d. If one person is more qualified than someone else, then the more
             qualified person should get the position. AA on any grounds, gives preference to one
             individual on an irrelevant basis. Therefore, I do not accept the weak or strong defense of
             AA. (Although, he does believe in equalizing funding to schools.) For example, accepting
             a student on the fact that their family ancestry was oppressed, is a violation of the other
             B: See I believe that both forms of AA are just and appropriate because it is necessary for
             equal opportunity. You talk about meritocracy in admittance but is it really fair? How did
             that more qualified person get more qualified? If it was because he or she's parents had the
             resources to pay for private schooling and the best education, then is it truly a fair playing
             field to begin with? Moreover, that qualified person may be reaping the benefits bestowed
             upon him from past injustices without him even knowing it. Because of past oppression of
             minorities, white males experience gains in access to jobs, education, and wealth. Sure
             white males may seem more qualified, but it would not be that way if white males and
             minorities both had equality of opportunity to begin with.
             @ I see what you are saying but why me? I did not force your family into slavery or
             create segregation laws. It may be true that my ancestors did, but why should I bear that
             burden on my shoulders? I had a hard enough time getting into Law school, why must
             ...