Hey pol I have to write an essay against affirmative action for my rhetoric class...

Hey pol I have to write an essay against affirmative action for my rhetoric class. What are some good reasons it should be illegal?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MQriwTRQM3g
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_World
youtube.com/watch?v=eUbOcgj8AjQ
youtube.com/watch?v=L5BMGYkVdX8
youtube.com/watch?v=JENCxjbARFM
youtube.com/watch?v=AU4QyOHb9B0
youtube.com/watch?v=53TgxsB1_Lo
huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZX1.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

it's racist at its core

Look at how well affirmative action is kworking for the natives in Canada; it isn't. They are way more suicidal now though

This and is generally contradictory to equality.

It's discriminatory.

>affirmative action
For starters it is misnamed to deceive

In the UK and France those programs are called Positive Discrimination

...at least they admit they are discriminating

Raise the fact that affirmative action is racist to the core, helping only the flavor-of-the-month minorities opposed to people who actually need help.

US College entrance, for example. Everything equal, an Asian student needs 250 more points on the SAT to have the same % of acceptance as a black student. 150~200 points for white students.

It must be real comforting to those poor Asians and Whites who can't get ahead in life because some dumb, rich nigger is took their place while having inferior credentials.

Because it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964

It's clear race discrimination. If your race changes, the way the government and public accommodations treats you changes.

The Supreme Court allowed universities (it was a case inolving UT Austin i forget the name) to consider race in determining who to admit to the school as long as it was a part of a "holistic" scale meant to increase diversity because increasing diversity in unis was a "pressing governmental concern"

By that logic i could open a business and only hire white people because im using a "holistic" scale meant to increase the % of veterans and families of veterans and then obv no court can tell me thats not a governmental concern b/c obviously anything involving vets employment is a govt. concern.

its judicial activism, its race discrimination and its fucking autism

Any program or argument that involves a person's race is, by definition, racist. The US government should not be engaged in racist programs, and our society should not promote racist ideas. Either everyone is exactly equal to everyone else, or nobody is equal.

>In the UK and France those programs are called Positive Discrimination
pointing this out if it's true is excellent rhetoric

it actually isnt, the supreme court ruled on this.
I would say that it takes some of the prestige away, like white people can just say "oh, the only reason you got into Harvard was AA", instead of it being on your own merit and having worked hard for it.

It also gives a negative image to those you actually succeed through their own merits and it fucks chinamen over like crazy

every time someone gets in because of AA, someone more qualified doesn't get in

just look up thomas sowell

It discriminates heavily against other minorities like Asians, not just muh privileged whites.

Asians have to score standard deviations above blacks and spics to get into schools. That's racist against Asians.

So much this

Favoring everyone but white males is the same as discrimination against white males

If you want to survive college you have to avoid telling the truth. Pretend like you live in USSR.

youtube.com/watch?v=MQriwTRQM3g

I think Thomas Sowell has written a lot about this subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_World

>ITT: Sup Forums perpetuates colorblind racism

It gives students covered by Affirmative Action from a rich background an extremely unfair advantage over students not covered by Affirmative Action and are from a poor background.

If you lower the standards for minorities, they will never raise their standards of behavior or capability.

because AA slots are veterans and the disabled.

people would rather hire PTSD'd welfare queens and literal retards rather than hiring nigs.

another good point

East Asians are screwed by AA

It was supposed to be a temporary measure that would otherwise be illegal (at the time it was passed).

It has been co-opted to put groups (white women for instance) ahead of the group it was meant to benefit (african american slaves and their descendants).

And yes it's discriminatory (esp against asians, but also against white mails some)

avoid only using arguments about america, thats a trap for you to fall in.

>it actually isnt, the supreme court ruled on this.
>Supreme Court of liberal elitists said it isn't discriminatory.
>This is the end of discussion, even though literally everyone can see the different standards applied to different race groups.
Ok, user.

youtube.com/watch?v=eUbOcgj8AjQ

youtube.com/watch?v=L5BMGYkVdX8

youtube.com/watch?v=JENCxjbARFM

youtube.com/watch?v=AU4QyOHb9B0

youtube.com/watch?v=53TgxsB1_Lo

Watch these, OP

>They are way more suicidal now though
so its working well, then

Affirmative action is already illegal. Diversity admissions, which is qualitatively different (no quotas/points system) is still legal. OP would be helped by getting his terminology clear.

It has to be one of the most inelegant solutions to disparity in social outcomes ever conceived. Even if you accept the premise that certain minorities face disadvantages, it does not follow that they should be given lower university admissions requirements. It's easy enough to argue this without revealing your power level.

1. By the time people reach university age, their social disadvantages have already accumulated. Trying to fix this at such a late stage is absurd. Emphasis should be placed more on efforts such as public education to improve prenatal healthcare and early nutrition as well as quality primary and elementary school education. That would be a far more effective way to reduce social disparities.

2. Affirmative action causes a mismatch in a student's capabilities and the demands of a particular university program. For example, if the top universities would normally take just the top 5% of students, but for whatever reason, a particular minority cannot field many applicants of that calibre, then affirmative action may force a top university to instead take the top 15% of a minority. Now, high quality but not quite top tier schools might normally take the top 15% of students, but for this particular minority, those students will have been taken by the top universities, and so they must then take in the top 30% of students. This perpetuates down the line, such that at each level, the minority student is mismatched to the demands of the institution. Even if a well-rounded, talented, and capable minority student would do very well at a top 15% university, they may find themselves struggling or feeling inferior at a top 5% university. This can cause them to drop out or choose a less demanding major, which does them no favors for when they must then perform outside of university.

(cont.)

Just (((google))) Thomas Sowell Affirmative Action

>based black conservative

3. There are plenty of talented and capable people in minority groups who would succeed regardless of affirmative action. However, because they belong to a group known to benefit from affirmative action, their qualifications and accomplishments might be diminished by those who believe they have only achieved them because of affirmative action. This is hardly fair to those individuals of such minorities who have overcome whatever disadvantages they may have had and strove for success.

These are all arguments that even most liberals will find to be persuasive.

>it actually isnt
the dictionary will prove you and the supreme court wrong

if my race changes, the way the government and university treats me changes

thats discrimination

I wrote something like this a while ago. Not on my computer now, but I'll give you the essay if you need it.

It is the only law currently that gives a race or gender preference over another it is by definition racist.

In Canada it is called employment equity

...another euphemism to hide what it is

Diversity admissions are race discrimination

It grants opportunity on the premise of physical identity and not skill set or overall ability, which is discriminatory and completely illogical. Granting someone a job based upon their ethnicity does nothing to benefit your company because you can not derive ability from physical identity. It just gives you your fix of virtue signaling

> 1st level
Affirmative action only benefits those minorities who need it the least. Unless combined with a requirement for actual poverty, it tends to benefit well-off blacks over poor ones because they have more access; meanwhile, the ones specifying both race and poverty tend to leave the poorest of the unfavored races (whites, asians) adrift.
> 2nd level
While AA does tend to pick the best blacks over the most needy, it also punishes them in the end. It bumps them up several levels in available college or career options, and the data shows (see: Thomas Sowell) that it tends to put more minorities above their actual level of aptitude than not. Thus, they fail out of MIT when they could have been top of the class at a top-tier State school. These failure stories get no press, and leave some of the most able minorities with fewer realistic career options.
>3rd level
Successful minorities face the very real career problem that whites, jews, and asians who did not benefit from AA automatically assume that a given black or mexican is there as an AA-hire, not as a qualified person. They are forced to prove themselves separate from the rabble, rather than having their accomplishments speak for themselves.
> 4th level
AA may have been necessary as a corrective measure, same as much of the Civil Rights Act. But it's a blunt instrument. You reach a point where the amount of harm that the law prevents is outweighed by the harm it causes. If no one ever makes racist hiring decisions, then anti-racism hiring laws serve only as a way for blacks to threaten nonblacks with vexatious litigation; this threatens to actually *create* racism rather than mitigate it. We need to periodically reexamine things and see if the laws should be scaled back in response to changing circumstances.
> 5th level
Call them all fags.

Would you help one of your kids win a race by tripping the other?

Would you reward somebody for some arbitrary reason over someone else who really worked hard for that reward?

Would you light your garage on fire to try and put out the fire in your house?

If your grandfather punched an employee's grandfather in the face years and years before either of you were born, would you promote him over the employee that stays late and doesn't ask for a raise for it?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, congratulations! You are a faggot who supports affirmative action!

If the roles were reversed

If every group was receiving special benefits except for African Americans it would be easy to spot that it is the same as discrimination against African Americans

A
>FUCKING
well thought out post, Leaf

Affirmative action should not be illegal for fully private institutions; they should have the freedom to discriminate in whatever way they wish. However, government, or any entity that receives government money, should not discriminate, because tax payers come from all demographics. Since affirmative action is a form of discrimination, then, public colleges should clearly not participate in it.

It's discrimination based on race and that's supposed to be illegal

I just realized I'm helping somebody with their homework via Sup Forums

Sure, diversity admissions proponents are OK with racial discrimination (by discrimination, we mean the ability to discern differences b/w groups).

It sets a student up for failure. Affermitve Action can result in a student getting placed into a school they're not qualified for, making them bound to flunk.

Thanks Scalia

A story that has stuck with me
a local aboriginal girl around here was doing really well in school, and she wanted to get into medicine and her guidance councellor said she didn't need to do as well as the white kids because she's aboriginal, so she slacked off a bit, and when she got to uni, she couldn't keep up, and just ended up in debt

What else do you expect from Sup Forums?

There's no defined endpoint for when it's supposed to end. What standard do you use to say that racial equality has been achieved and that it's no longer necessary? Furthermore, would the racial groups affirmative action benefits willingly give it up when it's no longer necessary?

I mean I can't just copy-paste another essay since she knows it wouldn't sound like me, but that would actually be great if I could see it for the support/details.

Forgot to mention my teacher is a super liberal feminist, so my argument has to be really convincing.

In that case, use the fact that she is a feminist and cares about women. Say that to be fair, affirmative action programs would have to favor men in fields in which they are underrepresented (e.g. gender studies, nursing, etc) and that this would take away opportunities for wominz. therefore, bad.

It violates the 14th Amendment.

It's racist.

It goes against the notion of meritocracy and holds society back by preventing people getting opportunity equal to their ability.

>colorblind
>racism

pick one

Even Hotep don't like it.
>Blacks don't want or need a white law, setup by white men.

>the supreme court rules on objective truth

user...

You can also point out that the Jews are by far the worst discriminators/AA bandits, accounting for 2% of the population but over 20% of Ivy League admissions.

...

Forgot to mention that my teacher's jewish, so that might not go over well.

Read it from the cuckington post: huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html

Read his opinion for yourself. Extremely entertaining: law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZX1.html

Mention south africa and the shit it is creating over here