Affirmative Action on Campus Does More Harm Than Good

Affirmative action, when used as a factor in college admissions, is meant to foster diversity and provide equal opportunities in education for underrepresented minorities. But is it achieving its stated goals and helping the population it was created to support? Its critics point to students struggling to keep up in schools mismatched to their abilities and to the fact that the policy can be manipulated to benefit affluent and middle class students who already possess many educational advantages. Is it time to overhaul or abolish affirmative action?
Presented in partnership with Harvard Law School.
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================

[@SublimeSati]

So when the asian student asks "what about us" the black debaters say "there are all kinds of things that oppress certain groups, get over it".... meanwhile if it's about his group he's fighting tooth and nail. What a blatant double standard.

[@professorhamester]

Great point!

[@beingk234]

That's not what he said, listen to the debate again. His point was that some Asian groups are already well represented in elite institutions and that the focus should be on those Asian groups that are at a disadvantage. He then gave examples of well represented groups e.g. the Chinese

[@SublimeSati]

Khanyi K He didn't say anything about focusing on the disadvantaged. If he did the moderator wouldn't have asked him "Do you care". It was his flippant attitude about an oppressed group other than his own that made the moderator ask the hard question.

[@davidbudo5551]

SublimeSati, thank you. People are so tribal on these questions that unless it's them, it isn't a big deal.

[@samaguga]

@Chris Austwam The problem is that there are 48 countries in Asia, most having multiple ethnicities and languages in each one. However, only 4-6 of these countries are well represented in American universities, not to mention that it is only specific demographics within each of these countries that are well represented. Does the fact that many Han Chinese are admitted to American universities mean than setting higher admission standards for Filipino, Indonesian, or Khmer Asian-Americans, all underrepresented minorities, is acceptable?

[@jenniferkeates]

As an Asian applying into Ivy Leagues, I hate affirmative action >:|

[@andreastagni8358]

+Quan Truong Because AA discriminates Asian in order to favour Blacks and Latinos. If admissions were based on academic merits only, Asians would be way more represented in campuses whereas other minorities' attendance would drop of some 25-30%. Just consider the racial stats of Berkeley (in CA there's no Affirmative Action) and compare those with Yale.

[@bluebirdredrobin6827]

+Andrea Stagni the biggest benefactor of AA is white women though?

[@andreastagni8358]

+Tatiana Joseph Debeatable, to say the least. In some field (STEM) they do - at the expenses of white males and asians. But overall, the higest beneficiary is the Black-Latino demographic, while the Asian is the most penalised. But even if the white women were more advantaged by AA, I fail to understand how would this be a progressive, rational policy. As much as we shouldn't care about the colour of anyone's skin, we should have the same attitude with regards to gender or sexual orientation, and just focus on merits.

[@samaguga]

I'm aware that this is an old post, but for those facing similar situations, consider going to another school your first year and then transferring to a better school. A large percentage of those who are admitted without the qualifications drop out in their first year, and that opens a lot of spots for sophomores and juniors to get into the school and refill the programs.

[@OnePiece-yy1lu]

@@andreastagni8358 fucking hypocrite

[@Heart2HeartBooks]

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want some affirmative action engineering graduate working the control panel on a fucking nuclear power plant a mile from my house!

[@davidowen6431]

Fear not. Affirmative action recipients would never make it past the first semester of nuclear engineering. There is no social promotion in college, unlike secondary schools, which pass all students.

[@Heart2HeartBooks]

Panshi Wang There will be Homer Simpson's!

[@Heart2HeartBooks]

Obama is one of them!

[@m35926]

What if affirmative action was no longer propelled by race but by geography? Give money to students who come from poor areas in Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. whether they be white, black, red, yellow, whatever. Not all whites are rich and not all blacks are poor.

[@darwinkilledgod]

A Whether Moments Poet The problem still remains: if they're not qualified for the education they'll just drop out and fail, or take useless majors. If you want to help the poor, focus on their preparation for college - elementary schools and the awful public school systems.

[@m35926]

darwinkilledgod I agree but the government will never stop funding the poor because it brings in votes.

[@vincem2759]

A Whether Moments Poet Poor people tend not to vote in large blocks though? That doesn't make much sense

[@rosaliegolz6250]

Vince Meadows Elections here in Chicago and the state of Illinois, elections are definitely decided by the votes of the poor.

[@tha1ne]

A Whether Moments Poet Why not just address it directly? Base it on income and class. There are rich people living in generally poor places too you know.

[@professorhamester]

The part from 1:08:10 to 1:10:50 is particularly revealing: My being discriminated is discrimination. Your being discriminated is not: It is called sacrifice for the greater good.

[@Vondur]

Exactly. Even John Donvan appeared to be put-off by that guy's indifference. He even stopped himself and said "I'm becoming the debater so I'm going to stop myself." It just shows how tribalized that guy is. He's not concerned about discrimination, he's concerned about discrimination against his own ethnic tribe. I think that to some degree this is human nature but as a society we need to engineer ways to get people beyond this. Affirmative Action and related programs are not the way.

[@josephkerr7820]

You're right, it is. I appreciated that the moderator, John Donvan gave Mr. Kennedy a chance to save himself and was disappointed that he didn't take it. In truth, I was disappointed by the way _all_ panelists answered the question. Nonetheless, arguing that affirmative action is discriminatory against Asians is _so_ misguided. I don't disagree that affirmative action has been improperly applied, but as Mr. Shaw pointed out, even with affirmative action, black represent a low-end single-digit percentage of most incoming classes in higher-level learning institutions.

[@scoobydoo9579]

I just found this clip. Thanks for pointing out that particular dialogue.

[@tc98826]

The against side primarily relied on calls to authority ("the military says its good!"), buzzwords, emotional appeals and anecdotal evidence - rather than hard data on affirmative action's positive effects.

[@commontater1785]

That's what I was gonna say. "Some schools want racial preferences. Affirmative action gives them that. So it's good."

[@jdraven0890]

What I think I heard from the counter-argument side: "Purposeful, institutional discrimination is OK as long as its underlying goals are laudable. Diversity is awesome, and it's worth anything to achieve it." Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how hard you try to spin it and no matter how laudable the goals are. But is simple, superficial diversity so good in itself as to justify racism, anyway? Certainly not, especially if it goes as far as to ignore qualifications and ability in favor of skin color. It's also insulting (and racist!) to minorities to suggest that they can't make it without special consideration that rigs the game in their favor. It's also racist to assume that Justice Thomas and Justice Sotomayor got their positions because of Affirmative Action. I would love to hear the speaker who asserted that say that to their face.

[@pattiknuth4822]

There isn't a shred of evidence that says (racial) diversity is a net benefit on campus. Take a walk on any college campus. Students of race X tend to associate mostly with other students of race X. Besides, the notion that different races add something to classes is laughable. Somebody tell me how being black improves the learning experience for non-black students (or vice-versa) in a calculus class or a german language class.

[@jdraven0890]

@@pattiknuth4822 Bussing was the same kind of idealistic notion and failure. We already had fully integrated schools. The kids that came over from the other neighborhood just hung out with each other for the three years that bussing lasted and never interacted with the rest of us. Oh, well.

[@cmurph103]

Okay, First to address the "two wrongs don't make a right" claim. So If A hits B and causes him injury should A be forced to pay money to compensate B for that injury? If so, is that not a wrong (a harm of taking money from someone) that is making right the wrong (of injuring someone)? In this case, I hope we can both agree that there was a harm inflicted by the intentional discriminatory practices of Jim Crow and of many schools in school segregation. I also hope we can agree that black schools in the 1960s were significantly worse than white schools due to a combination of factors including: funding, discriminatory districting (red lining), etc. Now, I hope we can both agree those people suffered a harm, if not then feel free to challenge that. So the question then comes, how do we rectify that harm? If we were to take your proposal, race neutral admittance, would that rectify the harm or does it simply stop the harm from continuing? To go back to the battery example. If A beats B every day, would it be making the whole situation right if A was simply stopped from beating B every day? I think we would both agree that B would deserve some compensation for the harm already inflicted on them. This is a core principle of torts law, to make whole the injured party by forcing the injuring party to compensate them. If we agree in the example that simply ending the ability damage is not enough and more needs to be done to compensate the injured party, why does that logic fail here? Applying this logic back to this case, how should we compensate the African American communities for the harm we did to them or why should they not be compensated? If you agree we should compensate for the injury that was done how should it be fixed? There is evidence that children whose parents did not have higher education have a lower enrollment rate than those that have parents who have secondary education. (nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018421) So even if you want to make the argument that compensation then would be justified but not to their children, you are then ignoring the fact that their children are disadvantaged BECAUSE their parents faced discrimination and as such the harm is perpetuated onto the children. And this is only if we ignore the diversity argument. The second issue becomes, does diversity benefit groups? Evidence suggests that diversity is beneficial for research groups. (scholarworks.utep.edu/cs_techrep/820/) What is a lot of college but learning and doing research? There is also evidence that educational and national diversity provide information-processing benefits. (journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2005.19573112) There is also evidence that diversity benefits businesses, which implies that helping more diverse groups get into business by granting more diverse groups proper education would help businesses. (journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000312240907400203) So yes, there is a diversity case to be made. You do qualify that this "superficial diversity" (Please define what you mean?) is not so good as to justify racism, especially if it goes so far as to ignore qualifications and ability. The issue here is, is that what you think affirmative action does in these schools? Do you have evidence to support such an assertion? As to your claim of "It's also insulting (and racist!) to minorities to suggest that they can't make it without special consideration that rigs the game in their favor," that is a very narrow perspective of the issue that disregards context and nuance. For example, historical racism in employment, housing, and other fields have likely been a large factor in blacks and Hispanics having a higher poverty rate. (See www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/poverty-rates-for-blacks-and-hispanics-reached-historic-lows-in-2019.html for poverty rate) Historical racism also meant they had a lower education rate, and as discussed above, this leads to disadvantages in getting higher education since the parents are less likely to have that higher education. Considering that wealth in an area affects the money spent to schools (schools are funded through property taxes, thus poorer neighborhoods have less money for education and blacks and Hispanics are poorer as demonstrated above) there is reason to believe that this effects education. This is also the real reason why bussing occurred. White schools were better because they had more money while black schools were poorer, leading to a worse education. This is the main reason for bussing, bringing blacks into white schools and whites into black schools to force more money to be sent to the black schools and allow blacks to get a better education, evidence shows this was successful. (eric.ed.gov/?id=ED571629) This also disproves your claim that bussing was a "failure." There is also reason to believe that rectifying the current education gap could help with fixing the wealth gap. (www.jstor.org/stable/4226342?seq=1). I welcome a good faith response.

[@jdraven0890]

@@cmurph103 We must first address the issue of "two wrongs don't make a right", or nothing else that follows matters. Any reasonable person would agree that overt and (at the time) legal discrimination against black Americans simply over their race was unjust and wrong. You argue that this wrong must be re-paid with an equal action, using the force of law to overtly and purposefully discriminate against other people on the basis of their race. NO amount of supposed justification could get me to agree that this is acceptable. Let me assure you that I have read your post more than once, and understand your argument. One of my History profs in college made very much the same one: "Things went so far the other way for so long, now they need to go the other way for a while." I didn't find the double standard compelling then, either. If we agree (obviously we do) that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong and harmful, then why would you imagine that visiting it on other people, decades later who had nothing to do with the initial act, is justifiable? Now, if we could let's focus on one thing: do you believe that any unequal outcome that we can measure and observe in society necessarily means that there is something wrong that needs addressing by the law and/or the force of government?

[@cmurph103]

@@jdraven0890 Thank you for your response. I think I understand your reply to my argument on "two wrongs don't make* a right." Would it be fair to characterize your argument as "it would not be justified, nor would it be fair, to inflict a discriminatory harm on people to compensate the victim for a previous discriminatory harm, especially when those harmed by the new discriminatory harm are not those that inflicted the original harm on the victim." Would you say that is a fair representation of your position? If so, I must ask, then should the original victim never be compensated? If they should be, how so? I could very readily agree with your argument if I saw another way to compensate the wronged party. Otherwise I believe that some slight harm can be justified in order to compensate the injured party. This should obviously be ended once the injury has been rectified. Though not wholly applicable to the case of affirmative action, since it does harm people who did not personally contribute to the original harm but arguably do continue to benefit from it, the principle is similar to that that a party who is beaten should get compensatory damages in torts. The analogy to torts is actually furthered by the fact that if a party is injured by a defective product then, even if that person does not know the directly responsible party, they can sue those that produce all such medicine that have the same defect for compensation unless the defendant can prove they could not have made the product that caused the patients injuries. This is called industry-wide liability. In this, innocent parties can be held liable for injuries they may not have caused because they have been similarly negligent and otherwise benefited from that same negligence. This is also not a perfect analogy but is closer and sets an example of the principle. I will respond to the second part in a second response as I am replying on my phone and cannot read it and want to respond to it properly. *Edited for misspelling. Appologies harder to catch these things on my phone.

[@shindm0]

Why did neither side discuss the great harm that AA does to White applicants? When it was proposed in the Q&A that AA discriminated against Asians, the side against the motion argued that even though it was harmful, Asians ought to just take the blows dealt to them in order to advance the plight of Blacks. I doubt that I'm the only one to find that argument ridiculous. Aside from the handful of utilitarian philosophers, most moral theorists and theologians would agree that increasing one's success by causing unfair damage to another is wrong. The reason I use the word "unfair" is because there are situations involving consent to risk where one can be moral and still advance one's cause by causing harm to another e.g. gambling or dueling. Most people applying to college are not even at the age where they have the choice to vote for or against candidates that support putting these prospective undergraduates at risk, On the whole, AA seems to be an instrument born out of idealistic whimsy rather than practical and moral study.

[@pranavpillai7778]

One thing about Affirmative Action is it helps only Blacks who are well to do and don’t live in poverty.

[@onalyd]

I personally would like to see more Asians in the NFL. Would this be a good topic for a future debate?

[@YMao-ez3ce]

People will say your SAT score is too good to play NFL or NBA.😍😴😥

[@shamtradtam3769]

No. What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable. That's the implicit mindset of ppl who'll say NFL doesn't need affirmative action

[@MatthewGraham027]

Wow I had to watch this more than once. After seeing this I was shocked at how horribly the two against the motion failed. I myself am black and the message was, "Just because it's failing doesn't mean we shouldn't do it." That is like taking someone to a quack doctor and even after admitting that his medications do harm, deciding to continue to go. I think the laissez-faire, "let the chips fall where they may" sounds harsh in the short term. But like just about all messages coming from a christian or libertarian or conservative view, it simply is that the underlying foundations which enable people to produce wealth are not present within our community. (Sounds like the same argument about min. wage. and the like) It sounds harsh because it takes looking into a mirror and that is a hard pill to swallow, especially when we will have naysayers, and the like against us as we embark on our journey upward. Ultimately we have to learn the skills and strengths necessary to succeed. Others like Thomas Sowell have mentioned the same. You can find a talk he had about mismatch back in the 80s and the harm it was doing then; yet we are still debating it. I'm not saying that there isn't racism and headwind, there definitely is, but it won't be solved by placing people into situations where they are not qualified. This will more likely exacerbate the problems as we have to look like fools in need of help over and over again. If people want to help, donate to making K-12 schools better and allowing for school choice so that people don't end up screwed after over 12 years of bad instruction. The bad habits are in large set in and it is hard to change by the time someone is entering college.

[@theeagle7054]

The Black guys' only strategy was to call the other side racists in sneaky and subtle ways

[@angelpalacios9616]

John Donvan has really developed into a very good moderator. I like how he links their arguments and seeks clarification to ensure more clash. He didn't always do that.

[@mathor]

Indeed, he is a great, moderate moderator. Very glad that he is doing this, makes the debates much more interesting than they would have been with a less skilled moderator.

[@Vondur]

Agreed!

[@abhinavanand9717]

He is great. He is unbiased and lets both sides have the hard questions from him.

[@davidbudo5551]

Angel Palacios, agreed.

[@searose6192]

1:09:20 ...my favorite moment “do you care?” (About Asian Americans being harmed by AA)....he really seems like he could not care less

[@tjwhalan]

I'm an hour in and moral question has not yet been raised: how is it fair to give one student a preference over another purely because of skin colour? Socio-economic factors are a different story but having 2 students apply for enrolment and choosing one over the other because they look different is (anti)racism.

[@POLYMATHCENTRAL]

thomas whalan because the other skin colour has recieved this same advantage for centuries and has benefited from the free labour of the other. It's to allow equilibrium to be reached.

[@tjwhalan]

What's that saying? Two wrongs don't make a right.

[@POLYMATHCENTRAL]

actually it sort of does. If money was stolen from my family and your family became rich, and i am now poor, then taking some of that money will make things better for me. So yeah it sort of does, it's called retribution.

[@HalcyonVoid]

Shaolin Drain But that is just wrong. I get dicked down for something I had no part in 50 years ago. Black people, generally, have been holding on to the past and claim racism every time we try to actually rectify the past mistakes because it takes away their unfair advantage.

[@POLYMATHCENTRAL]

don't be Closed minded please. The land you live in the economy, your house all was build on the backs of the ancestors of blacks, who couldn't own property unless they were freed blacks and couldn't pass on any for of wealth to their children, while in general white families did and still do. You are privviledged i am assuming you to be white.

[@notalefty999]

Not once did either of the people in favour of the motion actually argue that affirmative action was unfair to whites and Asians. Only the Asian woman in the audience dared to bring this point up. And conspicuously Sander, right at the end talks about the group "benefiting" and the group that is "the majority", not the group or groups which are disadvantaged, and in some cases belong to a small minority. Throughout the entire debate, harm is defined solely in terms of how the intended beneficiaries are disadvantaged, not in terms of how the intentionally disadvantaged people are disadvantaged, Its a shame, because on they points they chose to argue, those for the motion argued their cases well. But due to politically correct cowardice, they conspicuously ignore some of the most important points.

[@yo_its_devo]

It might be cowardice, but I'd argue it's actually just strategic. If you want to win a debate focus on the most convincing and least alienating argument. The fact is that AA was largely inacted specifically to help the black community. If it is failing to do that which it was largely intended for, then you have a very very compelling argument. The points you make are definitely compelling, they're just not the MOST compelling points.

[@dillonliu5642]

At 1:09:19 mark. "Do you care?" LOL...That's an ambush he never expected. He was like, a...aaa....aa...Asian..., we are talking about black and white here. Asians are irreverent.

[@occultprophecies]

When it comes to Asians, he wants to break it down by group/nationality (Chinese, Japanese, etc). But when he is speaking about "African-Americans" being disadvantaged he does not approach it from the same point of view, e.g. Zimbabwean, Congoan, Moroccan, Nigerian, etc. It is just all blacks. These black debaters are excessively concerned only for blacks. When it comes to Asians (but I'm sure it would apply to other races as well) they parse it out and not really address the question to begin with. "It all depends on what sort of Asian-Americans we're talking about" as one of them said. "It's a complicated scenario." The black debaters want to focus on something else, namely the so-called "plight" of blacks because by contrast, it would seem, it is no so "complicated" as he infers. These black debaters want to diminish what harm may come to others and just focus on blacks getting unfair treatment.

[@copfiveo]

Randall Kennedy thinks he's Malcolm X... Every statement sounds like a closing argument in a murder case.

[@potterheadtwins6509]

XD it's so true! Why Kennedy, you've cracked the case!

[@87jgrow]

Thomas Sowell would have eaten these guys whole

[@oNTiger]

+87jgrow Sowell is more versed on older versions of AA than modern college variations

[@TXLionHeart]

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. It is for that reason that I support this motion.

[@hongyelim9233]

Affirmative action based on race is RACISM, period. Success and failure are the results of the principles and values that the person holds! Be responsible for your choices, actions, and outcomes.

[@8dholland]

Racism will always be apart of America man. However, I grow tired of people talking about selective colleges. Who cares? The bulk of people hired do not come from these schools. This is crazy. If all blacks were removed from Harvard, Yale, UCLA, .....something, but given a good education, I would not care. Besides, the ones going are our African brothers not us....Africans are smart as shit...

[@smithjones1906]

Honestly, variable admissions standards based on race feels highly immoral to me.

[@ArthurintheOC]

AA helps some minorities at the expense of another minority, Asians.

[@TheeSamuelNelson]

Edward Lee are Asians really a minority though? I'm sure on average, they are doing better than whites.

[@lancego9985]

Looking at the US population, yes they are in fact a minority.

[@samaguga]

@@TheeSamuelNelson The problem is that "Asian" is a group that covers 48 countries, and hundreds if not thousands of ethnic and language groups. Of these groups, a tiny percentage are well represented at American universities, but all of them face substantially higher standards for college admission.

[@jazhou83]

wow, ted shaw definitely demonstrated that he benefited from affirmative action.

[@killerbutle]

During the entire debate the opposing side resorted to ethical, moral and social statements rather than factually arguing the proposition. I never once heard any facts, statistics, or anything of the sort that proved that affirmative action is, in its current state, helpful. Making this into an issue of racism is entirely beyond the point, because at the end of the day, facts are not biased, facts do not like, and the facts given in this debate solely suggest that Affirmative Action on Campus does do more harm than good. You have to at least respect the premise of these debates and conclude that, in spite of your personal beliefs, the side arguing in favor of the proposition won.

[@8dholland]

No. In a debate, facts are a tool, but they do not win when it comes to the main hinging points. They are arguing correctly and putting their own spin on it. This is how debate is taught at higher levels.

[@drwalka10]

@@8dholland yep a cup of emotional appeal works

[@vectraatjones5585]

So the two AA black people basically proved that it does more harm than good.

[@Metaphix]

Affirmative action= reverse discrimination. The sins of the father atoned by the son.

[@darwinkilledgod]

Corbin Chesley What exactly is the word "reverse" doing there?

[@Metaphix]

darwinkilledgod The minority discriminating against the majority. Its still wrong.

[@fovarberma752]

+Corbin Chesley There's no point in creating a special word for it. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which group toward which group.

[@ericarmstrong3313]

actually reverse discrimination is punishing the children for the sins of their fathers

[@tystake557]

Riiiiight because the majority has it SOOOOO HARD in this country. #GetOutMore #SeekDiscomfort

[@vinathamadhavan7019]

I don't understand why we don't focus on remedial help for kids at the elementary and middle school level instead of waiting until college level and having to lower standards. And, let's equalize funding for all schools so we can take away this excuse of impoverished schools. Just consider this data point: the average GPA and MCAT score of a white or Asian kid rejected from Medical school is higher than the GPA and MCAT score of a black or Hispanic kid that is accepted. Knowing this, why would any rational person want to see a Black or Hispanic doctor in a life or death situation? It could very well be that that black or Hispanic doctor is very competent but how is a patient to know?

[@davidowen6431]

Or even better: more community colleges.

[@frankm.d1479]

+Vinatha Madhavan Hold it there buddy. Sorry To bust your bubble but the data on Medical School isn't that clear. NO STUDY has been able to reliably predict and/or correlate the "performance" of attending physicians as it pertains to MCAT and/or GPA or any objective marker measured in medical school. That actually makes sense. After 3rd year Medicine actually becomes less objective and more subjective with respect to evaluation. The mark of a good doctor becomes less of How well did he do on Test X but more on how does this Doctor make me feel and how good is his bedside manner. You do realize that some doctors you see in clinic just choose not to re-certify their boards right?

[@vinathamadhavan7019]

There are lots of studies that show strong correlation between MCAT score and Step 1 USMLE and a good Step 1 score demonstrates command of the subject matter and discipline. But even if that weren't the case, when I look for a Dr. I am looking for one that's technically sound, not whether he/she has a good bedside manner. Besides, Most Drs today don't have time for "bedside manner" and have to be sharp technically. And, there's a reason why schools continue to use standardized tests to assess student ability. Likewise, the USMLE score is a major determinant of where and what specialty one ends up in.

[@Hecomesquickly7]

+Vinatha Madhavan You do know that affirmative action benefits white women the most right?

[@frankm.d1479]

Vinatha Madhavan you still haven't talked about the study that can correlate the performance of attending physician with any objective exam.

[@Bunny1918]

Affirmative action, in my opinion, was not thought out properly. Would you go to advanced language course if you're a beginner or would you prefer to attend a course that is better suited for you? And how can you compete with others? What if it turns out you wasted precious time and cannot pass bar exams? Inequality issue should be color-blind and tackled at much earlier stage. There should be a functioning public school system and some extra courses for free, available for high-school students in bad neighbourhoods to close the gap before they join the university. Without this kind of preparation affirmative action becomes a false hope, an excuse for not doing any real work, and, frankly, some kind of grotesque.

[@alexanderwryn2112]

You're correct, even with affirmative action, if enough african americans who had the skills to compete in those schools applied, there would never been an issue nor would there ever be a reason why anyone would have to get in on the basis of "affirmative action". However the problem is that there just aren't enough african americans who have the skills applying for these schools, thus people who do not belong at those levels are brought in by default. This setup, honestly, does little good for anyone except the schools who get to charge these students for repeat class after repeat class.

[@thewisemanny]

I think your comments lack deep thoughts and this is why - using your language example, I think your position is very misleading. How? if all students went to great beginner classes and there was no disproportionate access, then they will all advance to the advanced programs without any need for support. There will be no need for the disparity at the advanced classes. But not providing the opportunity that addresses that gap in access to good programs leaves those who lack access to good beginner classes that prepare them for the advanced class behind. And to your arguments, that they should be excluded is an illegitimate and uninformed position to hold.

[@Pat121V]

Would it not make more sense to have incentives and affirmative action in higher level education for people who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds regardless of their race.

[@professorhamester]

Good point!! Parents' Social Economic Status is one real cause of education inequality. Race is at best a weak correlate. Sometimes I suspect those proposing race-based decisions have a secret agenda of dividing the country across the race line, or they are rich with the academically "right" skin color...haha...

[@alexanderwryn2112]

Because of the issue they're alluding to here.. poor people **tend** to be less prepared, less knowledgeable, and able to succeed in college. Often they do not get a good education during their early childhood years and lacking in the skill set required to succeed in high end colleges. Taking these young adults and putting them in a super competitive college, racking up their loans and debts, and then having them fail out or pass with the bare minimum GPA is a very bad thing. It's better to have a 3.5 in a community college than a 2.0 in Harvard

[@josephkerr7820]

Lord Razer Yes. That was essentially the point made by Mrs. Heriot and Mr. Sander. However true their argument may have been, the offense taken to that assertion is understandable (1:27:10-1:27:45). I would also say that Mr. Shaw makes a good point when he states that the focus has been limited to blacks, and unfairly so (31:00-32:49). I point to famous American economist, Thomas Sowell, who correctly notes that our best American educational institutions are only that way because of _international_ applicants and graduates. You can find the video here on youtube - *Thomas Sowell - TEACHERS UNIONS (suck)* (5:35-7:02).

[@ASkepticalHumanOnYouTube]

I would ask, is it not racist to hold different races to different educational standards? Is this not a form of condescension? Another question worth asking proponents of affirmative action is: For how long should these programs be in place? What metric should be used to determine that they're no longer needed? I would also cast doubt upon the assertion that racial diversity in some way facilitates intelligent and novel thinking. This is to presume that one's capacity to think, formulate arguments, and collect evidence on a given subject matter is somehow dependent upon or influenced by one's skin color. I see no reason to believe that this is the case, and I can't recall the advocates of this argument offering any credible evidence in support of this claim.

[@gideondavid30]

"further desegregation" These guys need to study the differences between dejure segregation from defacto segregation. Simply putting people in the same room is not going to make them think alike, talk alike, act alike, etc. Government cannot artificially integrate people. Government does do a good job at segregation as we have seen. What works is actual market freedom.

[@miketv2331]

WARNING: Keep your volume near muted until after 1:46 if you don't want your eardrums to suddenly bleed.

[@gideondavid30]

"I am not a beneficiary of preferences .... but of affirmative action" Is this a distinction without a difference? Yes, it is so hard to be black. We got it. "structural inequality" Really? I thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 solved that problem. Unless colleges are going to break the law ... what structural inequalities are you talking about?

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

by "structural inequality," he actually means "my feelings"

[@michaelx5604]

+gideondavid30 AND WW BENEFIT THE MOST FROM AA, AS A MATTER OF FACT WW MAJE UP 65% OF THE AA CASE'S

[@gideondavid30]

+Michael X Your point being?

[@fovarberma752]

+Michael X Watch out over there, we got a CapsLock warrior. One that can't spell at that. Like I said in another comment, if affirmative action does so much good, why not extend it? The real hurt of favoring black kids is a heavy burden on society: 1. We are on one hand paying for students whose chances of success are greatly diminished, costing us resources, decreasing the amount of candidates for roles we need filled in our society and diminishing the quality of the candidates. 2. And on the other hand, good prospects whose productivity would have been really good to the well being of EVERYONE are turned down. Add to that the fact that cliques will form over a relative level of intelligence leading those black young men who entered due to policies only will be ostracized and the additional pressure to prove one's as worthy as anyone else... Not a pretty picture. But damn does the victim mentality feels good doesn't it?

[@wyattkayne4034]

They should have expanded the debate well beyond mismatch theory. What about the constitutionality and morality of preferential treatment based on race? What about the idea that affirmative action promotes prejudice and bias against beneficiaries? That affirmative action effectively lends credence to nasty, archaic stereotypes about race and intelligence?

[@GreenImpact]

Affirmative action was a step justly made during the time the policy was created, but it's in dire need of an update. I say we have some sort of "Affirmative Action" based on Socio-economic class as opposed to race.

[@kathykelly5930]

when did it ever work?

[@alexanderwryn2112]

kathy kelly The 1950's.

[@DaDestroyer1986]

Lord Razer It didn't exist in the 1950s. Or do you forget when LBJ was President?

[@edwardsy1515]

Legacy admissions is a form of affirmative action. So is majot donor admissions.

[@kove]

The side against the motion needed affirmative action for the selection process of the audience.

[@miketv2331]

1:27:10 if you "don't get" an argument, then you're in no position to declare it "factually wrong". The 'against' position is entirely based on emotion & mythology.

[@josephkerr7820]

You realize that was a euphemism, right? Him saying "I don't get [Gail's] argument" meant "I'm baffled that you would say something so offensive." Although Mrs. Heriot defended her position well, some people _do_ find the contention that blacks should go to lesser institutions in order to be more... kinda outrageous.

[@miketv2331]

Emotion & mythology.

[@johnmahoney6663]

Interesting that Kennedy's first concern is "advances key valuable goals of most institutions of higher education." His concern is for the institution not the student. His failure is a collectivist love affair with the "Group" at the expense of the "individual."

[@daviddub]

Yes. Additionally his failure is an aspirational love affair with the goal at the expense of the actual outcome.

[@daviddub]

I love that you said this. I literally stopped the video the moment he finished that sentence. That's when I saw your comment.

[@stevekaldi1619]

The ones who want success will achieve it, regardless of color and race should not be process. The black white thing is getting to be a pain. Succeed on your own merits.

[@stevekaldi1619]

+Quan Truong the quotas favor minorities.

[@urgandma]

the 2 black guys are arguing why there is a shitty product being made, everyone else is arguing that we just want good products.

[@devonferris]

Hahahaha great point

[@danielschlorf5603]

I think the best person for the job gets the job and if they don't work for it they will not truly learn. It will make better students in the end and give people higher standards to work to with no short cuts.

[@mikegray8776]

Just re-viewed this 8 years on to refresh my perspective on how these matters were presented and debated prior to the current febrile obsession with race and “privilege”. Very much as I had remembered, the level of debate was altogether more civilised and scholarly than it would be today - and the audience was both respectful and orderly ….as, of course, it should be. As for the debate, Rick Sander was by far the most impressive & persuasive contributor - who carried the day in a setting where the cons had a significant starting advantage. Ted Shaw started his case analytically enough - but ultimately, although he twice accused the other side if viewing the argument through a primarily racial lens, then abandoned any argument other than an appeal to undoing past anti-black racism. Consequently he therefore unwittingly set the stage for such as Kendi, diAngelo and Hannah-Jones - although in fairness he made his case rather better and less petulantly then the three very minor intellects who followed his lead.

[@caffeineandphilosophy]

"Preferences" is not a loaded term to describe affirmative action; it is, by the literal definition, accurate. The negative connotations we associate with the term should give us pause about the policy accurately described by it, not the association of that policy with the word we'd rather not have to hear aloud. The accuracy of the phrase does not diminish with its disuse. If anything, "affirmative action" is the more euphemistic term that throws a biased emotional spin on a policy that, despite its immaculate and thoroughly positive intentions, follows means to that end that we'd rather not contemplate too hard. If affirmative action is good, then logically, some kind of preferences are good.

[@persilbran]

I remember reading in the paper about a debate between Harvard and Oxford Universities Debating societies "Britain is the 51st state of America" Harvard against Oxford for the Motion. I have often wondered how that turned out.

[@ArthurintheOC]

I'd like to see college athletics operate under AA too then. Surely there are gains to be had by seeing a more diverse group in the athletic field. It's not like underrepresented minorities can't go to college at all.

[@williammcenaney9393]

The university I graduated from, undergraduates needed to take about three human diversity courses, Women's Studies, Asian Studies, Gay Studies, say. So a professor of mine told me what I already suspected: politically correct courses polarized students. The university wanted members of different ethnic groups to learn about one another. But they, the students, stayed with members of their own ethnic groups. I'm white, Irish and happy to be with anyone from any ethnic group, though I reject forced integration. And in my opinion, people usually prefer to spend their times with others who are much like them.

[@RagingBlast2Fan]

20:45 Oh, this keeps getting better by the minute. Women? Really? Men are "unappreciated" in our educational system, not women. This guy hasn't done his homework, or he's rather ill informed. Perhaps he's living in the 60's.

[@danstewart2770]

The proponents of the proposition won the debate, despite their unbelievably dismal perfomance.

[@miketv2331]

what's the statute of limitations on revenge for past injustice? I mean...nobody alive today was a slave, & nobody else alive was a slave-owner. So how do you determine who deserves punishment & who deserves special handout treatment? Would it be considered "justice" to start handing special treatment to Jews over blacks because of the time the blacks enslaved the Jews?

[@williamt3931]

Education system should not lower the academic/admission standard, period. Everyone come to university should meet the same admission standard. If you want to give more chance to the poor and unfortunate students to get admission to university, is to lower their admission fees or free. That is what China is doing. China offer free education to ethnic minorities including Tibetans from Tibet and Muslims from Xinjiang province. In America, it is free to go to school up to high school graduation so everyone should be able to study to meet the admission requirement. America is so profit driven society that even treat university as a money making place.

[@RUHappyATM]

William T I TOTALLY AGREE. Admission must be based on merits. Based on academic ability, not on race.

[@ignorethiscommentordont34]

This is hilariously racist. I love how ignorant the opposition and even the proposition are when they are only able to see "cosmetic" racial difference in college admissions. "Asians" make up a very diverse group of people. Each group, I would argue, is as different from each other as from, say, blacks or whites. But of course, society lumps them all into "Asians" and puts a universal effort to dampen their admissions. What about certain Asian groups who are also poorly represented at colleges? They don't get any preferences. In fact, because of affirmative action, their enrolment is actively suppressed.

[@josephkerr7820]

That's true, and honestly, I was disappointed by the way the panelists answered the question (especially Mr. Kennedy!). Mr. Sander correctly stated that colleges and universities are interested in 'cosmetic diversity' (56:54-57:13). _All_ ethnic groups have disadvantaged members, however there is a greater percentage of disadvantaged blacks and browns compared to other groups, which has resulted in their inability to apply in numbers that meet cosmetic diversity goals. This is NOT true for other groups. This is how affirmative action, when used improperly like this, is skewed to help blacks more than others, thereby creating the so-called 'credentials gaps' that Mrs. Heriot referred to (12:30-12:43). That said, _don't make black people your excuse as to why you didn't get in._ Like Mr. Shaw said, blacks usually represent a single-digit percentage of the incoming class (58:33-58:53, 1:13:31-1:14:13). I understand how you feel about the pervasive tendency of others to treat all Asians as if they were a monolithic culture, but be honest with yourself. In all likelihood, you weren't going to get in anyway.

[@ignorethiscommentordont34]

I'm not American, but even if I didn't get into an American school I wouldn't make that excuse that I did not get it because of black people. I think this situation of affirmative action is telling though about the situation of Asians in Western Society. The fact that you also see NO Asians with any political weight basically anywhere reflects a far greater issue where the rights of Asians are extremely vulnerable.

[@josephkerr7820]

IgnoreThisComment OrDont I've also noticed the lack of Asians in politics, in movies, in cartoons and comic books, and in most things that aren't Eastern martial arts-related. I'm familiar with the whitewashing that has been done to Asian stories and Asian history. Considering your numbers, and your diversity of ideas and culture -- as evident to anyone who watches Eastern media -- it seemed strange, but really, it goes back to the point that Ted Shaw made (31:00-32:49). Famous American economist, Thomas Sowell once stated (quite correctly) that the best schools in America are only that way because of _international_ students [TEACHERS UNIONS (suck) - KZbin]. Comedian Chris Rock pointed out that our previous president, George W. Bush, was a C-student who attended _YALE_! There's an Aesop Fable titled "The Wolf and the Lamb" which basically makes the point that _any excuse will serve a tyrant_. Just as it is true for the way Asians are treated in the Western world, it's also true for other minorities as well. Make no mistake, 'academic credentials' are a red herring. It's about maintaining a certain status quo that ultimately denies blacks and browns the rights and privileges of being associated with, or having graduated from, an Ivy League school. If they are going to fail, let them fail. But at least give them a chance.

[@AnthonyBrianLogan]

There was a black male who wrote an article that said "we need more white women" ... and in essence it said that white women seem to be the only ones who truly have the best interest of the black male at heart. The woman on the panel seems to be proving that, especially at 1:00:45

[@professorhamester]

Birth rate should be factored in. Asian Americans often make a mindful choice of having fewer children despite the biological instinct/desire to have more, so that they can devote more time and financial resources to each child to improve the chance of success (i.e., 1.7 kids per Asian American woman in 2010, lower than 1.8 for white, 2.0 for black and 2.4 for Latina, Source: National Center for Health Statistics). With unjust laws like SCA 5, this responsible approach to parenting is twice punished, rather than rewarded. Fewer children lead to a smaller population base. Couple that with more parental involvement and kids' better achievement, there comes a college over-representation "problem"! I guess (sarcastically) the adaptive group level strategy in an environment shaped by laws like SCA 5 is to revive the "bear more, care less" r selection parenting from the far past!

[@professorhamester]

There is a big hole in the “it’s your moral obligation because your ancestors owed my ancestors“ argument for Affirmative Action. In the U.S., Asian Americans as a group have never enslaved or persecuted any racial groups. Actually they were often the victims of racial discrimination (e.g., Chinese Exclusion Act 1882, Japanese internment). By punishing this colored minority group who has never wronged any other groups, Affirmative Action is committing sins of racial discrimination that can NOT even be called reverse discrimination. The most recent Affirmative Action effort is SCA 5, which tries to repeal Prop. 209 and to allow admission decisions based on race. Say NO to SCA 5!

[@alexanderwryn2112]

I understand your point and why you used the term, but I don't understand why the term was ever used in the first place.. "reverse discrimination". Nothing about the word "discrimination" implies any particular group of people. Discrimination against whites means the same thing as discrimination against blacks or indians, or women, or men. Discrimination IS discrimination, calling it "reverse" seems to imply that only minorities can be "discriminated" against, while in reality the reverse of discrimination is simply "equality".

[@professorhamester]

Lord Razer Agree. Two wrongs do not make it right. "Reverse discrimination" IS discrimination.

[@Newmoney1122]

The "For" side arguement lacks imperical data, coherence, strong narrative and sustenance. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Gayle cited studies, examples and recent literature that support their argument. The "Identity Politics" types never argue soundly. Mr. Kennedy did not contribute anything worthwhile to the quasi debate.

[@Vondur]

IQ2 really dropped the ball on what could have been a potentially good debate. It didn't even seem like they vetted the debaters to verify that they were on the correct side of the debate. We ended up with 2 debaters arguing for AA and 2 debaters arguing for a slightly tweaked AA. How about next time they actually bring on two people who can make a real case against it? The only criticism the side for the motion seemed to have was that it mismatches students. That should have been just the tip of the iceberg rather than their entire position. I hope I never waste another hour and a half watching four "debaters" who largely agree with one another.

[@fiscalcpiano]

Agreed. This sort of debate should have been done based on the two extreme positions of AA: Completely in favor of the status quo, or eliminating race as a factor in admissions altogether.

[@ryandbowers]

"Women are outperforming men academically." I'd love to see the statistics on that one. Female art students getting 4.0 GPAs are not outperforming male engineers with 3.5 GPAs.

[@iamdeafzed6]

Ryan Bowers Women probably are outperforming men in school more legitimately than you're claiming. However, I suspect the reason for this has to do with the fact that women are more likely to obey orders without questioning them, whereas men (ceteris paribus) are not. And let's face it: as much as schools like to pretend that they're bastions of free-thinking inquiry, they're not. Educational institutions are more authoritarian than many would like to believe, and women (I think) are better equipped to deal with this.

[@chunhaylee]

70% of high school valedictorians are girls. Whereas Harvard, for example, always admits boys and girls 50/50. So clearly males are benefiting from affirmative action here.

[@kove]

I am undecided, before and after watching this debate. I do lean toward supporting the motion. I felt the two debaters for the motion gave poor arguments. There is an equality, but this comes from the environment in which the children are raised. The solution is to this inequality needs to be resolved starting at this environment. This is where I loop back to the start, I am undecided, but learn toward the motion. I would have to review the full data myself in order to make a good decision.

[@grizelda4526]

46:20. Priceless.

[@miketv2331]

36:00 at least he concedes that he traded his integrity for a ride at society's expense.

[@truthssayer1980]

Let me offer a different spin on this discussion. Suppose you are a student who got a 1600 on the SAT and 4.0 GPA which puts you at the top of the scale. Are you entitled to go to a particular school (Harvard, yale, for example)? More importantly, how much does it matter what school you go to? Supposedly, any school you go to you will continue to perform at a 1600 SAT level. And should you decide to go to graduate school, those opportunities will become available to you. You don't get dumber because you don't go to an elite school. I think the importance of getting the 1600 and going to an IVY league school boils down to $$'s and that's really why this is such a big issue. Some one who goes to an elite school will have the brand and networking opportunities that makes him more likely to have a higher salary. If you look at it this way, then the scores on the SAT and GPA really represent a sort of war to gain a leg up in this highly competitive environment. It's not about the education, because such an outstanding student would excel at any school that he went to.

[@josephkerr7820]

That's an interesting perspective! You are _very_ good at reading between the lines.

[@danstewart2770]

Great debate topic. Terrible debaters, both teams. 1. The team arguing against the proposition aren't even on point, they're arguing that affirmative action is a worthy system, but that's not the proposition. As such, they haven't made a single substantive point as to whether the action does more harm than good (which is the actual proposition). 2. The team arguing in favor of the proposition made several unforced errors. They seem reluctant to make a forceful straightforward case, despite that they have powerful facts and arguments at the disposal. As such, they're totally ineffective. What a massive disappointment.

[@searose6192]

At the end (closing statements) the “against” guy is painting it as though African Americans are incapable of competing on their own merits....that’s terrible,

[@8dholland]

......Omg. Do you know that blacks are just now leaving the ghettos? In white schools they don't even teach most of the story they only know MLK. People don't just fuck up just to be fucking up. Unless there is a mental problem. It takes time to fix it. Im not for AA because it causes whites to attack blacks for no reason. We don't even go to college that much....

[@hlysnan6418]

The opposition did not come prepared.

[@evastaitz9911]

what radio station in manchester, nh?

[@kennonroader]

Thomas Sowell should have been a panelist.

[@danstewart2770]

Watchong this I'm reminded of the H.L. Mencken quip that, _"only an academic could say something so stupid."_

[@Cy1onRaider]

and we have now seen the Supreme Court agree with this assessment. Affirmative action is gifting the undeserving with a prize they never earned.

[@beyondthemasquerade2626]

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is one of them. Affirmitive action as practiced and preached by its supporters has got nothing to do with racial justice nor is it about equality under the law and equal opportunity for all. It's a political play for power in positions of influence by some and for some. It's about establishing a racial hierarchy and racial privilege by some and for some based n the politics of grievances. It is inherently unjust, unlawful and undemocratic. It has no place in a democracy. Is it really a surprise that this so-called movement for racial justice has started to cannibalize itself by turning its sight on Asian Americans? Where is their justice? Apparently, it's about justice for some and not all. Human history is riddled with such examples where the oppressed become the oppressors. What about diversity? According to the team against the motion, it only matters if the "right" group is enrolled.

[@justing7490]

1:13:00 he just defeats his own sides argument. He literally says that no one has the right to attend the schools, so no one should be required to allow anyone for any forced reason...

[@245194LAC]

The concept of allowing the best qualified to enter university has to be set aside to allow those who are not necessarily best qualified to enter in their stead is totally counter-productive. Colour and race have noting to do with it. You either have the creds or you do not. Dump affirmative action. It has been noting more than a panacea to the black community. It admittance to university not about competency? Leave race out of it. You either have it or you don't. It is also well to note the defensive posture with arms folded through the whole debate of Randy Kennedy is very telling.

[@killerbutle]

If you base affirmative action on economic status then race becomes a none factor. The only real argument as to why African Americans perform poorly in school is an argument based on the fact that many African Americans come from poor neighborhoods and families. However, I think it is almost offensively erroneous to imply that if an African American from a RICH background is still at SIGNIFICANT odds simply because he is black. The fact of the matter is, that in 21st century America the only real factor that puts children at a disadvantage is the economic factor. Poverty is colorblind, and a white child who grows up in extreme poverty with a drug-addict mother can be just as at risk as a black child. The fact that there are more African American children who, tragically, grow up in impoverished homes, is a different subject altogether. Regardless, the sooner we stop blaming race for everything by implying that anybody has substantial privilege solely for being white, we can make meaningful change to address the ECONOMIC issues at hand. America had an ugly past - but is it so wrong to want to move forward? Even if you are the victim, the worst thing to do is prevent yourself as such.

[@niccoarcadia4179]

All during a students academic life the edu-crats keep passing the buck. They should be up front and just tell a student what their true possibilities are (based on IQ scores) before it reaches college level. Depression and lack of self worth coupled with a student loan can crush a person.

[@kennyj2425]

This is data based facts vs moral driven rhetoric.

[@killer3883]

there was a time when this had value, but there are now 30 years of graduation to say anyone can go to college, now all it does now is when a women is in the science or you have a black scanadate for a job, there is alwase the question are they here becasue they should? or because of alternative action

[@jmilber]

Does anyone else feel the woman Gale has a strange resemblance to mcLovin?

[@jerrydenggm]

Top universities are above all, academic institutions. So if for admission, an affirmative action B/C is considered as good as an A, then for the sake of students well-being, they should continue the practice of affirmative action in course load, homework load, exam curves….

[@ddlyify]

Affirmative Action is simply indefensible. But few hearts and minds will be swayed by the moral arguments so, I point to the efficacy arguments. The data is there and AA simply has not significantly narrowed the achievement gaps and may in fact have done more damage in the process.

[@audiho]

I understand the impulse to be smug when you think someone is so, so wrong, but I still can't stand when people show it on their faces. It's so disrespectful. It made me have a great dislike for the dissenting side, even though I'm sympathetic to their arguments. It didn't seem like they were hearing out the arguments of the argument's proponents--just waving them away and rolling their eyes.

[@propoppop9866]

20:55 hold up You know becuse of affirmative action more talent goase unrecognised becuse your no longer doing it based off the best metric grades this seems like clear emotional appeal

[@RUHappyATM]

"A parent says to his child, you don't have to work as hard as that Chinaman. You will get into Harvard. I did". What is wrong with this statement?

[@teeKayNW]

Okay I get AA is suppose to "help" the people who aren't as "smart" but why would you push the "not so smart" people into the "smart" institution where they fall behind. I feel like it would be better to "match" their intellectual capacity to an institution that correspond to their intellect to improve their intelligences step by step. Does IQ2, in a profound way, think that AA force unintelligent people into let's say Harvard thus AA doing more harm than good? I attend a community college, and if i were hypothetically placed into Harvard or Columbia I would try my best to keep up, but if the level is too high it won't make a difference on how hard I try, hence, I too, would probably drop out. Maybe Affirmative Action is a trap, who knows.

[@gerardmulder7656]

Amazing!

[@8dholland]

Elaborate...

[@chrislieu6757]

Yes a LOT of people disagree with the mismatch theory. Emphatically so. But it's almost entirely emotionally driven.

[@lordcron]

If admissions are at a premium and white want AA to go away. I'd like to see the data on before and after effects of AA. I'm very interested in seeing how many Asians who didn't make it into those institutions because lower performing whites got the privilege pass. Mommy and Daddy got some connections or paid their kids way past some Asians.

[@searose6192]

At 46:00 the moderator makes an absurd interjection “in the 1950s they would have done as well?” No....in the time they went to college (he mentioned the 80s and 90s) they may have done as well. His question is like saying oh, so you think they would have done as well in the 1100s in what is modern day Mozambique? It’s absurd. A far better question would be “you think they would have done as well in California? A state with no affirmative action?” To which the obvious answer is YES!

[@malcolmwheaton7235]

So aren't they technically arguing about how affirmative action is interpreted because from what I know affirmative action is about inclusion but not by rewarding those that are unqualified. Maybe I'm wrong but im pretty sure that affirmative action wasn't created so that a unqualified minority is giving preference, but for a qualified minority to be given preference in order to encourage diversity. The problem is not affirmative action, the problem is how affirmative action processes are being carried out. i see nothing wrong with giving preference to someone who is qualified and a minority in order to diversify because diversity is a good thing.

[@wyattkayne4034]

Thomas Sowell should be at the debate

[@josephaether377]

it's funny cuz the female was trying to be polite when she said they may have done just as well... to leave the other side with the choice of, you are either not legit scholars (by saying they had to get help to succeed) or by saying that they are legit and didn't need the help, she would've mitigated their responses. but she softened the blow and gave a middle ground by saying that no matter what, they, maybe, were smart enough to get to where they are now. yet, this, paradoxically, screwed her when the mediator implied they wouldn't have gotten where they are now if not for assistance; lol. sometimes, there's no winning when trying to be as fair as possible. ps: the guy leaning over at the end was saying, "they only won cuz of what the room look like."

[@chrislieu6757]

So the pro-AA argument seems to be that the existence of AA encourages underrepresented minorities to attend college. But AA really only has dramatic impacts at top tier colleges (may be a little bit at second tier) colleges. But at these colleges, we are teaching generations of college students that the bottom of the class is likely to have an overrepresentation of black/hispanic students. Fully half the black/hispanic students deserve to be there and are evenly distributed along the grading curve at these competitive colleges. BUT their achievement is masked by the underperformance by the students that were accepted largely based on the color of their skin. These AA admits would thrive at a slightly less competitive college but it is unacceptable to some people that harvard would only have 7% black students instead of 14% black students next year. Ms. Heriott STARTS her argument with a disclaimer that she has quarrel outreach and other programs that would increase participation rates but thinks that using unequal measuring sticks actually hurts the students who are accepted mostly on the basis of the color of their skin. If we really want to make colleges and universities more accessible to black students then we should fund their education. The cost of college is daunting.

[@chrislieu6757]

The second set of speakers seem to be arguing about different things. One is saying that large preferences create mismatch and that is bad, the other is saying that affirmative action is merely a conscious attempt to admit underrepresented students. The argument also seems to be that if you are against AA, you are racist. The choice isn't between qualified students. For example the average asian admit to Cornell has test scores in the 99th percentile (~1500) while black admits have test scores in the 75th percentile (~1200). That's a big difference. The black students are certainly well qualified to attend college but does it have to be Cornell or would they be better off attending Penn State?

[@joshbrackelsberg9626]

What the hell was that black guy even saying? If I wanted a sermon I would go to church.

[@8dholland]

He is leaning on the ethos and emotional side of debate, all of which preachers do well at. Very good at noticing this type of argument.

[@toneman335]

Affirmative action is a clear case of racism. Think...if someone gets in on a racial preference, so to speak, that means at the same time someone didn't get in because of race . That is racism!!

[@theeagle7054]

The black guys' strategy is to call the opponents racists 🤣🤣🤣

[@leroybrown2641]

the problem is not that there are not enough blacks at ivy leagues school . it is that all those black teachers at those school should be teaching at black school.

[@nathanpoe9952]

Once again a position of dogma and emotion vs. logic and facts in this decades old debate. The difference is that the facts keep building up while the dogma requires more and more work.

[@ZFlyingVLover]

Affirmative action is racist and should be ended. Instead the best of the best irrespective of race should be offered government sponsored scholarships(not fucking loans) AFTER they get accepted to competitive schools.

[@ZFlyingVLover]

+ZFlyingVLover And only for topics that are marketable. Womens studies and Black history are a waste of money. Science, Engineering , Medicine scholarships only. These are selfless and crucial disciplines.

[@bluebirdredrobin6827]

How is it racist if the biggest group who benefits is white women?

[@donbags5542]

A more powerful argument that I don't recall being brought up against Affirmative Action is when Affirmative Action ended at UCLA the number off blacks that *enrolled* did lower, *BUT* the number of blacks that graduated *STAYED THE SAME.* This means that the blacks that got in after AA was eliminated *DESERVED* to be there, and hence graduated just like everyone else. When AA was implemented, the blacks that didn't deserved to be there dropped out, because...well...they obviously couldn't hack it.

[@ybefutile]

That fact that she believes that the two black panelists would have had the same opportunities in education in 1950 with or without affirmative action speaks volumes in and of itself.

[@kathykelly5930]

Thats not cause of affirmative action, but because of public opinion on race. Affirmative action isn't going to make racists hire blacks, it just adds costs to potentially hiring.

[@ybefutile]

kathy kelly It wouldn't make racists hire black people, but they do make a good point about the introduction of diversity on campuses influencing how we interact with one another. Maybe the racist college student from the all white small town becomes enlightened on campus after attending school with black people for the first time. Facilitating diversity via affirmative action doesn't only affect black folks.

[@alexanderwryn2112]

kathy kelly Isn't about hiring, the point was that in the 1950's..the chances of a black person, no matter how skilled, intelligent, or driven entering the colleges that they graduated from.. was so low that it ended up being a negative number. It was only through affirmative action that "white" schools ever allowed black students to enter.

[@haozi2978]

What about Asians? Why is Asians excluded from affirmative action? Just because Asians already do well?

[@ybefutile]

When Asians are systematically enslaved for over 300 years, then denied inclusion into society via legal and social laws, which results in a generational lack of access to quality education, then Asians can catch a break with affirmative action. Apples and oranges.

[@bmwatrin]

This was a disappointing debate. The 'for' side shouldve focused more on what improvements should be made to affirmative action outreach to socioeconomic class... instead of reiterating how minorities shouldn't attempt opportunities because they'll probably fail. They were too unprepared...like deers in headlights The 'against' side didn't even try to explain what "stupid" AA was. But At least they acknowledged its a double-standard. Both sides basically conceded that AA was a necessary step to transition out of Jim Crow, so I wish they wouldve talked about indicators for when the good doesn't outweigh the bad, and how do we transition in to this "ideal" world with out it..... very disappointing, I'd love to see this rephrased with less boring participants