Affirmative Action on Campus Does More Harm Than Good

as I said we've done these debates now all over the country our first time here we started back in 2006 and what we usually like to do is have a little bit of a chat about how we got here and why to this debate and why now and to have that conversation with us I'd like to introduce a law professor from Georgetown University and a director of the Rosencrantz foundation which brought intelligence squared us to the United States please welcome Nicholas Quinn Rosencrantz how are you so Nick as I say it's our first time here how did this end up happening so I was actually up here speaking at a Federal Society conference about intellectual diversity in the legal Academy and a student came up and suggested that we bring IQ squared up here and the more that we thought about it the more we thought it was actually kind of a perfect fit for the I Q squared mission and why is that well so a premise of American law is the same premise as IQ squared which is that the best way to get to truth is to hear zealous advocates on both sides and so there's a sort of a natural affinity between American law and what IQ squared is trying to do let's talk a little bit about the timing didn't I mean that the topic has been around for a long time and has gone through many ups and downs and iterations why why we visit this topic now well so a couple of reasons one is there is a pending Supreme Court case called shweta and so people are watching that one closely I'm interesting to see how that turns out as case suggested that affirmative action might not be just constitutionally permissible but actually constitutionally required that was a sort of a novel suggestion in the case below and now the Supreme Court is considering that then a second reason is one of our debaters professor sander has just advanced kind of a new argument which is that affirmative action actually harms the people it's intended to help and that's quite a controversial argument obviously and surely and certainly not everybody buys it'll be very interesting to see whether that argument ends up having some traction so I'll be watching for that in particular all right so we have a lot of good reads for this to be happening now and we have some spectacular debaters you know some of them and you'll meet some others so let's welcome them to the stage and thank Nick Rosencrantz thank you [Applause] [Music] thank you and as we settle down and launch I'd just like to ask for one more round of applause for for Nick Rosencrantz and for the intelligence squared organization for bringing this up here we stand now at the half century mark in a social experiment that has involved virtually every American whether or not she or he has wanted to be involved in it affirmative action it was 1965 that President Johnson signed an order instituting affirmative action in government hiring the idea was to make things right to correct the legacy of minorities and at that time in particular African Americans being denied a seat at the table a remedy that then and ever since has been controversial but no more so then when it has been applied to the question of who gets accepted into America's elite universities or not in university admissions the debate and the argument has been that affirmative action has mostly achieved and is mostly achieving its goals or that it is not well that sounds like the basis for a debate so let's have it yes or no to this statement affirmative action on campus does more harm than good a debate from intelligence squared us I'm John Donvan we are at the Harvard Law School's Ames courtroom we have four superbly qualified debaters two against who who will argue for and against this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good our debate goes in three rounds and then the audience here at the Harvard Law School votes to choose the winner and only one side wins our motion again affirmative action on campus does more harm than good let's meet the team arguing for the motion ladies and gentlemen please let's welcome Gail Harriette and Yael you are a member of the u.s. Commission on civil rights you're a professor of law at the University of San Diego Law School in 1996 you co-chaired the campaign for proposition 209 that was a California proposition that banned race and gender-based preferences in public education and in-state hiring it passed very famously but voters may once again get the chance to vote on its key provisions and my question to you very briefly if gay are given the chance to vote again seeing what they've seen now do you think that voters will uphold it a second time around I think they will and do you think it's going to be close call I hope it's not close but direct democracy is a tricky business you never know all right ladies and gentlemen Gail Harriet thank you and Gail your partner is my partner is the very talented economist Rick sander ladies and gentlemen Rick sander Rick welcome you are also arguing for this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good you are professor of law at UCLA and in 2004 you published a controversial study that asserts that black law students are actually hurt by affirmative action and to test out this theory you filed a request for the records of the State Bar of California because you wanted their data on race and grades and test scores but you they wouldn't give it to you so you had to sue for its release the California Supreme Court said yes in 2013 so have you seen the data not quite yet the court said that there is a public right for academics or anyone in the public to seek this data but they also said that that there have to be privacy safeguards met and we're still trying to work those out timeline on this I'd say between one month and seven years all right thank you thank you Rick sander that's the team arguing for the motion and now the team arguing against the motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good we have two debaters arguing it first let's please welcome Randall Kennedy [Applause] [Music] Crandell Kennedy this is a hometown crowd for you you are the Michael our client professor of law at the Harvard Law School you're the author of six books including sellout the politics of racial betrayal you're the author of a book with the n-word in the title and most recently you are the author of discrimination race affirmative action and the law you've been described as being something of an iconoclast and it's been said that your classroom like your books can be contentious so is it your intent to push people's buttons sometimes how about tonight no no okay and your partner is Randall Kennedy my partner is Ted Shaw of the Columbia University Law School ladies and gentlemen Ted Shaw and Ted you're also arguing against the motion that affirmative action on campus does more harm than good you are a professor at the Columbia Law School you've been involved in two landmark Supreme Court affirmative action cases you played a key role in drafting the admissions policy upheld in grew up held in gruta versus Bollinger you were lead counsel for black and Latino intervenors in graz versus Bollinger and in 2003 writing for the majority and Gruder back then justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court had predicted the 25 years from now racial preferences would no longer be needed that would put us 14 years away now so Ted is that plausible well I always wondered where that number came from but in any event after justice O'Connor left the bench she and one of a former clerk's authored an article which in which she repudiated that that statement so the 25 years is off well I'm not sure it was ever on it was always dipped in a way but but she doesn't believe in it anymore all right ladies and gentlemen Ted Sean Thank You Ted Shaw our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good and in this debate there will be a winner and a loser you are a live audience at the Harvard Law School will have the chance to choose our winners by voting twice once before you hear the debate and the arguments and once again afterwards and the team whose numbers have changed the most will be declared our winner let me turn off my phone and while I'm doing that Randy I just wanted to say I think you should pull up just for the sake of the microphone to pull up to the table to the distance is great so you helped me cover my phone faux pas thank you so let's get on to the first round of voting the motion is this affirmative action on campus does more harm than good if you go to the keypads at your seat we want you to tell us now where you stand on this motion push number one if you agree with this motion push number two if you disagree and push number three if you're undecided if you push the wrong button just correct yourself the system will in your last vote the other keys are not live and remember you're gonna vote a second time and the team whose numbers have moved the most in percentage point terms will be declared our winner so our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good let's start with round 1 round 1 opening statements by each debater in turn they will be 6 minutes each Gail you can step to the lectern and up first to argue for this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good Gail Harriet a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the u.s. Commission on civil rights ladies and gentlemen Gail Harriet thank you good evening ladies and gentlemen Rick and I are here to make a very narrow point race preferential admissions policies are doing far more harm than good the very large preferences that are now routinely employed by colleges and universities produce fewer not more black scientists black engineers and black medical doctors they produce fewer black college professors and very likely fewer black lawyers we are talking epic policy failure before I get too far let me say that we are not here to argue against outreach outreach is not the source of the problem nor are we here to argue that college and colleges and universities should consider only academic indicators like the SAT and evaluating applicants there are lots of ways to measure talent though I would say that race is not one of them but let me get back to my mean point raise preferential policies don't work how can that be how can giving minorities a friendly leg up produce fewer minority professionals well let me explain one consequence of widespread race preferential policies is that underrepresented minorities end up distributed among colleges and universities in patterns very different from their white and Asian counterparts when the highest school on the academic ladder relaxes academic standards in order to admit more minority students the school's one run down must do the same if they are to get minority students the problem is thus passed down to the third rung on the ladder which responds similarly as a result underrepresented minority students are concentrated at the bottom of most selective schools the problem is not that there are no academically gifted minority students but there are not currently enough at the very top tiers to satisfy the demand and efforts to remedy that problem end up causing credentials gaps up and down the pecking order for example we learned in connection with the University of Michigan Supreme Court litigation a decade ago that Michigan granted preferences to under underrepresented minority students equivalent to an entire letter grade that is african-american and Hispanic students with a straight B 3.0 average were treated the same as Asian and white students with a straight a 4.0 grade point average all other things being equal this is no tie breaker in otherwise close cases the preferences are very large and since 2003 they've gotten larger the problem is that entering credentials matter students whose academic credentials are well below the average for the college and university they are attending will usually earn grades that are similar while some students outperform their entering credentials just as some students underperform theirs most students will perform in the general range that their academic credentials suggest and anyone who thinks otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking at student expense no serious supporter of affirmative action denies this the strongest evidence of backfire comes from science and engineering contrary to what some people think college-bound african-american and Hispanic students are just as interested as white students in majoring in science and engineering actually a little more so the numbers suggest but these are difficult majors and many students of all races abandon that ambit african-american and Hispanic students JumpShip at much much higher rates than do whites it's not surprising that those students again of any race who give up on science and engineering disproportionately have lower entering academic credentials but what some do find surprising and what is key to the argument that we're making this evening is that for in-depth published studies by researchers at Dartmouth the University of Virginia and Duke among others and also one unpublished study so far by Rick here all demonstrate that part of the effect is relative an aspiring science major who who attends a school where she's in the middle or towards the top of her class in entering credentials is much more likely to persevere and ultimately succeed then is an otherwise identical student same entering academic credentials who attends a school where her academic credentials put her towards the bottom of the class put differently preferences hurt they don't help the difference is not trivial ladies and gentlemen we would have a lot more science and engineering minority students graduating with that degree if we engaged in race neutral admissions policies or at least did not give so great a preference to students a similar study by Stephen Cole and Eleanor Barbour shows that minority students who attend colleges where they're entering credentials put them at the bottom of the class do not aspire to go on to graduate school and to become college professors in the same numbers as their identical identically credentialed minority counterparts who are attending somewhat less elite schools and the reason should be obvious students who get good grades in school tend to like school in part because they correctly note that they're good at it none of the results in any of these studies has been controversial no one has rebutted any of it the that study that's received any kind of criticism is Rick's initial study of law school management law school mismatch where data is hard to come by but some of the very same people who criticized that study are the ones who are actively trying to prevent him from getting more better data yeah Harry I'm sorry your time is up and thank you very much that speaks volumes Thank You Gail Harriet our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good and art next debater is going to speak against this motion he's Randall Kennedy the Michael R Klein professor of law at Harvard Law School and author of the book for discrimination for discrimination race affirmative action and the law ladies and gentlemen Randall Kennedy I disagree with the proposition and ask that you vote against it I will argue that affirmative action advances key valuable goals of most institutions of higher education in America My partner Theodore Shaw will address some of the charges made against affirmative action such as the claim that it hurts its intended beneficiaries let's be clear about what we defend we defend conscious efforts to ensure the presence on our campuses of students affiliated with groups that in the absence of special efforts would be excluded or consigned to a negligible isolating status we do not feel obligated to defend all affirmative action programs across the United States we do not support stupid affirmative action but we do support the sensible affirmative action that has been the characteristic sort practiced on campuses across much of America including admissions policies that under certain circumstances select certain candidates over others with superior conventional credentials such as standardized test scores and grades educational institutions have a wide array of goals that are advanced by affirmative action all seek to create excellent environments for teaching and learning their leaders insist that racial and other sorts of diversity is essential to realizing the pedagogical mission that they envision they maintain that racial diversity acquaint students with unfamiliar perspectives and sentiments and that it assists in preparing students for an increasingly cosmopolitan country and demanding world this belief has held not only by academic administrators it is also held by the executives who had many of the nation's leading business firms the executives who submitted submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court several years ago in which they strenuously argued in favor of affirmative action programs on campus and convinced the court in the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that the educational benefits of diversity are not merely theoretical but real some educational institutions see it as part of their mission to do what they reasonably can to assist in rectifying past racial wrongs aware that mere cessation of invidious racial discrimination will often fail to undo the lingering effects of oppression in the past these institutions engage in affirmative action to assist racial minority candidates who though qualified in absolute terms might otherwise lose out in competition for admission with those advantaged by racial or other sorts of illicit but deeply entrenched privilege some educational institutions see it as part of their mission to correct or offset invidious discrimination that constitutes an invisible headwind that impedes racial minorities women and others who still face pervasive societal bias these institutions make special efforts to identify talent that in the absence of affirmative action would go unrecognized or underappreciated these programs have served to encourage students and prospective students who might otherwise have been discouraged mistakenly believing that the monopolies of the pasts were unchanged about you will hear much from our adversaries about the supposedly dysfunctional side of affirmative action I urge you to keep in mind that affirmative action has supplied a tremendous incentive that has prompted thousands to elevate their sights and pursue ambitions that they would not have otherwise pursued this point strikes home with me with special force because I am one among those many thousands some educational institutions see it as part of their mission to facilitate racial integration they seek to do this for the purpose of making it conspicuously evident that pathways to leadership and upward mobility are accessible to all one group that has pressed this point with notable vigor are leaders of the Armed Forces they have repeatedly argued that racial diversity and the officer corps of the military is essential as a matter of national security and that at present the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both excellent and racially diverse unless the service academies use race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies that affirmative action supports the educational missions of institutions of higher education that it supports their ambition to assist with the task of correcting past and present in justices that it facilitates racial gender class and other sorts of needed integration is more than enough to justify its continuation please join with me in supporting affirmative action please vote against the proposition that it does more harm than good thank you thank you Randall Kennedy and a reminder of where we are we are halfway through the opening round of this intelligence squared us debate I'm John Donvan we have four debaters two teams of two fighting it out over this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good you have heard the first two opening statements and now on to the third debating for this motion that affirmative action on campus does more harm than good let's introduce Richard sander he is a professor of law at UCLA School of Law and co-author of the book mismatch how affirmative action hurts students it's intended to help and while universities won't admit it ladies and gentlemen Richard sander thanks very much John so you've been told that truth is going to emerge from vigorous zealous advocacy on both sides and at my peril I'm gonna depart from that a little bit to try to suggest a little bit of nuance because it seems to me that when we pose the question as a as an empirical one is it doing more harm than good rather than a moral one is affirmative action right or wrong we sort of take on the hats of social scientists and if we're going to approach it scientifically we need to be candid about certain things so let me try to introduce some candor let's compare a law school and medical school now we're gonna get more into the QA about the actual merits of law school miss match but but assume that then I'm right for the moment that if you compare two students who go to different law schools one with large preferences and one without the one who receives large preferences is two or three times more likely to fail the bar exam that event happens after the student has graduated from law school and students to fail the bar as one scholars put it our marooned the wall school is no longer interesting their fate and they've kind of given up on them as alumni contributors let's compare that with medical school medical school there's also something like the bar exam it's called the National boards that's taken halfway through medical school after the second year if a student fails the national board boards then at many medical schools they're put in an academic support program there's an effort to try to remediate and to try to help that student succeed and there's some evidence that that works so that means that affirmative action might be might be beneficial if we sort of provide the right institutional support to go with it that generally is lacking so that's one reason why on balance I think there's a harm another example is when we think about science mismatches Gail brought up as she said there are now four peer-reviewed studies that show very clearly that if you receive a large preference into a college or university you're 50 to 75 percent more likely to drop out of your science career on your way to get an MBA and frequently people drop out of college altogether that has been shown to happen when you have a very large preference what we don't know about enough about because we don't have enough data yet is what happens with the small preference suppose the size of the preference is not the equivalent of 300 SAT points but the equivalent of 50 SAT points it's possible that smaller preferences don't cause that much with a mismatch effect and that the other positive effects with affirmative action like having a more challenging atmosphere and having peers who are really talented might outweigh so I think I think we need to admit that that there are there are trade-offs there are balances we're not talking about something that's completely good or completely bad it's a mixture so why do I think that on balance you should vote for the proposition first of all there's no longer any reasonable doubt that very large preferences have negative consequences that's now been shown in about 20 different peer-reviewed studies by over 20 different academics and when Ted presents rebuttals to this in his next remark listen carefully for when he cites peer reviewed published studies because those are the things that we're gonna care about we're gonna care about studies that have gone through a process of actually being evaluated by other scholars and had been published in a reputable scholarly journal that that research overwhelmingly shows direct negative effects from large-scale preferences and when I say large I mean really orange the typical beneficiary of a preference well the typical African American student and American law school has credentials to put them at below 99% of the white students so the median black student has lower credentials than 99% of the Anglo and Asian students that's orange preference second there have been a host of carefully done studies that have shown other sorts of really troubling side effects of affirmative action for example when University of California implemented race neutral policies after pop - and I'm we saw this this really interesting jump in the take-up rate by black and Hispanic students admitted to Berkeley and UCLA and some of the other elite campuses now why would the enrollment rate of accepted students jump we'd like to know more about that but a plausible explanation is that these students found it really attractive to attend a school where neither they nor anyone else thinks that they were admitted with a racial preference so think about the implications of that third colleges and universities are locked into a pattern of institutional dishonesty I don't think college leaders are intrinsically dishonest people but the prevalent ideology affirmative action makes it difficult and even hazardous for them to speak up speak out about these issues or to really look at the effect and and critically examine the effect of the programs that they're operating to show this consider the fact that the u.s. Civil Rights Commission on which Keon l-sits I think at least one of these reports came in before Gail was on the Commission two reports of the Commission have shown significant mismatched effects and have raised very troubling issues about it neither of these reports has ever been acknowledged by higher education leader in America they've been no task force's appointed but no investigations undertaken the reports have simply been ignored there's a pattern of institutional unwillingness to deal with uncomfortable facts that suggests that there's a need for reform finally we have almost no transparency about what goes on in higher education schools do not provide information unless they're forced to about their actual initials practices they don't provide information about outcomes when data comes out it's either because of a lawsuit or because someone trusted as reliable Insider decides to write about the problem that's what I did when I got access to data on how all school preferences actually worked so we have this pattern of problems that suggest a cry need for reform that's why I urge you to support the proposition thank you Rick sander our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good and here to speak against this motion Ted Shaw he's a professor of professional practice in law at Columbia Law School and his former director counsel and president of the n-double-a-cp Legal Defense and Educational Fund ladies and gentlemen Ted Shaw thank you I urge you to vote against a proposition that affirmative action does more harm than good on campus first let us define what affirmative action is it is a conscious attempt a conscious attempt to admit students from groups that have been underrepresented to campuses and universities at selective institutions we can talk about preferences we can use a lot of loaded terms but that is the essence of affirmative action when we talk about harm what kind of harm are we talking about and to whom this discussion has proceeded this debate has proceeded focusing almost exclusively on African American students on campus which echoes the reality the continuing reality in our country which is that most of the heat when it comes to issues of race is felt along that traditional black/white line even while the country has always been multiracial and diverse there's lots of affirmative action that has existed and continues to exist in our colleges and universities quite aside from the issues of race impacting African Americans of course historically there was a great deal of affirmative action in this country for white males even today although almost no one talks about it there is affirmative action for males generally because women in many instances are outperforming men academically in colleges and universities concerned about having gender balance on campuses have quietly placed a thumb on the scale when it comes to male applicants there are differences between performances on standardized tests and in GPAs for that matter among ethnic and racial groups that we don't talk about a whole lot generally speaking white students are being outperformed by Asian and Asian American students on standardized tests does that mean that white students who are not admitted to institutions of higher education because they or they should not be admitted rather because they're being outperformed no colleges and universities don't simply take students in a rank order and admit them solely on the basis of test scores and GPA no one talks about stigma being visited upon women who have been beneficiaries of conscious efforts to open up opportunities in higher education no one talks about stigma being visited upon white students who may have lower GPAs in asian-american students or lower test scores the only stigma conversation is a stigma with respect to African Americans people of color but particularly African Americans and I submit to you that that fact reflects that we continue to struggle even in 2014 with the age-old rumors of intellectual inferiority of African Americans some people won't say it but I submit that those rumors persist now there are tremendous differences between students who are educated in poverty impacted inner city urban high schools and students who attend privileged high schools so it's important for us to understand that affirmative action when it is done correctly and as my colleague professor Kennedy indicated we don't support what he calls stupid affirmative action there are instances in which it hasn't been done correctly and I'd be glad to talk about those instances but when it's done correctly what we're talking about is choosing among qualified students and the question isn't whether or not or it is solely a question of whether or not students all have the same credentials the question is whether or not institutions can choose among qualified students it shouldn't be a surprise that African American students who attend schools that are academically challenged may not have the same criteria nor should it be a surprise that given a long history in this country in which even today right now as we stand here nine out of ten days of African American presence in what's now the United States have been spent neither Jim Crow segregation or slavery shouldn't be a surprise that there's still differences that were struggling to overcome so mismatch Theory stigmatization I often think about the fact that like professor Kennedy I am unapologetically a beneficiary of affirmative action would I have felt more comfortable in the public housing project I grew up in the Bronx knowing that I didn't get the benefit of affirmative action but I had my integrity intact I don't think so Ted Shaw thank you very much and that concludes round one of this intelligence squared us debate where our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good now we move on to round two and in round two the debaters address one another directly and they take questions from me and you from you in our live audience we have heard arguments from both sides now the side arguing for this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good Gail Harriet and Richard sander first of all they told us what they're not arguing they're not arguing that all forms of affirmative action are not are doing more harm than good they're fine with things like outreach but it's the mechanism they say of racial preferences that they call misbegotten they argue that it backfires and hurts those that it is meant to help that minority students can find themselves boost it into an academic pool in which they're in over their heads and that they fail therefore that they become discouraged and that if they fail it means that raychel racial preferences as a tool have failed although they say that universities do not want to admit this and will not share the data on this the side arguing against the motion Randall Kennedy and Ted Shaw they did not directly address the the argument put forward by the other side but they're taking another crack at this they are basically telling you that affirmative action has done more good than harm they're saying that the case for good comes from not only the impact of affirmative action on a wider student body of the experience of greater diversity but that also this in a sense the symbolism of affirmative action in itself encourages people who might never have attempted to get into an academic high set high academic setting to reach for something they may not have believed in before they argue that this struggle is not over that the issues and the deficits social and economic deficits that affirmative action were meant to address linger on today so those are basically the two arguments and there I want to work through and revisit some of all of this but work through it a little bit step-by-step and take to the side that's arguing against this motion since you did not address the main point that your opponents made the mechanism by which they say that affirmative action and and large large preferences actually I'd like to ask you one more time to define what you mean by large preferences Gail you said we would be graduating more engineers and more scientists from minority groups except that that we were not because we're giving them such a great preference what is a great preference well I think the example from the University of Michigan is a good one it was an entire letter grade on the GPA or alternatively 300 points on the combined SAT okay so I just want to make sure that we all know what it is we're talking about and what this disagreement is it might be about on this issue so I want to go to the other side may about to take up to Randall Kennedy so your opponents are arguing that there's this there's this dynamic by which a minority student who is not who does not as academically prepared perhaps as measured by SAT scores or GPA or this high school of his origin shows up in a place where he's up against some tough competition and it kind of breaks him breaks his spirit he drops out he changes out of the sciences he never graduates doesn't do the bar whatever it is that that's the dynamic that that that you can see that the the psychological rational is being put forward there I don't know if you want to take that on or the numbers or what but if you could respond to it sure I'd be happy to respond then there are a couple of responses first my adversaries make reference to studies that posit the mismatched thesis which has been positive for a long time maybe there's something to it in fact I think in some instances there are it should not be we should not accept this however as an uncontroversial proposition the fact the matter is that there are people who have studied the same phenomena who disagree very much with professor sander and others who have made the sort of claims that you've heard you've heard the claim for instance that affirmative action actually decreases the number of of black lawyers there are other people who studied the data and have come to a very different conclusion so the empirical situation is itself you know it's it's it's controversial it's not it's not clear-cut furthermore I'm willing to stipulate for the sake of argument I'm willing to stipulate that what they say is true so let's let's stipulate that I'll give them that then the question becomes what of it my opponents have a certain strange solicitude they want to save the people they want to save Africa American and Latino students from getting the the the the invitation to selective institutions no one is forcing anyone to attend these institutions if they don't want to go they don't have to go so but I think that there are but but why would we not allow people the opportunity to advance themselves if if they you know so desire and if these institutions believe that it is in their interest their institutional interests to invite these students to come let me take that to who would like to take that I'll take it okay Rick Sandra so we may be able to resolve this debate and just come to agreement I I will agree with with Randall that that I I withdraw all my objections to affirmative action if colleges and universities will adopt the following practice when they accept someone for admission they also provide a detailed statement of how that students credentials predict their performance if they're an engineering applicant tell them the chances tell them the past record of students with identical credentials who have actually achieved an engineering degree at that school if they want to go to law school tell them what are the chances that a student with their credentials has passed the bar on the first attempt and what their GPA has been on average if that information is provided think you're right all that affirmative action is doing is increasing the range of opportunities what's wrong with that the problem is that schools don't do that they do not provide transparency they actually actively countermeasure they actively concealed that they won't disclose data on what they're doing they tell students that everyone has the same chance of success everyone is equally qualified and will have the same outcomes these things are manifestly not true so students are accepting offers based on dramatic information misinformation and and and you don't have to take my word for it there was actually a study done at Duke where a professor looked at the the information that the university had internally and went to students and said okay if you had this information what would your enrollment decision be and they made different decisions ticha well first I invite you all to look at studies that have been done by Richard a Berk of University of Pennsylvania and David IO of Stanford University Richard Brooks late of Yale but now at Columbia Law School and other studies many of the studies look at Claude Steele's that stereotype threat work these propositions that our adversaries have articulated today are challenged they are very much being contested but even if we acknowledge as we must that there is a gap between performance on standardized tests does that acknowledgement then lead us inevitably to the answer that affirmative action is doing more harm on campus then good you know the issue of presence of students of color who have been underrepresented and excluded from these institutions until they were conscious efforts to admit them is much bigger than test scores we're talking about the integration of campuses we're talking about equal opportunity on campuses and if we want to look to evidence look to the President of the United States the Attorney General the CEO of American Express looked to the two Supreme Court justices who are at one African American one latina look to African Americans look to Latinos who have graduated within the last couple of generations from selective institutions including this one and there's massive evidence of the success of what we call affirmative action let's take that point to Gail Harriet um well first of all no one has ever rebutted the studies that I cited not any one the only the only report that's actually been taken on by some of the scholars is Rick's as I said and again some of those same scholars of the ones who basically said the database isn't good enough and then tried to prevent him from getting access to the California database and as I said that really speaks volumes and sure there are plenty of people who have benefited in some way I don't know whether any of the people that you listed are among them because I don't know what the counterfactual is I suspect that you and Randall would have been very successful even without preferences assuming that you got preferences and I don't know that one interesting thing is that there's one bit of evidence well let me just stop you in 1950 these guys would have done as well as as they have done in 1980 1990 2000 is that if there weren't racial preferences in any in their lives claimed to be the beneficiaries of racial preferences if that so I think I just want to clarify greasing in the absence of racial preferences that they would have done as well I just okay yeah they may have and my point I was making earlier one kind of interesting shred of evidence here and I it's just a shred but I find it rather interesting First Lady Michelle Obama actually did a senior thesis on the issue of how blacks at Princeton integrate into into society one of the things that she found she pulled I believe it was 400 black alumni at Princeton her response rate was really not not very high so I'm not claiming this is a very scientific report but it's interesting she actually found that before Princeton and after Princeton what was her comparison is that black students felt that that they were just as comfortable with whites on athletic basis I believe on several social basis when it came to comfort with with with whites on an academic basis they actually became less comfortable after Princeton and that than what they were before which was an interesting result Petra or Randi if you had ready hasn't had a shot in a bit so if you like to speak or you can pass off go ahead pitch off well a couple of things one yeah it's a wonderful thing if nobody's everybody'd you that seems to me to be different from what my experience in academia is generally with studies but I'll check it out one I got I have you had more importantly though to be clear I didn't claim to be the beneficiary of preferences that's a loaded term use that term the debate is over I claim to be a beneficiary of affirmative action and I restate that i am unapologetically the light of opportunity did not shine in neighborhoods like the one i came from in areas like the area i came from until people consciously took action to do it didn't happen serendipitously and it doesn't mean that i or people like me are not qualified so i appreciate you saying i would have made it anyway I don't I don't accept that I mean I'd like to think that maybe it was true but the fact is that what that does is obscure the structural inequality that has existed in our country and it's built into our country and and we still have not rid it ourselves or rid ourselves it's you me of that structural inequality rick centered you want to respond or would you like to move to another question well I would just say if you look at the debate on law school mismatch which as as Gail says it has been the most contested one it's it's interesting I mean I published my initial study the data was limited my analytical abilities were probably limited there were about twenty critical studies published in response but none of these were published in peer-reviewed journals a debate was join new articles came out if you look at the story that where the dust has settled eight years later there are now four peer-reviewed studies that have been published that all find strong evidence of Hall School mismatch they all find roughly the the the disparity in chances caused by large preferences that that I mentioned before there have been zero studies zero peer-reviewed studies published on the other side and the most recent seek was actually withdrawn when the author admitted that her results could not be replicated so if you look closely at this you see a pretty overwhelming pattern now I I would slightly modify Gale statement there there are many good studies that say that preferences can have net positive effects but when they when when they when those studies are examining they're generally focusing on secondary outcomes like graduation rates the things that we're talking about with mismatch are things like learning competition grades attrition from patrician from a science track and so on things that are directly related to mismatched graduation rates for example are more manipulable by by university policies so all school or a college can decide that they want to get their graduation rate up to 97% so if you look at some secondary outcomes I think the debate is more mixed but it really is overwhelming how on the literature of primary mismatch effects it's essentially undisputed Randy Kennedy first you know the the proposition was affirmative action on campus does more harm than good 99% of the discussion has been about racial affirmative action of course affirmative action is broader than that women have certainly including white women have been beneficiaries of affirmative action it's interesting that that doesn't seem to factor very much into the discussion I would like very much to take professor sander up on his comment about how he would withdraw his objections if more information was presented about you know what happens with a student with this background getting into the school I take you up on that now in taking you up on that which you have implicitly said I take it is that actually with more information you are fine with affirmative action and in fact in your comments you said over and over again you're not really so much against affirmative action you're just against excessive affirmative act audience I want you to be very attentive I want you to be very attentive to the disjunction within the side of my adversaries because one speaker is totally against affirmative action and speaks in terms of less a fair you know let the chips fall where they may of course we know where the chips will fall that is one speaker that seems to be um gales position gales position seems to be let the chips fall all the way they may know let's not have race be involved at all professor Sanders position seems to be considerably different his is more of well there's too much affirmative action his is a tweaking position all right let me stop you because Gail objects to your characterization of her position actually I would be absolutely delighted if we just disclosed because I think that would do a world of good I would be very happy I think that's a much better solution than waiting and having the debate go on for decades here if we could if we could disclose and we could do that starting today and do it honestly I think that would go a very very long way to solve the problem because I think students would catch on and they do the right thing so you know if we could decide on behalf of every Law School in every medical school to do that today then man we're in business and we might as well quit early and go out and have a beer great so we can't we have affirmative action you're fine with affirmative action just more disclosure that's dating for twenty years you know it's a good it's a good compromise if we actually could do it now but I think actually if you paid attention to the mismatch literature you're gonna get more and more persuaded to our side bringing let me bring in Rick no you know I mean it's not a bad thing if we end up agreeing by by you know seven o'clock if it's terrible for a debate it's we're arguing that affirmative action does more harm than good not that it has to do more harm than good we're saying that if you fix it it could it could work pretty well and and you started out you start out basically knowledge doing the year against stupid affirmative action so in a way the scope of the agreement the the debate here is is what's stupid affirmative action and that goes to this issue about kind of you know what what what do we mean by preferences or what do we mean by affirmative action I mean I I hear what you're saying said that racial preference is a loaded term right and and I try not to use I didn't use it much in my in my remarks the the preference is received by legacies are much smaller on average than preference is based on class I mean based on race excuse me preferences received by women are virtually non-existent I mean that's always been a big theme of affirmative action that it's that women are under the ten as well but historically that has been very small I mean there have been important things in terms of trying to expand the path of access for women but in terms of actual admissions preferences that's been a it's been essentially a trivial phenomenon and class has not been a significant subject of preferences you know the typical college gives something like twenty or thirty times the amount of weight to race as they do to class if they consider class at all so one of the reasons that that race keeps popping up in the mismatch literature is because that's where the really large preferences are and that's where the problem seems but you're one of your opponents stipulated that that maybe you're right maybe you're right in terms of the dynamic you're describing in the mismatch but that even given that the good outweighs the harm the point being that the message that affirmative action sends is so enormous and powerful that not only do one at universities want to embrace it regardless of even the fact that you're right but even even if that harm that you're describing is real and I want to ask you what's wrong with that formulation why is the harm that you're describing that your sign is stipulated to way heavier then then that other good because the the pervasive tendency of selective institutions is to is to grossly go overboard they the the focus the focus of what schools do the way they set their goals is not based on how are your preference should we use to maximize the width of the pipeline to sort of maximize the aggregate beneficial social good it's how do I have enough cosmetic diversity in my entering freshmen class so that I'm not going to get hassled that's the way that university presidents are usually thinking about this and that is totally the wrong question they ought to be thinking about what the effects are and so because we're in this mindset where we're asking the wrong questions we're setting it up to do things that it's not well engineered to do we end up giving preferences that are whatever are needed to achieve those cosmetic goals and it ends up causing more harm than good in the overall scale of things that the if you look at okay sort of the the affective preferences at professional schools are at the top 200 selected schools the reason I ask is that to some degree both sides have been slicing the salami here but I want to put the salami together and you're saying that your argument the harm that you're describing overall is cause as its operating causes moral is it is more harmful than the large good that the other side is proposing you're saying yes so I always want to bring if you look at if you look at three big things that keep coming up with the other side's because you've had the floor for a bit TED talk so well one thing we can I thought I heard you say that you got me and you didn't use the term preference very much but then you went on to use it repeatedly racial preference right right okay so but be that as in May we're talking about selective institutions in which African American students again where most of this heat is being felt I think we acknowledge that right we're talking about percentages of maybe three four or five low single digits and many of the institutions you know selective law schools etc it's a lot of fuss given how few african-americans exist at these institutions now having said that the proposition is one that says that permit of action does more harm than good and if I mean I find it strange that your study focuses on I mean it's a it's a point to be made I suppose but I'm not sure where it takes us your study focuses on whether students change majors out of the sciences into something else so what lots of students turn change majors you may say that black students may change them at a higher rate of minority students but that's not the end of the world the reality in this country unfortunately I became aware that some time ago is that even if we look at graduation rates generally speaking of all students they're not where most of us would like to see them be you know there are a lot of white students who change majors who drop out who don't finish there a lot of reasons that people may not finish in four or five years of college or take longer some of them are economic etc a lot of variables as you know that are in play here some of them disappointingly may affect students of color who are disappointingly poor for example and come from different backgrounds so it's much more complicated but the proposition that affirmative action does more harm than good is an extraordinary proposition given the the work that still remains in front of us with respect to desegregating and integrating our institutions in American society notwithstanding the Age of Obama ok well I want to let Gail respond to that she hasn't a chance to speak and immediately after that I want to start going to questions from the audience and to remind you just raise your hand a microphone will brought to you stand up state your name ask a question Kalaheo I guess I have a number of comments here first of all on the disclosure issue that we were talking about a little bit earlier the u.s. Commission on civil rights proposed that law schools disclose these issues it must have been something like 7 years ago happened we got absolute deafening silence from the law schools nobody was willing even to mention it this was a non-starter I doubt very much that we can get law school deans to disclose this but again as a compromise matter I would think that's that's pretty good if we could do that right now otherwise I just like to convince you that the mismatch literature isn't that correct I very much doubt that that most people consider it more important to have more Ivy League grads who are black than it is to have more black doctors more dot black scientists more more black engineers I feel like I'm standing here with a key element and here's the key here's how we can get many more black doctors many more black engineers many more black scientists more black lawyers more black college professors and I just need someone to take that key and unlock the door but it's hard it's hard okay here we are we have to I just wanted this for the radio broadcast a reminder of where we are we have two teams of two debating this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good on the side arguing for the motion Gail Harriet and Rick sander on the side arguing against the moment the motion Randall Kennedy and Ted Shaw we are in the middle of the question and answer section and tonight's debate is being broadcast worldwide on our website iq2 u.s. org and on fora tv' if you're watching on the live stream we want to hear from you too so send us your questions on twitter or facebook using the hashtag a firm action so we don't miss it and be sure to include your city your state your first name and your college if you're a student so let's go to some questions if you just raise your hand I will find you right down the front sir and just wait til the microphone reaches you from your right side they'll be coming in you can just tell us who you are solved Charles freed and I'd like to ask I'd like to ask two back-to-back extremely short questions I would you're so breaking our rule but I'm gonna give you I could ask Richard and Gail what they think this country would look like today if 40 years ago and for the last 40 years there had not been any affirmative action and I'd like to ask Randy and Ted what this country will look like 40 and 50 years from now if we continue having a firm ative action the same way we do now Rick sander would you like to take it go you started to speak well I guess I'd like to say something and that is one thing I thought I'll let you both answer that there'd be more black doctors there'd be more black engineers there'd be more black scientists and more black college professors if we did not use these very large preferences again we're not against outreach we're very much for outreach but the kind of preferences that are being practiced have been very much counterproductive so I think that in the early years in the 1960s and 70s it was important to do whatever we could we had to convince minorities that the doors that had been closed we're now opening so I would set aside that period but if you want to see what would be the effect now or in recent decades look at the effect of prop 2 and on in California you know that they Californians adopted a ban on the use of race in college admissions the result of the University of California was a dip in a substantial dip in men or any roll mats at the most elite schools a temporary dip in black enrollment at UC as a whole but within four or five years the schools had launched enough outreach efforts to reverse that and to be above their pre - an eye on minority enrollment levels in the meantime students had cascaded to less elite institutions and they were completing science degrees in a much higher rate they were graduating a much higher rate they were especially graduating in four years in a much higher rate they had higher grades so the overall effects of this quasi natural experiment are recently positive all right let me go to the other side and your this is your chance not to rebut this but to respond to the question yes I think that it was an excellent question from Charles freed and my response is that if we continue to have affirmative action as we presently have it we will continue to see the further desegregation of strategic institutions in American life the fact of the matter is that in institutions like the one we're in well you know situated in right now in many other elite institutions in American life we are just seeing we are just seeing the fruits of desegregation we still have a long way to go and I hope that affirmative action will continue and it seems to me that in over the next you know half century we will continue to see what we have been seeing for the past 40 or 50 years which is a much fairer a much a better American life so does not I'm not bothered whatsoever by the prospect of a continuation of affirmative action and as it is characteristically practiced now and Ted Shaw so first in order to answer that question I think we'd have to have and I know you've been engaged in these discussions for a long time we we'd have to have a discussion about the legal basis for affirmative action that exists now you know the the remedial and the diversity legs my hope would be that there would come a time within the period that you identified where it wouldn't be necessary to consciously put a thumb on the scale in order to achieve that kind of diversity but with respect to the remedial leg which basically the Supreme Court has thrown under the bus but nonetheless the jurisprudence is so kind polluted that we still have a subterranean discourse about that that when race no longer is a cause for unearned privilege or unearned disadvantage at the moment of birth or through life then I'd be more than happy to let it go not to talk about it anymore I long for that day to come all right but we're not there more questions thanks I'm not sure if any camera can find you maybe if you came out to the center aisle my name is Danielle Kim I'm a student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education I'd like to make the point that Asian Americans also faced significant racism in society today yet they're at an enormous disadvantage in gaining admission to highly selective colleges so under affirmative action do you believe that Asian Americans have an equal opportunity to succeed could I ask you if you would be willing to rephrase that slightly differently and asking if under current policies Asian Americans are harmed yes would that work for you absolutely I just like to plug it into our actual Americans our harms under current affirmative action policies Brenda Kennedy it all depends on what sort of Asian Americans were talking about I think that some Asian America some Asian American groups they may be harmed so for instance japanese-americans Chinese Americans I think actually faced a somewhat different footing in the competition for admission to selective universities than people from other parts of Asia the Hmong Filipinos others I think it's a complicated scenario do you care I'm sorry do you care I I'm not being facetious in the terms of your saying you know maybe some people harmed and the current thing with the for the larger sake the system should largely operate as it is for the future do you care that there are harms to somebody who in the category you just described as far as I'm concerned in our discussion of this it's not frankly about individual desert or individual harm so long as it's not Nvidia so long as it's not you know trying to stick it to a group because of group membership what we should be interested in are you know policies that overall will advance but the purposes of these institutions but the the angst and all of this comes from the fact that everyone experiences it as an individual on all science so how the equation so why do you discount I think I may be putting too many words in your mouth by saying discount but why do you diminish the individual oh I want to diminish it so the the person who's feeling this angst I understand that they're feeling that I feel I understand that they're feeling the angst they are not the fact of the matter is that we have all sorts of social programs that disadvantage people in various ways we have all sorts of things that happen you know when when we have all sorts of things that happen and that disadvantage people or you know when when people face disaster in the middle of the United States let's say that there's been a flood and Uncle Sam comes to me and says you know we want you to pay more in taxes to help these people out that's a political decision that's being made I might not like it I might feel that the pinch is being put on me I don't think that's a good thing but I do it because I'm part of the United States of America and all people you're all people all people ought to contribute to social missions that are worthwhile I'm the social yes I'm making the mistake whose turn to be the debater with you and I only was looking for clarification your question so I'm gonna stop but let the other social mission of trying to overcome racial injustice in America is a social mission that ought to enlist all comers I think we'd like to make sure you short comments one is that we've generally disavowed the idea that we ought to make contributions based on race and it's this it's this it's this very narrow focus on race that leads us into this by because a logical implication of having large racial preferences for blacks Hispanics and American Indians is there should be a large racial penalty for Asian Americans and only think it exists everywhere but it exists in enough schools to be to be really a republic and if we focused affirmative action more on pipeline questions more on who is having difficulty gaining access then there would be dramatically more focus in this in this whole discussion on class which is generally ignored by universities and not on race and if we were focusing more on individual characteristics we wouldn't have this bind of treating Asian Americans the way we used to treat Jewish Americans okay um I guess I don't have a whole lot to add because no no I I thought you were waiting for something to say and we have very little time so I'd like very quickly because I would like to get in one more question very quickly on this I I think that this is a thorny and difficult question although I agree with what my colleague Randy said about breaking down Asian Americans as a group but my starting place in dealing with this question includes two point two points one is that nobody nobody has an absolute right to be admitted to these institutions keep that in mind we're choosing among people who are qualified and they have different backgrounds different qualifications or levels of qualifications but nobody has an absolute right secondly I point to what Bach and Bowen said in the shape of the river the analogy they gave you know you're in a parking lot you know the big mall during the holiday season and you see the handicapped spot you can't find a spot you see that spot you say you know what if that spot wasn't there and they weren't giving that preference to handicapped people I would be I'd have been in that store and I'd be out of there and you wouldn't in all likelihood there aren't enough I contend african-americans at these selective institutions to really account for the large numbers of others who don't get in and think that they didn't get in because african-americans got in one more question right down front Thanks Mike's coming from your left side my question is for Gayle you mentioned that you're just hosting your name please oh my name is Reena Cooper Johnson you mentioned that your ideal system would be if the universities gave students information and then they would I think the term you used was do the right thing on an individual level does that mean maybe going to a less prestigious institution with fewer resources and job opportunities just so that you may be performed better in comparison to your classmates I I didn't say that was my ideal system I'm not really quite sure what my ideal is but what I did say is that yes if schools were to disclose what's a success rate for students with that particular set of academic indicators and students were able to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to take the risk I think that's a tremendous improvement over what we have now and in fact that's exactly what the u.s. Commission on civil rights recommended that law schools do and I voted for that report and what's what's tragic I think is that schools don't want to disclose it they don't want to tell students I am NOT at all confident that even though as a group we're able to come to a a a possible settlement I don't think you're gonna get Harvard or any other law school to sign on to it and that's a tragedy I think I just got the signal that we can stretch for one more question sir write down three other things make it a doozy my name is Alex Sullivan so it seems to me that this side has made the case that affirmative action in its current state is ineffective or it does more harm than good and I think they've been quite compelling to that end so my question would be to the opposition do you think that affirmative action if we accept this motion as they put it that in its current state it does more harm than good do you think that in its current state that is not the case that your are you arguing that the the ephemeral concept of affirmative action is in its I in its end a good in its own end or are you saying that in its current state everything is fine we're good currently we can just continue on as as except for stupid affirmative action as you've made clear Randy Kennedy I think that improvements can always be made and I think that the point about disclosure is a fine point again I said it from the outset that you know this does affirmative action have difficulties as affirmative action have problems as affirmative action at risk does affirmative action have costs yes it does there's always a question of compared to what I've maintained that affirmative action even with it's blemishes even with its many blemishes has been better for our country for our institutions of higher education then the most likely alternative which was nothing and because your opponents have the last word in the next round a Rick I'll give you the last word in this round if you would like to take it you wanna pass ladies gentlemen that concludes round 2 of this intelligence squared us debate where our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good and remember we had you vote just before you heard the arguing begin we're going to have you vote again immediately after this cup coming round and remember the team that has changed your minds the most or move most of you to their side in percentage point terms will be declared our winner but first on to round 3 closing statements from each debater in turn uninterrupted they will be two minutes each first to summarize her position in support of this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good Gail Harriette professor of the University of San Diego School of Law and member of the u.s. Commission on civil rights ladies and gentlemen Gail Harriet thank you this should not be a liberal or conservative issue and it didn't used to be no less a liberal icon than Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas made an eloquent plea on behalf of colorblind admissions policies back in the early 1970s my personal favorite among the Liberals on this issue was California Supreme Court justice Stanley mosque as a Superior Court judge and later as California Attorney General mosque stuck his neck out for civil rights on many occasions back in the 1940s when it wasn't so popular back when it could be a career killer mosque called raze preferential admissions the sacrifice of principal for the sake of dubious expediency little did he realize just how dubious that expediency would turn out to be though maybe he should have the research that we have been talking about today was not a bolt from the blue University of Chicago sociologist James Davis had concluded in the mid-1960s that college students who receive preferential treatment would have gone on to better careers had they attended somewhat less elite institutions he wasn't writing about affirmative action back in those days it was mostly legacies and athletes that were getting getting on the preferential treatment but if it doesn't work for legacies and athletes why would it work for anybody I am happy to stipulate that everyone involved in this experiment meant well and I know it takes a lot of courage to acknowledge that the strategies that you've put your heart into just isn't working but this is not an ideological point racial preferences don't work we have lost precious time let's not make it worse by ignoring the evidence I urge you to vote in favor of the motion Thank You Gale Harriet and the round of applause for that our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good and here to summarize his position against this motion Randall Kennedy he is professor at Harvard Law School and author of the book for discrimination ladies and gentlemen Randall Kennedy a good illustration of the way in which affirmative action has been helpful is attested to by it was suggested by the actions even if people who say that they are against affirmative action a couple of examples Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan said he was against affirmative action but candidate Ronald Reagan was asked if you become president of the United States what will you do when it comes to appointing someone in the Supreme Court of the United States Ronald Reagan said if you make me president United States I will appoint a woman to the Supreme Court and he did was that affirmative action yes that was affirmative action in fact when he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor there were people who said well you know what about this you said that you know gender and race and that sort of thing shouldn't matter he said to his credit we simply cannot have a Supreme Court of the United States that has a male monopoly it's just illegitimate there's something not right about it there is a reason why every presidential candidate since the cabinet since the cabinet of John F Kennedy has had people of color in it no matter what their ideological persuasion presidents made sure racial minorities in the cabinet because they understood it would be illegitimate in the eyes of the citizenry to have a racially or gender homogeneous cabinet the same thing goes for the strategic institutions in American life including our campuses it will simply not do in this day and age to have campuses that have discrete groups who've been disadvantaged excluded from them Randall Kennedy I'm sorry your time is up thank you very much our motion is affirmative action on campus does more harm than good and here to summarize his position supporting this motion Richard sander he is professor at UCLA UCLA School of Law and co-author of the book mismatch Richard sander well I hope you know I have persuaded you that we're approaching this not as an ideological matter but as as one of pragmatism I care deeply about these issues I've worked on civil rights issues most of my adult life I have an african-american college-age son and a first-grade daughter who goes to Central Los Angeles schools in a school that's half free lunch I care deeply about these issues and and part of what informs my perspective is that when I look at higher education leaders when I look at the folks that I know and have worked with I see them as people who also have good will and are committed to racial justice and are not feeling beholden to affirmative action is something that they have to do for greater racial equality they feel lots of other pressures but I'm very confident that that if we reform affirmative action they will try to find new ways to expand opportunity that's exactly what's happened in California under prop 209 there's been much closer collaboration between colleges and the K through 12 pipeline since prop 209 passed there's been much greater focus on class-based affirmative action those things happen when you when you restructure the incentives and what I'm arguing for I think what LPL is arguing for is that we need to restructure the incentives that are behind the current preference system I want to mention one other problem that that's deeply embedded in our current structure and that's the problem of social mismatch when you use very large racial preferences to create to create racial diversity you open up a credential scaz 'm that's an invitation to feelings of alienate and an isolation among the group that's benefited and it's an invitation to negative stereotyping among the group that's in the majority it's been shown that that if you reduce social mismatch if you bridge that gap some you actually increase social interaction we can do a better job of figuring out where students end up in college and producing not only better outcomes for them but for their campuses thank you Rick sander our motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good and here with the last word to argue against the motion Ted Shaw a professor at Columbia Law School and former director counsel and president of the n-double a-c-p Legal Defense and Educational Fund ladies gentlemen Ted Shaw so let me thank my our worthy adversaries for their participation in this discussion let me start by saying that there is stigmatization of african-americans in America there has always been stigmatization of african-americans in America and it hasn't been the consequence of affirmative action it's part of our long history our struggle with what men this country's greatest demon and the great irony in my view is that some people conclude from that horrible history that as a consequence we should not think talk or do anything consciously about race they equate in a way that says that there's symmetry race-conscious measures aimed at including people with invidious racial discrimination that was based upon superiority and inferiority much of this discussion whether intentionally or not echoes as I said earlier the rumors of inferiority which continue to exist in this country it is in my view a inexplicable statement to say that Oh in 21st century America African Americans ought to go to lesser institutions and there'll be more therefore of them coming out as doctors physicians lawyers scientists etc I don't get that argument and I think it is just factually wrong it isn't about whether we see race the question is having seen it how do we treat one another whether we include one another or whether we exclude one another Thank You Ted Shaw and that concludes round three of this intelligence squared us debate and now it's time to see how persuasive these debaters have been we're gonna ask you again to go to the keypads if your seat and vote for the second time again if you agree with this motion after having heard the arguments affirmative action on campus does more harm than good push number one on your keypad if you disagree with the motion push number two if you became or remain undecided push number three and we're gonna lock it out in about 15 seconds and then we will have the results in about a minute and a half so while we're doing that and waiting for the results to come the first thing I want to say is not only hasn't been a pleasure for us to be here but it's been a pleasure for intelligence squared us to to beyond to being association with four debaters who brought to this stage not only the passion but also the decency and the civility to respect one another's views and something that can be very deeply personal it stayed always civil and intelligent and informative so I just want to invite a round of applause to all of them for the way that they the way that they did this and on that theme as as Nick Rosencrantz mentioned at the beginning we came here because a a student approached him after he was making a presentation and invited us to come up here and he was with the Harvard Law School Federalist Society but from that point on his partner in bringing us here and in making arrangements and in helping us get on the stage was the American Constitution Society two organizations that don't normally hang out at the same club room really work together to put this together for us and we think in itself that embodies the kind of spirit of what we're trying to do so we want to thank and congratulate both of those groups for doing that we'd love to have you tweet about this debate use the twitter handle at IQ to us our hashtag is a firm action our next debate is next week March 5th at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia the motion is the president has constitutional power to target and kill US citizens abroad supporting that motion Alan Dershowitz the Felix Frankfurter prett I knew I was gonna hear that professor a law at Harvard Law School Michael Lewis a professor at Ohio Northern University 'z petit Petitte College of Law then on March 12th we will be in New York debating the motion Russia is a marginal power the debaters include a political risk strategist a former deputy national security adviser and journalist from The Economist and London's Mail on Sunday we want to encourage you to watch the live stream of any of these on IQ to us org or fora tv' and listen to these debates on NPR stations across the country including here in in this neighborhood and you can go to Twitter and Facebook for our for all to see what our upcoming debates are and we are very very open to taking ideas on topics so if you have anything please chip kick it in okay so I have the results now remember we had you vote once before the debate and once again after the debate and the team whose numbers have moved the most in percentage point terms will be declared the winner the motion is this affirmative action on campus does more harm than good here are the results before the debate 22% of you agreed with the motion 48% were and 30% were undecided so those are the first results the teams now need to move those numbers let's look at the second vote on this motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good the team arguing for the motion on their second vote it's 36% they went from 22% to 36% they've picked up 14 percentage points that is the number to beat let's see the argument the sign arguing against the motion in their first vote it was 48% their second vote is 55% they pulled 7 percentage points but that is not enough the side arguing for the motion affirmative action on campus does more harm than good has won this debate on our rules we congratulate them and thank you from intelligence squared and me John Donvan we'll see you next time [Applause]

Channel: IntelligenceSquared Debates

Views: 62,680

Keywords: Gail Heriot, Randall Kennedy, Richard Sander, Theodore Shaw, College, University, Higher Learning, Higher Education, Affirmative Action (Literature Subject), United States Of America (Country), USA, Intelligence Squared, IQ2

Id: Bm5eph0g_Ag

Length: 92min 36sec (5556 seconds)

Published: Thu Feb 27 2014