program was ever created. I see, in many cases, where there are legacies of individuals that are admitted to universities because their parents went to school here, or their parents had money to give to the school, or some other sort of benefit that comes from the fact that the campus, or that the institution, was built with social norms, systems, and an infrastructure that benefits white males over other people.For example, it's much easier to get mentorship from white males if you are a white male. So the bottom line is that if we don't start to honestly reflect on some of this, then we're never really going to make things right. And this idea that somehow helping minorities is taking something away from other people is incredibly problematic, because we didn't have a problem taking things away from minorities, but we certainly have a problem giving anything back.

Policy in schools is absolutely essential for all sectors of society

Benefits of policy in schools spills over Hugh B. Price,former president of the National Urban League and expert on criminal justice, equal
opportunity and civil rights, Robert L Woodson, is founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise (NCNE),2009, Race and Society: Diversity in Schools, Black America Today, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/society/debate1.html I firmly believe that integrated education is good for African Americans and good for all Americans. The evidence substantiates this. Plus, in an increasingly diverse society, school is one of the best places where we can begin to learn to live and work together, share space and opportunity together. That's essential if our society is going to work. The reality, though, is that many school systems are demographically land-locked, if you will. Since the federal courts are less and less inclined to force busing across district boundaries, there is less political will and legal muscle to engineer integration . If the government gave low-income housing vouchers or housing tax credits that enabled them to move to other communities, chances are more children would experience integration. The difficulty of realizing school integration in this day and age is the reason for the heightened focus on making certain all children receive a first-class education wherever they go to school. For children educated in racially isolated settings, learning to live and work together may have to wait until they enter college or the workplace.

Students benefit form current policy Hugh B. Price, former president of the National Urban League and expert on criminal justice, equal
opportunity and civil rights, Robert L Woodson, is founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise (NCNE),2009, Race and Society: Diversity in Schools, Black America Today, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/society/debate1.html Proximity enables people to practice and learn tolerance. I'm convinced that America has made so much progress in race relations because college campuses, public agencies, corporate workplaces and public accommodations are vastly more open and integrated than they were a generation ago. Racial tensions often arise these days in workplace settings where employees of all races who have high school degrees or less encounter one another for the first time. K-12 education in this country is very segregated. Young people emerging from high school often have had little exposure to peers of other races, much less much practice learning to work together. So I'd argue that the interracial interaction that comes with integration is educationally sound and promotes economic productivity.

Affirmative action creates a network of opportunities for disadvantaged groups Boyce Watson, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal
Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?, NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary Well, first of all, you have to remember it was a half-century ago that affirmative action first began, and it began at a time in which discrimination, not just private discrimination but state-sponsored discrimination, was pervasive. The goal of affirmative action was not just to eliminate discrimination, but to try to cast a wider net, and to provide opportunities for those who had suffered past discrimination to be able to get the skills and training necessary to be able to compete on an equal footing.

Favoring groups that have been historically disadvantaged isnt discriminatory

Affirmative action isnt reverse discrimination National Organization for Women (NOW), 2012,Talking About Affirmative Action,
http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html. Affirmative Action levels the playing field so people of color and all women have the chance to compete in education and in business. White men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs. And that's with affirmative action programs in place. Imagine how low figures would be without affirmative action. Of 3000 federal court decisions in discrimination cases between 1990 and 1994, only 100 involved claims of reverse discrimination; only 6 of those claims were found to be valid.

Affirmative Action is still necessary to stop discrimination Boyce Watson, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary Well, I think the mission is interpreted in different ways by different people. But I would say that the goal of affirmative action was to make things right - to make America a country that is more consistent with its value systems; to try to make America into the country that it would have been had we not had a 400-year period in which one group was subjugated to the mercy of another. I think that the broader objective is not just to eliminate discrimination but to actually eliminate racial inequality - which is a product of discrimination, you see, because you can have racial inequality even when there are no racists in the building. When you look at American institutions, and you look at the divergent power structures, you see that there are many corporations, organizations, universities, etc., to this day, that haven't hired or promoted a person of color...

Affirmative action doesnt crowd out opportunities for white men National Organization for Women (NOW), 2012,Talking About Affirmative Action,
http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html. If half of the people of color who are admitted to schools under affirmative action programs were cut, the acceptance rates of white men would only increase by 2%. Women still face barriers in schools. In Washington, women receive only 12% of doctorates in engineering, and women are substantially under-represented in computer science nationwide.

Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary now

Obama being elected DOES NOT undermine the need for affirmative action America is still Racist Reginald T Shuford, Senior Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,2009, Campbell Law Review pgs 503-533,http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3503.pdf With the election of Barack Obama to the most powerful position in the world, the presidency of the United States of America, many opined that America finally conquered her racial demons, some trumpeting the term post-racial as though it were a fait accompli. That an African-American man much less one with such a nontraditional name could ascend to the highest office in the land, they argue, clearly signals that Americas racist history is a thing of the past. Gone. Over. Kaput. Slate wiped clean. Concomitant with their notion of a post-racial America is the strong belief that complaints of racism lack merit, and measures to remedy past and current exclusionary practices are no longer necessary. But saying it is so does not make it so. There can be no doubt that Obamas election represents a singular moment in American history and demonstrates significant and welcome progress in Americas notoriously fraught racial relations. That said, claims that America is truly post racial are decidedly. Premature. Indeed, during this very election season, some voters conceded that Obamas race was an issue impacting whether they would vote for him.

Inequality is alive and well today Reginald T Shuford, Senior Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,2009, Campbell Law Review pgs 503-533,http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3503.pdf It is more than a little ironic that many of those proclaiming a post-racial America actually opposed Barack Obamas candidacy and, indeed, accorded America that status well before his election as Americas forty-fourth President. Post-racialists whatever their nomenclature over the years have for decades argued that the playing field is level for all Americans, and that race-conscious policies are no longer necessary as there are no racial inequities left to remedy.It is not so much that they have been equal opportunity warriors, who can now pack up and go home after having waged and procured equal opportunity for all after an extended but successful battle. Rather, post-racialists fail to recognize and even deny the existence of racial inequality in the first place. Despite their vehement denials, inequality remains a fact of life for many Americans, greatly undermining their ability to be fully included in society and depriving them of the myriad opportunities that such inclusion permits .

Racism is Alive and Well in Education Reginald T Shuford, Senior Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,2009, Campbell Law Review pgs 503-533,http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3In education, the No Child Left Behind Act has clearly failed in its goal of ending the racial and ethnic achievement gap in test scores. Its provisions that were supposed to alleviate the nations massive dropout crisis have been almost completely ignored. The gap in college completion, which is the key to secure middle class status in the contemporary U.S., remains massive. In 2006, 28.4% of white adults reported graduating from college, compared to 18.5% of blacks and just 12.4% of Latinos , including only 8.5% of Mexican-Americans, by far the largest Latino population.

Affirmative Action doesnt stigmatize those that it favors

Stigma is often projected upon groups rather than felt The University of Iowa News Services, 2008, UI study: minorities do not feel stigmatized by
affirmative action, University of Iowa News Release, http://newsreleases.uiowa.edu/2008/october/100708affirmative_action.htm Evidence that calls the powerful stigma argument into question is important at a time when California, Michigan and Washington recently passed legislation to end affirmative action in public institutions, and similar measures are on the ballot this November in Colorado and Nebraska, said UI Law Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig. She conducted the study with sociologist Mary Campbell of the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Emily Houh, a University of Cincinnati law professor."Anti-affirmativeaction activists bring forth lots of arguments against the program, but stigma gets a lot of play because high-profile individuals like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas make the argument," Onwuachi-Willig said."Well-meaning people who value diversity can be influenced by the argument if they buy the idea that affirmative action hurts the people it was designed to help. Our study suggests it doesn't, and we think it's important to share this evidence so people can use it to continue to support diversity in education."Campbell noted that arguments against affirmative action are often based on anecdotal experiences of a few prominent individuals like Thomas, not on data."We felt it was important to collect something more systematic and think about how the average person experiences the policy, instead of just one individual," Campbell said. "We can't rule out the possibility of one person feeling stigmatized by affirmative action, but that's not what most people experience."On average, minority students at both types of schools disagreed or strongly disagreed with statements such as "I do not deserve to be a student at my school," "Classmates/teachers act as if I was admitted based only on Affirmative action," and "I feel stigmatized by affirmative action."

Other factors cause the stigma NOT affirmative action African American Policy Forum,2011, Myth: Affirmative action stigmatizes its
beneficiaries,http://aapf.org/tool_to_speak_out-2/focus-2/myth-7-affirmative-action-stigmatizes-itsbeneficiaries/ . One of the most common anti-affirmative action arguments is that it harms the very people it is intended to help. This argument relies on two false presumptions: First, that affirmative action conflicts with a genuine American meritocracy, so that people (including its beneficiaries) will always question the qualifications of those who participate in such programs. And, secondly, that the stigma associated with these programs is so pervasive that it even damages those women and people of color who have not benefited from affirmative action. In this sense, these policies are said to cause the members of marginalized groups to question their accomplishments, and to prevent anyone from ever knowing whether they actually deserve the positions that they occupy in American society .In reality, the stigma associated with affirmative action derives from misunderstandings about its nature. These misunderstandings are rooted in the idea that merit can be easily quantified and measured objectively through the use of standardized criteria. Because affirmative action requires that we depart from the use of such criteria, they are thought to unfairly favor the beneficiaries of affirmative action; and, in so doing, to promote reverse discrimination. However, thinking about these programs as a form of preferential treatment for the less qualified is impossible if we remember that they function only to level a playing field that is already biased against women and minorities.

Affirmative Action helps create lasting changes in education

Affirmative Action creates opportunities for admitted students Bill Maxwell, author for the Saint Petersburg Times and professor of journalism at Stillman College, 2000, St. Petersberg Times,
http://www.sptimes.com/News/120300/Columns/A_good_argument_for_a.shtml Many small to large non-profit groups, such as Inroads, the Consortium for Graduate Study in Management and the National Consortium for Graduate Degees for Minorities in Engineering and Science, have made a science of matching industry with institutions of higher education that provide recruits. Most of these organizations offer minority students -- with 3.0 grade-point averages -fellowships and match them with companies that will give them paid internships, mentoring and offers of permanent employment.The Chronicle states that Inroads, for example, with a budget of $30-million and 50 branches in the United States, recruits "at about 600 colleges and has more than 7,000 interns paired with about 900 corporate clients, who pay the organization an annual sponsorship fee for every intern it provides.

Policies are essential to lessening current inequalities and solving for future inequality Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary I think the question answers itself. I think anybody who thinks that we can solve a 400-year pattern of systemic discrimination with 20 years of good behavior is absolutely delusional. I think that if you look at our society, if you look at the human rights abuses that have been documented by the United Nations, it's been made very clear, and it's known throughout the world, that the United States is still a two-tiered society. If you look at quality-of-life factors such as education, economic equality, mass incarceration, etc., you see that people of color still live a very different reality from people whose ancestors were not subject to discrimination. You see, affirmative action is not just a matter of dealing with what I've gone through as an African-American male, and the discrimination I've experienced. It's a matter of dealing with the fact that there is inequality that was created in my life long before I was born because of what my ancestors were not able to leave to me. They were not able to leave wealth to me. They were not able to give me power to inherit.So ultimately, if you really want to make America the country that we claim that we've always wanted it to be, you have to dig a little deeper than to just have a couple policies that run for a couple decades

Affirmative Action improves retention rates for the historically disadvantaged and helps these groups foster professional connections Bill Maxwell, author for the Saint Petersburg Times and professor of journalism at Stillman College, 2000, St. Petersberg Times,
http://www.sptimes.com/News/120300/Columns/A_good_argument_for_a.shtml In addition to money, the universities get an added benefit for pairing minorities and corporations: The minorities in the programs become highly motivated and stay in school. Hewlett-Packard reports that 80 percent of its scholarship recipients remain in college as of their junior year. The Chronicle states that this is a retention rate "more than double that of black and Hispanic students overall."Other firms that give such scholarships also report exceptionally high retention rates among minority student recipients.

Rumors about Affirmative Action are NOT TRUE

Affirmative Action helps several groups Reginald T Shuford, Senior Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,2009, Campbell Law Review pgs 503-533,http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3One of the myths associated with affirmative action is that it is an entitlement program for AfricanAmericans who are its sole beneficiaries. So pervasive is this notion that, for many people, the meremention of the term affirmative action reflexively conjures up an image of an AfricanAmerican with hand held out. This idea is perpetuated by the erroneous notion that affirmative action is no longer necessary because of the election of a black man to the presidency. The media aids and abets this stereotype with its use of certain terminology and imagery, and with its general exclusion of white men, women, and other minorities from its coverage of affirmative action. The truth of the matter is that, in addition to other minorities Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans, for example white men, and women also benefit from affirmative action. As discussed herein, legacy and veteran programs constitute just two of many examples of affirmative action policies that transcend coverage of only African Americans.

Minorities dont feel stigmatized by preferential treatment The University of Iowa News Services, 2008, UI study: minorities do not feel stigmatized by
affirmative action, University of Iowa News Release, http://newsreleases.uiowa.edu/2008/october/100708affirmative_action.htm Opponents of affirmative action point to stigma as a reason for dismantling the policy, but a new University of Iowa study counters that argument. Challengers of the policy argue that minorities who benefit from it could doubt their own credentials or feel the burden of being treated as if they're employed or enrolled only because of race -- not because they earned it.But researchers surveyed 610 students at seven public law schools, and results indicate that minorities at affirmative action schools feel just as good about their qualifications and about how others treat them as minorities at nonaffirmative-action schools do.

Promising not to be discriminatory isnt enough, policy is needed to create change Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary I've never sought out a perfect, utopian society. But we can't settle for a vastly and undeniably imperfect society, either. We can't look at a society where there are remnants everywhere of this historical discrimination and just sort of say oh, well, we know we've been beating on you and battering you for 400 years, but now we're just not going to - we're not going to harm anyone anymore, and everyone should treat everyone the same.And if you somehow ask for some sort of - of any form of reparation for what's happened to your descendants, and what created the society we live in today, then somehow you're being a racist. You're being just as bad as we were when we did this thing to you. And so I think that to somehow say that we're going to eliminate 400 years of undeniable racial inequality by simply saying we're not going to allow for discrimination anymore, that's like me saying that the milk I spilled on the floor is going to clean itself up because I promise not to spill any more milk.

Negative

Affirmative Action will not solve systemic problems

Affirmative Actions will not undue institutional racism William M. Chace, Professor of English at Stanford University and former President of Weslean and Emory Universities, Winter 2011 Affirmative Inaction, The American Scholar,
http://theamericanscholar.org/affirmative-inaction/ If African-American males are underrepresented in colleges or universities, they are overrepresented in federal, state, and county prisons, jails, and juvenile detention facilities. About one in three black men will go to prison in his lifetime, compared to one in 17 white males. One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 already lives under some form of correctional supervision or control. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that some 186,000 black males between the ages of 18 and 24 were behind bars in federal and state prisons and local jails in 2005.No amount of affirmative action, at either private or public colleges and universities, will free these men from jail. Nor will affirmative action be able to reach into the homes, neighborhoods, and schools to rectify the distressing situations poverty, drugs, families customarily without either husband or fatherthat once served such men, and will now serve others, so badly. Nothing that colleges and universities can do will be enough to rewrite the history of racial inequality that has, for decade after decade, poisoned this nations history . Black men in prison are a function of that poisonous history, and affirmative action is a societal antidote to this and other existing effects of racism. We must not forget that history. History matters.

Schools are a primary reason why students are unprepared for college Reginald T Shuford, Senior Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,2009, Campbell Law Review pgs 503-533,http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3Minority children who attend segregated schools are severely disadvantaged in their quest for the full enjoyment of their citizenship. Segregated schools are more likely than non-segregated schools to have students from low-income families and to lack adequate resources. They are more likely to have trouble attracting and keeping high-quality teachers. Segregated schools have a greater likelihood of having higher turnover rates among staff, larger class size, fewer advanced placement courses, poorer infrastructure, and fewer basic educational supplies. The graduation rates at these schools frequently hover below fifty percent, and students who actually stay to graduate are usually unprepared for the rigors of college. As a result of this ever-worsening problem, not just individuals but entire communities are at risk.

Preferencing students wont undo social wrongs and furthers class distinctions
Roger Clegg, CEO of Center for Equal Opportunity, 2012, Roger Clegg: What do you think of affirmative action? The Civil Rights Institute.http://www.acri.org/blog/2012/01/30/roger-clegg-whatdo-you-think-of-affirmative-action Americans should not be treated differently because of their skin color or what country their ancestors came from. Period. We should all agree on that, because were all Americans. No discrimination, no preferences, no quotas, no goals based on race or ethnicity. Unfortunately, many so-called affirmative-action programs do just that, and they need to be changed. Unfortunately, many so-called affirmative-action programs do just that, and they need to be changed. President Obama has acknowledged that theres something wrong when well-to-do students

Current Policy Ignores the Root Cause

Affirmative Action Ignores Structural Inequality Stephen Ohlemacher, author for the Associated Press, 2007, Census Study Eyes Blacks in Prison,
http://www.sheldensays.com/census_study_of_blacks_in_prison.htm.Nevertheless, civil rights advocates said it is startling that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live in prison cells than in college dorms."It's one of the great social and economic tragedies of our time," said Marc Morial, president and CEO of the Urban League. "It points to the signature failure in our education system and how we've been raising our children."The Census Bureau released 2006 data Thursday on the social, racial and economic characteristics of people living in adult correctional facilities, college housing and nursing homes. It is the first in-depth look at people living in "group quarters" since the 1980 census...In addition to not including commuter students, it does not provide racial breakdowns by gender or age, though it does show that males make up 90 percent of prison inmates.Also, most prison inmates are 25 or older while 96 percent of people in college housing are age 18 to 24.The data show that big increases in black and Hispanic inmates occurred since 1980. In 1980, the number of blacks living in college dorms was roughly equal to the number in prison. Among Hispanics, those in college dorms outnumbered those in prison in 1980.There are a lot of reasons why black students do not reach college at the same rate as whites, said Amy Stuart Wells, a professor of sociology and education at Columbia University's Teachers College.Black students are more likely to attend segregated schools with high concentrations of poverty, less qualified teachers, lower expectations and a less demanding curriculum, she said."And they are perceived by society as terrible schools, so it is hard to get accepted into college,"

Affirmative action ignores class differences Hugh B. Price,former president of the National Urban League and expert on criminal justice, equal
opportunity and civil rights, Robert L Woodson, is founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise (NCNE), 2009, Race and Society, Black America Today, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/society/debate1.htmlAffirmative action was an ambulance service that has become a transportation system. It was to be the temporary solution for a problem over the short period to level the playing field. We can no longer generalize about black America, but we can generalize about the poor. We need to look now at how to assist the economically disadvantaged of all races who are at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Minority groups are more concerned with problems not addressed by affirmative action
Hugh B. Price,former president of the National Urban League and expert on criminal justice, equal opportunity and civil rights, Robert L Woodson, is founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise (NCNE), 2009, Race and Society, Black America Today, While racial discrimination continues to be a problem in America's 21st century, it is not the most crucial problem facing the black community. In fact, in 2000, a poll taken by the Center for Political and Economic Studies showed that blacks ranked race eighth on a list of their major concerns--well after such things as education, crime and violence, prescription drugs and health care. Those who would keep us focused solely on race divert attention and keep us from finding solutions to the problems plaguing our inner cities and devastating our young people. At the present time, an 18-year old black male who steps off a bus at any of our urban centers has a lower chance of survival than one who stepped off a landing barge at Normandy during World War II. Our biggest problems are in blackon-black crime and violence, not black and white relations.

Policies that privilege the historically disadvantaged fail

Discrimination will exist regardless of privileging historically disadvantaged people Roger Clegg, CEO of Center for Equal Opportunity, 2012, Roger Clegg: What do you think of
affirmative action? The Civil Rights Institute.http://www.acri.org/blog/2012/01/30/roger-clegg-whatdo-you-think-of-affirmative-action Q: But doesnt discrimination still exist? A. Yes, unfortunately and, unfortunately, there will always be some discrimination, even though weve made enormous progress. But the way to fight discrimination is not through more discrimination. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. We have plenty of laws that ban racial discrimination, and they should be enforced. Thats the way to fight discrimination not by piling politically correct discrimination on top of politically incorrect discrimination.I dont deny that bias exists. But as Clegg said, the solution isnt outright bias in the other direction. We must combat personal bias through enforcementand reinforcementof our laws, which are more than sufficient.Admitting/hiring/promoting an individual on the basis of race is wrong; denying admission, employment, and promotions on the basis of race is equally wrong.

Disadvantaged groups are still being overshadowed by current policy Rob Mank, author for the Daily Beast and CBS News, 2011, Men far more likely to benefit from
affirmative action in college admissions, CBS NEWs Political Hotsheet. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301503544_162-20111646-503544.html But if Bakke were an applicant today his story might be very different. A survey of admissions directors released last week found that male applicants of all races are far more likely to benefit from affirmative action-like policies than female applicants."Men are being admitted with lower grades and test scores," said Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed, which conducted the survey. "While a lot of people don't like to talk about it, a lot of colleges are basically doing affirmative action for men."What's behind the aggressive push for male students is the decades-long trend of more women on campus. Women have comprised a majority of students in higher education since 1979, one year after the Bakke decision. And that trend is accelerating. The National Center for Education Statistics projects that women's enrollment will increase 16 percent by 2020, compared to 8 percent for men. At that point women will comprise 59 percent of post-secondary students, men just 41 percent. In 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, the gender split was 57 percent women, 43 percent men.

Disadvantaged groups are being hurt by schools compensating for current policy Rob Mank, author for the Daily Beast and CBS News, 2011, Men far more likely to benefit from
affirmative action in college admissions, CBS NEWs Political Hotsheet. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301503544_162-20111646-503544.html Many colleges have sought to remedy that imbalance by admitting more men, especially among undergraduates, forcing schools to reach deeper into the applicant pool. In the survey released last week by Inside Higher Ed, a web site that focuses on education news, 11 percent of admissions directors said they admit male applicants with below average test scores and grades. Only 3 percent of the 462 surveyed said they admit female applicants with below average credentials.At public 4-year colleges the number is even higher. Almost one-in-five 18 percent - are so hungry for male students admissions directors report admitting men with lower academic credentials, according to the survey.

Preferring historically disadvantaged groups has horrific unintended consequences is bad for society
Current policy promotes isolation rather than integration
Hugh B. Price,former president of the National Urban League and expert on criminal justice, equal opportunity and civil rights, Robert L Woodson, is founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise (NCNE), 2009, Race and Society, Black America Today, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/society/debate1.html Proximity to those of other races does not determine whether a person will or will not be fair-minded. I find it interesting that at the very institutions where professors decry the separation of races encourage it through black studies programs, black dorms, etc., in which the students become increasingly isolated.

Policy that referencing people on the basis of ethnicity creates class divides and quotas Roger Clegg, CEO of Center for Equal Opportunity, 2012, Roger Clegg: What do you think of
affirmative action? The Civil Rights Institute.http://www.acri.org/blog/2012/01/30/roger-clegg-whatdo-you-think-of-affirmative-action President Obama has acknowledged that theres something wrong when well-to-do students (he gave the example of his own daughters) who apply to college are given a preference over students from poverty-stricken homes just because the rich kids may have skin thats a little darker than the poor kids, who happen to be white.Thats not what affirmative action or civil rights was originally supposed to be about. Now, if a program is designed to stop discrimination, thats great and it should stop it for everyone. If a program reaches out beyond an old-boy network, thats great, too but it should reach out to everyone. If a program is designed to help poor people, or small companies, or people who are the first in their families to go to college again, fine, but that can describe people of any color and all ethnic groupsDiamonds in the rough come in all colors, you know. iamonds in the rough come in all colors, you know.Q. Isnt there a difference between quotas and goals? Goals inevitably become quotas, so, no, I dont think there really is a difference. If the boss gives someone a goal, then they are going to try to meet that goal, and if the goal involves hiring more people of a certain skin color, then there is going to be racial discrimination. The goal should be to treat everyone without regard to skin color, not to hire a certain number of people of this or that skin color.

The goal of affirmative action can only be achieved by authoritarianism and oppression Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary It isn't realistic because in fact, there is inequality in every aspect of life. People are not all endowed equally with the same talents, with the same interests, with the same desires and motivations. So, you know, this idea that you're somehow going to achieve a world in which you've got, you know, perfect representation of every ethnic, racial and gender group across the board, at all levels of society - the only way you could do that would be through a kind of authoritarian regime in which you squelched liberty.

Affirmative Action for women is failing

The Gender Gap is causing affirmative action to work in a way opposite than it was intended Scott Jaschik, Editor of Inside Higher Education and former editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/27/admit
The gender gap in undergraduate enrollments is, of course, no secret in academe. Women are solidly in the majority (about 57 percent nationally) and their percentages are only expected to increase in the years ahead. The gender gap first started to show up -- more than a decade ago -- at liberal arts colleges, with educators guessing that men preferred larger institutions or the engineering and business programs more prevalent at universities. But recently, the gap has started to show up at flagship public universities, too: Some board members at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were so stunned in May to learn that this year's freshman class would be 58 percent female that they asked if it was time to institute affirmative action for men.

Affirmative action undermines accomplishments of minorities Trey Tepichin, author for the Chronicle at Duke University,2001,
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/affirmative-action-undermines-minority-success Affirmative action serves not to elevate minorities but instead functions as a tool to undermine their accomplishments. To set the record straight, I was born and raised in Mexico City--I am not white. When I got into Duke I remember comments directed to me such as, "I bet affirmative action helped you get into Duke," or "Duke needed to fulfill their Hispanic quota." Simply because I am Hispanic and affirmative action is practiced, the value of my accomplishments were lessened in the eyes of many.

Admissions directors are Troubled by the gender gap propped but by favoritism Scott Jaschik, Editor of Inside Higher Education and former editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/27/admit
Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said that he definitely sees "consciousness within the profession" about the gender gap in applications, and that the gap has grown large enough at some institutions to cause real concern. But he questioned whether there is really as much unfairness as many people assume because of the Kenyon article. If colleges were so willing to favor men, Nassirian said, there are still enough men applying to college that institutions would be 50-50 on enrollment, and they're not. More broadly, he said that the discussion is reinforcing a false sense about college admissions -- a sense that is always more of a problem in this time of year, as students await answers from colleges. People have an "idealized image of admissions" in which all the applicants are lined up in some kind of precise, merit-based order and when an admissions dean has lined up her class, she figures out how many slots she has, walks down the line to the appropriate place, and admits everyone on one side and rejects the rest.

Affirmative Action doesnt create real diversity

Diversity will not be meaningful despite affirmative action Alex Sherbany, Former Managing Editor for the Harvard Political Review, 2011, Harvard Political
Review, http://hpronline.org/united-states/education-policy/the-false-diversity-of-elite-universities/ Diversity has been the favorite buzzword of universities for the past two decades, and the official rationale for race-based preference in admissions continues to be the educational benefits of diversity. Whatever the overall merits of the policy, the irony is that an elite university is not a very good place for an elite student to meet people who are genuinely not like him. There are many excellent reasons to come to a place like Harvard. To encounter real diversity is not one of them.

Affirmative Action doesnt break down stereotypes or create diversity Alex Sherbany, Former Managing Editor for the Harvard Political Review, 2011, Harvard Political
Review, http://hpronline.org/united-states/education-policy/the-false-diversity-of-elite-universities/ The problem is that we still pretend that our campus exemplifies diversity. This is misleading. The charge of hypocrisy will continue to embarrass universities as long as they claim to be capable of fulfilling the high pedagogic goal of eliminating stereotypes through various kinds of affirmative action. More often than not, they are only replacing old stereotypes with new ones. Its not so much that Ivy League university presidents view their institutions as cogs in a nationwide social engineering apparatus, as conservatives complain, as that the engineering is faulty. Trumpeting our diversity is counterproductive if it makes us feel more worldly wise, tolerant, and pluralistic than we really are. If you took all the boasts from the admissions office seriously, youd be overflowing with hubris about how diverse and open-minded you had become after four years in the ivory tower. But a tower is still a tower, even if its rainbow-colored.

False diversity doesnt help students Alex Sherbany, Former Managing Editor for the Harvard Political Review, 2011, Harvard Political
Review, http://hpronline.org/united-states/education-policy/the-false-diversity-of-elite-universities/ First, everyone knows that geographic diversity is more about burnishing the admissions brochure than education. While its possible that Ive benefited immensely from the inclusion of at least one Wyominger in each admitted class, I suspect that Harvard benefits far more from being able to say that it took students from all 50 states! Naturally, for Wyomingers and other students from exotic locales, this leads to self-doubt and stigmatization. By my calculations this afflicts at least two dozen students from geographically underrepresented areas every year. No one should have to go through that, especially if you already have to live in a state in which the antelope population exceeds the human population.

Collegiate interventions are too late

A flurry of problems caused by poor schooling are not addressed by affirmative action Reginald T Shuford, Senior Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation,2009, Campbell Law Review pgs 503-533,http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3In addition to the far-reaching and often devastating effects of segregation and low graduation rates, educational opportunities for minority children are severely compromised by the school-to-prison pipeline, a nationwide phenomenon in which students, largely those of color, are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Whether meted out discipline at a disproportionate rate, assigned to failing schools, banished to disciplinary alternative schools, overidentified as special needs, denied educational ser vices when accurately identified as special needs, subjected to high-stakes testing, or placed under zero-tolerance policies that criminalize minor infractions, students of color are pushed out of public schools and into the eagerly awaiting arms of the juvenile and criminal justice system at an alarming rate.

Polices create the wrong type of interventions Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary Well, that's right, and let me be clear about this. I am not saying that we have actually reached the Promised Land yet. We haven't. I mean, there is still discrimination. There's still prejudice in our society. We haven't totally eliminated it. But the way to get about solving that - there is, you know, as Boyce talks about, there is a skills gap in America. There is an education gap. There - it is an unfortunate fact that a lot of black and Latino - and by the way, poor white kids - go to schools that do not prepare them sufficiently to be able to succeed in the world. But granting preference on the basis of skin color, regardless of whether that individual child has suffered from the effects of that discrimination, makes no sense to me. Why is it you would prefer a black child who might be the son or daughter of - you know, a lawyer and a doctor, over a white child who may be the child of an out-ofwork mine worker?

Policy masks the real issues and serves as a false solution Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary So it's going to take a long time to try to create anything that looks like that world. I know that - it's easy to sort of talk about, you know, discrimination and to sort of say look, the elimination of discrimination is the objective of affirmative action. But the truth is that one of the biggest mistakes, I think, that we make when we talk about affirmative action is, we think that it all stops with discrimination - or the creation of equal opportunity.And actually, the real culprit is the actual inequality, which is a product of discrimination. So it's not a matter of pointing fingers at people and saying ha, you're a racist, that's - you're bad. It's a matter of saying no, you can have inequality when there is not a racist person anywhere in sight.

Affirmative Action Stigmatizes those it is supposed to help

Affirmative Action is stigmatizing Michelle Wu, author at the Daily Princetonian Princetons newspaper,2009,
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/04/02/23248/ Affirmative action may increase academic pressure and stigmatize minority students, according to a study conducted by sociology professor Douglas Massey GS 78.If white students believe that many of their black peers would not be at a college were it not for affirmative action and, more important, if black students perceive whites to believe that, then affirmation action may indeed undermine minority-group members academic performance by heightening the social stigma they already experience because of race or ethnicity, Massey and his three collaborators wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 27.The researchers also presented another detriment of the controversial policy: that affirmative action exacerbates the psychological burdens that minority students must carry on campuses.Those who feel they are representing their race every time they are called on to perform academically will have a heightened sense of responsibility, they wrote.

Policy perpetuates stereotypes Michelle Wu, author at the Daily Princetonian Princetons newspaper,2009,
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/04/02/23248/ In the study, the researchers examined affirmative action at 28 universities across the country, comparing the SAT scores and current GPAs of a broad range of students as indicators of academic success.We have used SAT scores to measure the impact of affirmative action not because they are ideal, but because they offer a practical method that can be applied across groups and institutions , they wrote.The study, which focused on the academic performance of roughly 4,000 individuals, found that 84 percent of black students had test scores below their institutions averages, compared with roughly 66 percent of Hispanics.In places where theres a large difference between the minority average and the institutional average, it seems to create a climate that makes it difficult for minority students to perform because ... it exacerbates stereotypes, Massey explained in an interview.To measure affirmative action at a given institution, the researchers used the difference between the mean SAT score earned by blacks or Hispanics and the mean score earned by all students at that institution.

Affirmative Action Stigmatizes Women Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Division 14 of the APA,2012,
http://www.siop.org/AfirmAct/siopsaarnontarg.aspx Studies by Heilman and her colleagues show that both males and females tend to assume that females hired under affirmative action programs are relatively less competent. Heilman, Block, and Lucas (1992; Study 2) asked 184 White male employees of various companies to evaluate the competence of a specific female or minority co-worker, and to indicate the extent to which affirmative action was responsible for the co-worker's selection. Judgments of competence were inversely related to the perceived importance of affirmative action in selection. Heilman et al. (1992; Study 1) asked 129 male and female undergraduates to review application materials of someone recently hired and to make predictions about their job performance. The job was said to be either highly or moderately gendertyped to be masculine. The applicants were either male or female, and if female, either were or were not associated with an AAP. Affirmative action was manipulated by placing a statement at the bottom of the applications that said either hire or hire (affirmative action hire).

Affirmative Action creates false diversity

Policies Intended to Help Disadvantaged Groups Fail Scott Jaschik, Editor of Inside Higher Education and former editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/27/admit
When admissions officers gather to create a freshman class, there is a large elephant in the room , wrote Jennifer Delahunty Britz, in The New York Times last week: the desire to minimize gender imbalance in their classes. Britz, the admissions dean at Kenyon College, wrote that her institution gets far more applications from women than from men and that, as a result, men are "more valued applicants." Britz discussed a female candidate who was considered borderline by the Kenyon team but who -- had she been a he -- would have been admitted without hesitation.

The government derails the effectiveness of policy Boyce Watkins, Professor at Syracuse University, and Linda Chavez, chair, Center for Equal Opportunity,2012, Affirmative Action: Is It Still Necessary?,
NPR,http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147514069/affirmative-action-is-it-still-necessary Linda Chavez, has - as you outlined the goal of affirmative action, has it done what it was supposed to do?CHAVEZ: No, it hasn't because it got derailed, and it got derailed pretty early. It got derailed during the Nixon administration, when we went away from sort of race-neutral policies and towards providing, as I said, the kind of skills and training necessary to take those who had been victims of discrimination - and be able to give them the skills to be able to compete, and to do so in a nondiscriminatory fashion.What happened is, there was a movement, really, to replace one kind of discrimination with another; and to try to - instead of taking race out of the equation, to make race the central point of the equation so that in order to achieve what Professor Watkins has described - to achieve that representation that he's talked about - there were preferences that were then given to people who had been members of groups that had been discriminated, although the individuals receiving those preferences may have suffered no discrimination in the past themselves.

Affirmative action creates a false sense of diversity at schools Alex Sherbany, Former Managing Editor for the Harvard Political Review, 2011, Harvard Political
Review, http://hpronline.org/united-states/education-policy/the-false-diversity-of-elite-universities/ economic diversity, the focus is still on race and national origin. The original proponents of the diversity rationale for affirmative action, luminaries of higher education such as Derek Bok and William Bowen, argued that increased racial diversity would improve both education and race relations. Yet there seems to be something like a bipartisan consensus emerging, at least outside the university, that race-based preferences do not necessarily fulfill their good intentions. As an article in the American Prospect noted last year, President Obama himself has questioned the long-term benefits of affirmative action:Writing in The Audacity of Hope, he did not expressly condemn affirmative action, but he did consign it to a category of exhausted programs that dissect[s] Americans into us and them and that cant serve as the basis for the kinds of sustained, broad-based political coalitions needed to transform America. As president, Obama has repeatedly eschewed race-targeting (with respect most notably to employment policy) in favor of universal reforms that allegedly lift all boats.