Does White Privilege Exist in the US

Before starting I would like to first thank my opponent for being willing to debate me. To start, I will mention that I did provide my definition for White Privilege in the description (I will also put it here so that other individuals notice it as well), which is defined a “White privilege refers to the unearned advantages afforded to people who are assumed, based largely on complexion and related physical features, to be of European ancestry.” (Rider). In addition to this, I will also definite racism as “the incitation of discrimination, hatred or violence towards a person or a group of persons because of their origin or their belonging, or not belonging, to a specific ethnic group or race” (Cornell), and individuals racism as “support or perpetuate racism in conscious and unconscious ways” (Cornell). In addition to this I will also define institutional racism as the process by which racial oppression is imposed on subordinate racial groups by dominant racial groups through institutional channels” (California State University Northridge). The importance of defining these terms are important, because having White privilege doesn’t make someone racist, but racism is called to be the item that pollutes the atmosphere for white privilege to happen. (Salsbury.edu). To make my case I will provide a methodology to determine truth and several sub categories to make my point. Occasionally I will cite history, because my opponent and I will probably differ on how much racism impacts society.

To start, I will say that I am not claiming that there aren’t white individuals who work hard to obtain success. I start with this, because I know individuals who feel white privilege is an attack on how hard they work (I am a PhD student at the University of Southern Mississippi. That took hard work and I am still broke lol!) (Salsbury.edu). This debate is also not to say that minorities can not achieve success. We have seen minorities reach great levels of success in the U.S., but we even noticed this back during the time racism was more apparent (Givens, 2023). I mention this, because White Privilege does not mean this, but more so shows that there are advantages that white individuals have based on the color of their skin (Salsbury.edu). This of course is shown on multiple metrics.

To start, my method will focus on reliability as stated by Andy Field, which states “ which is whether an instrument can be interpreted consistently across different situations” (Field, 2018). In addition to this I will use a variety of different studies with different methodologies that are meant to get to causation (Myers et al., 2017). These methods reduce bias, because they are used in a variety of different fields such as biology, education, behavioral science, and medicine (Field, 2018; Myers et al., 2017) (I say this, because with this being a political topic, individuals do like to claim items through media outlets alone. I’m not claiming my opponent will lol!).

To start, most minorities are shown to be discriminated in the hiring process. This can be shown with multiple studies through different time periods. To start, from multiple studies dating back from 2003 and heading to our modern era, we see that minorities are 50% less likely to obtain a call back from jobs (Chicago booth; Quillan & Le, 2023). In addition to this we see that the wage gap between minorities and white people is giant, and is shown to be like this when factoring equal credentials (Berkeley).  Along with that the pay gap between minorities can be shown to possibly be discriminatory, because when we look closer into the data, we see that this difference is also shown when comparing highly educated individuals of both races, and individuals without degrees when comparing minorities with white people. To further the claim of racial discrimination between hiring practices, a meta analysis of 90 studies from 1985-2019 show hiring practices towards callbacks for jobs have remained the same, with most minority groups inside 6 different countries including the U.S. (Quillan & Le, 2023). With the scope of this study focusing on the U.S., I will focus primarily on the United States as much as possible. When reading this study viewing the U.S. only, it showed hiring practices with callbacks remained the same with white individuals receiving far more call backs than minorities, with the exception of this studies inability to predict hiring practices towards Asians, and Latin Americans (Quillan & Le, 2023). In addition to this, there was a major spike towards hiring practices with Muslims (Quillan & Le, 2023).

As shown by Berliner & Hermans, economic distribution can be cited as white privilege due to individuals in white family's being able to have better opportunities on average (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). This is typically shown in a significant way when we view data on how unevenly income distribution is shown (Pew research). One could obviously try and say that there are poor white people as well, but the system itself has been set up to disadvantage minorities since it was created. This can be shown with how slavery affected outcomes in the U.S., due to white people having access to more opportunities, which affects minorities due to white people being able to place money back for more generations compared to other minorities (Givens, 2023; Berliner & Hermans 2022).  This also matches with discriminatory hiring practices as well, that also affects this due to minorities being given less opportunities, even in our modern era. 

DEI, is something one may argue doesn’t affect white privilege, but I would argue that it does. Simply put, a study was conducted to show how minorities were affected within a workplace program due to hiring managers viewpoints towards certain political parties, especially involving Donald Trump (Rice et al., 2024). Minorities who worked under bosses that claimed to heavily support Trump (These individuals are ones who are very open about it), claimed to have experienced worse treatment when compared to when they were hired by more left leaning, or not as vocal hiring managers (Rice et al., 2024). I could argue how Trump is racist, with policy decisions and actions with how he did not reject the support of former KKK members and his call to remove DEI from various institutions and work places (Rice et al., 2024; Osterage, 2025). 

Most individuals would admit that slavery was a harmful practice, which hurt obtainment for success of minorities in the future. One can see my citations in relation to discriminatory hiring practices, but individuals such as African American Scholar Cater G. Woodson (The second African American to hold a PhD), mentioned that after slavery, minorities did not have skills to help them achieve success right after slavery (Woodson, 2018). With White individuals not going through this harsh practice in a wide spread manner, allowed more resources to be saved over a longer period of time. In history, we can see that opportunities have been taken from minorities throughout history from unfair racial practices, which lasted all the way through the 60s (Givens, 2023). An example of this would be unfair distribution of resources, through Plessy vs. Ferguson and has even been fought against after Brown vs. Board of education happened (Givens, 2023). Even after the fight to desegregate school happened, it was never successful which still impacts funding in the school systems (I will go more in detail later). From this, we see the same issues with underfunding, which came all the way back from separate but equal due to the way funds for schools are obtained. Schools obtain funds through local property tax, which means that minority schools have remained underfunded over time (Berliner & Hermans, 2022).

In the previous section I mentioned that minorities schools have remained underfunded, which is typically labeled as white individuals having a form of white privilege, due to this unfair issue dating back to the time severe racism was more prevalent (I would argue we are going backwards, which I will in later) (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). These unfair opportunities will continue to arise due to the school choice movement taking away funds from poor public schools, which will affect minorities the most (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). This can be proven, because our schools are becoming more segregated as a result of this movement, where schools that have primarily white students are funded more than schools with black students, which result in worse outcome for minorities (Berliner & Hermans, 2022; Frankenburg et al., 2011). Worse outcomes for education for minorities would impact their ability to improve upon opportunities in the future (Frankeburg et al., 2011).  

Individuals who are minority often have their history covered up to a form of white washed history (Givens, 2023). This is so demonstrably true because we can see how minorities during slavery were forced to wear clothing that felt like pins sticking into someone’s skin, Jefferson saying that the first book a poem written by Phillis Wheatley did not happen through this author because she was black and not smart enough due to her skin color, and mistreatment of minorities trying to learn behind the slave masters back (Givens, 2023). Many didn’t know how cruel white individuals were during slavery and throughout history. Most people don’t know minorities were essential to the creation of public schools and how white people continued to run them out (Givens, 2023). This has implications today, because we still see white washed history and many individuals who are more extremist republicans try to make this white washing even worse. Examples of this is how Trump in his first term tried to create patriot education to further create racist ideals. To start Trump tried to take away the word slavery, and replace it with workers in this curriculum (Pene, 2020). One could see how examples of how this minimizes how horrid this practice was in the previous section based on Jarvis Givens book (Givens, 2023). The sad thing about this, is that this action resembles how the old school confederates, changed history books to make the civil war mainly about state rights, while slavery was downplayed (Pene, 2020). These textbooks in the south continued until 2018 (Pene, 2020). We can see how this has emboldened the movement of these more strongly conservative individuals, based on my previous sections and from the words of this author (Pene, 2020). We will also see this in my next section with the increase in hate crimes.

A statistical website shows that there has been a steady increase in hate crimes over the past decade. In 2023 there was a total of 11,800 hate crimes. There was a noticeable increase in violent crime towards Asian Americans between 2018-2020 with a “73 percent increase, from 161 reported cases in 2019 to 279 cases in 2020” (statista.com). This still pales in comparison to hate crimes on black individuals which resulted in “2,871 incidents in 2020, a 49 percent increase from 2019” during the same time period (statista.com). We can see that white privilege extends to this as well, because this is significantly different when compared to white individuals based on models presented bus statisticians such as Andy Field (Field, 2018). 

Now I am not going to make an argument from white privilege due to prison rates. I can prove racism does exist within the prison system, which will require me to share the statistics to set my argument up to show how racism exists. Remember based on one of my citations, racism is a precursor for white privilege so statistics should be shared more so for academic completion (Salabury.edu). My main argument will be based on qualitative data, that minorities are typically treated worse in the prison system, which would be issues that white individuals are less likely to experience (Anamma, 2018). Adding the quantitative data in as well will improve my reliability (John Hopkins). The prison rates for most minorities are disproportionate especially for black people. Other ethnic groups that are incarcerated at a higher rate than white people are Lantinix individuals, biracial individuals, and Native Americans (Libguides). The table on this page's site shows the top ten states with the highest incarnation rates, and if you view the table which is labeled as table 3, you can see that minorities make up triple the prison rates as white individuals. When viewing this nationwide, minorities are locked up 5 times more than individuals who are white (Libguides). To make my point with treatment in the system, the school to prison pipeline research shows that minorities who are locked up early on are likely to continue repeating this cycle (Anamma, 2018). In addition, this has kept being cycled through for generations which hurts opportunities for minorities. Along with this, we see that many of the issues that got these children locked up in the first case, were simple items that would not have gotten white children locked up for committing the same crime (Anamma, 2018). Additional issues with many of these punishments are that many  individuals of power ignore the situation these students are in (Annamma 2018). Examples of this in the literature are fleeing from abusive parents, joining gangs to be safe in rough neighborhood due to poverty, hitting their own siblings in foster care, or having to take care of younger siblings which causes missed school days/instances of worse things from schools (Annamma 2018). We see from this that many of these individuals become more likely to be criminals after having to go centers such as the ones cited in this book (Anamma, 2018). 

In this debate, so far I have used several different methods to reach causation that my opponent would have to argue against to claim white privilege doesn’t exist. First I cited studies using different research methodologies, which is important in research (Salisbury.edu). In addition to this I used different statistical methods to improve reliability “which is whether an instrument can be interpreted consistently across different situations.”, which even included multivariate testing (This is important, because multiple variables predict different things) (Field, 2018). Finally I mixed qualitative data with quantitative data, which gets to causation through helping interpret quantitative data through interviews and observations (John Hopkins; Campbell & Stanley 1959). Even though this is the end of my methodology section, I have also used multiple historical sources, which is acceptable to use in different research methodologies as well, even though it is not as strong of a predictor at times (Onzbugy & Frels, 2016). Along with using a robust methodology, I have cited a wealth of data, in which most will have to be countered to show white privilege doesn’t exist (Due to this focusing on reliability across multiple areas that link together). In conclusion I continue to thank my opponent, as I wait for his response.

Refrences 

Woodson, C. G. (2018). The Mis-education of the negro. Youcanprint.

I do want to again thank my opponent for replying and seeming to be well read. That will make for a good debate. For the most part I will take things in order, but I will first address some claims that my opponent makes with items he mentioned as being flawed. My opponent mentioned that most of my material is “subjective” or based highly on statistics that can be manipulated. My opponent’s logic in this is extremely flawed, which can be explained through multiple statistical scholars. Ironically him stating this has caused him to make numerous statistical errors of his own due to the way he is viewing statistics which will be explained throughout this reply. To start, statistics are used to interpret data to find new knowledge about information in science (Field, 2018; Myers et al., 2017). In addition to this, I’ve added qualitative studies, which focus on observations and interviews to help get to causation (Campbell & Stanley 1959; John Hopkins). We are also viewing different types of correlations and viewing confounding variables “other explanations of data”, which also get to causation (Myers et al., 2017; Field, 2018). Providing both adds extra context to information, which behavioral scientists use to get to causation (Field, 2018; Campbell & Stanley 1959; John Hopkins; Myers et al., 2017; Friedman, 2006). If my opponent is claiming that the information using this methodology is flawed, he would be arguing against how the majority of behavioral science is done (And many of the hard sciences as well). In addition, he claims that stats can be manipulated, which to my opponents credit it can in the wrong hands. The problem with this, is the peer review process, which most of this has gone through prevents this through the checks and balances of other individuals viewing your data, checking to make sure your analysis is robust, and ensuring that no harm is done to participants (Ruel et al., 2016). Unfortunately, my opponent has made data errors in his reply.  To conclude with this section, many of my opponent's arguments will center around a certain issue possibly not being true to due to white individuals making up more of the population. The problem with this, is that behavioral scientists and researchers have thought about this and have numerous corrections for it. Examples of this may be statistical weights, percentages, and adjustments such as different post hoc assessments (Field, 2018; Myers et al., 2017). Due to this claim being made a decent amount I will redirect the audience and my opponent to this section using a code name population correction applied here (Using this to save room for more in depth responses to other claims).

My opponent towards the end of this section mentioned that fewer call backs could be attributed to a smaller population size, which is answered in my intro through the population correction applied here code. Along with this I cited a meta-analysis of 90 research studies, which showed that this problem persists between multiple races, multiple countries, and hurts black people the most (Quillan & Le, 2023). Similar to this, one of my studies used a tactic of sending resumes based on names sounding white vs. black through certain cites with white vs. black names, which answers claims about education levels, choice of work, and ironically population size (Field, 2018; Chicago booth review). The 50% mentioned in the intro of the meta-analysis was also shown with the name data in the resume study (A meta-analysis is a study that conducts an analysis on 90 other research studies. Thats a lot of data) (Quillan & Lee, 2023; Chicago booth review). Additional data with a similar methodology that viewed applications showed similar results with hiring managers being “30 percent more likely to hire someone with a perceived white name, which increased an extra 25% when managers had to make a quick decision.” (Abel & Burger, 2023). In addition my opponent mentions career preferences, educational background, and job types minorities apply to is a huge part of the hiring process. To some degree he could have some information about this, which rings true, but each of my citations actually accounted for this. For example, I mentioned in my opening that how pay rates differed when viewing educational levels (Berkeley). This included minorities and white individuals with college degrees, and minorities and white individuals without college degrees (Berkley). The stats for this is unsettling as seen by uneducated white men making an average of “22,056 a year while black men made 17,984 a year” (Berkeley). To further my claims, pew research mentions that “Among full- and part-time workers in the U.S., blacks in 2015 earned just 75% as much as whites in median hourly earnings and women earned 83% as much as men.” (Pew research).

My opponent mentions that inequality has existed and effected multiple groups, even white individuals through different policy decision which is true to some extent. He also mentioned that even during slavery time, it was controlled by a small group of elites which I would even agree with. This argument has numerous problems though because multiple groups can be marginalized, with some individuals being marginalized worse than others (Anamma, 2018; Givens 2023). An example of this was shown in the school to prison pipeline qualitative study, which showed individuals with multiple discriminatory factors such as black women often faced worse discrimination (Anamma, 2018). When you add another instance to this like a LQBTQ woman of color it is even worse (Anamma, 2018). To relate this back to inequality with resources, one would note that two things can be true at the same time. An example of this is shown through Carter G. Woodson work, which mentioned that after slavery black people didn’t have skills to help them succeed (Woodson, 2018). This automatically puts them at a worse disadvantage over poor white people at the time, because they at least had the ability to make money pre slavery, all while minorities were in bondage (Woodson, 2018; Givens, 2023). Match this with my data about hiring practices, and pay rates makes this all more believable about generational wealth due to an early start, plus discrimination in hiring and pay rates. This gave white people an inherent easier start over minorities (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). Similar to this, when education was first allowed to minorities it was only an education that was typically to a 2nd grade level, while most white people after a certain point were given a higher education compared to this, which also hindered there start (Givens, 2023) (More will be involved in the whitewashed history section). 

My opponent mentions that DEI is a terrible argument to make but seems to not understand the statistics and the surrounding data with the argument here. To start I will answer his easiest claim, which is white people make up the majority of the workforce, so they are more likely to face workplace discrimination. This is answered in my intro marked population correction applied here. In addition, there is additional data that goes with my claim which shows that “41% of black people report workplace discrimination, while only 8% of white people report it” (Pew research). To continue, DEI wasn’t just something involved in just the workplace, but something that is involved at universities, which Trump took away (Ostranger, 2025; education.edu; Rice et al., 2024). After his call to end DEI, numerous college institutions have taken this practice away, which adds additional merits to my claims (education.edu).

My opponent mentions items such as white people struggling with black people, that slavery didn’t benefit the majority of white people, and that various groups didn’t have fair access to resources. I actually addressed these claims in the Economic Section through time, with citations from various scholars to show that more than one group can be affected at a time, while also affecting one group heavily over others (Anamma, 2018; Woodson, 2018; Givens, 2023). This means I could even bite the bullet and agree with my opponent to some extent while still showing that my interpretation is more sound, due to two things being right at the same time. 

I am unsure if my opponent didn’t understand the arguments I was making, or he just misrepresented my arguments, but I will go with the more charitable option. To start, my opponent mentions Brown vs. Board desegregating, which did end forced segregation to an extent. What we have now is a semi by choice segregation, and a by resource segregation now due to schools being funded through local property tax (80% of school funding is through local property tax. This shows this is where the majority of school funding is from) (Berliner & Hermans, 2022; Frankenburg et al., 2011; Lincolnist.edu). Due to some of my opponent's comments on funding being spread out, I will condense them first here before moving more towards the issue of segregation. With the mode of schools obtaining most of their money via local property tax, this means that minorities are way more likely to be at poor schools that are underfunded due to them being more likely to live in poorer areas of town (Berliner & Hermans 2022; Lincolnist.edu; Frankenburg, 2011, Huffman, 2018). Along with this vouchers, which my opponent mentioned actually is used to take funding away from that specific child’s public school, to then give it to a private or charter school (Berliner & Hermans, 2022; Huffman, 2018). With knowing how schools are funded, this means that minorities schools that are less funded already, are more likely to be drained of resources far more than primarily white schools (Berliner & Hermans 2022; Huffman, 2018: Frankenburg, 2011). With this happening there is an increased risk of minority schools closing down, which has actually happened in many states (Berliner & Hermans, 2022; Buras & the urban grassroots movement). This shows that there is a bit of a racial component, even though my opponent claims that there isn’t one. For me to further argue this, I will first mention that my opponent claims that students having the ability to “choose where they go”, actually causes more segregation and uneven resource distribution (Berliner & Hermans, 2022; Frankenburg et al., 2011; Wilson; 2019; Monnarez et al., 2022). This is so demonstrably true, that most educational researchers would show that school choice has caused further segregation between races, when viewing things from a national view, a state view, a city view, and a geospatial view (Berliner & Hermans; Frankenburg et al.,2011; Monarrez et al., 2022). Now I will not quite make an argument that people shouldn’t have the right to choose an institution to go to, but more that the system itself is shown to hurt minorities. To start, I mentioned how schools are funded and have already shown the ability it has to hurt them through removing certain funds. To add to this, my opponent doesn’t know that vouchers often in private schools don’t pay for the whole tuition, which means that minorities can’t just transfer over there in many cases (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). Similar to this, we also see that this also gives more money to these institutions, which funds primarily white schools more, while also hurting the family due to them still having to pay some out of pocket (Berliner & Hermans 2022). This obviously shows that this would further segregate people and hurt opportunities, which I cited through numerous studies earlier. Now Charter schools, which are free are shown to pull more minorities, but often pull individuals who aren’t as high of need, so this hurts schools by having poorer members left (This can vary due to there being all white charter schools, but typically those are segregated, in which those areas have majority white students in those charter, but the public school is mostly minority)(Berliner & Hermans 2022; Frankenburg et al., 2011; Wilson, 2019; Lee, 2018). This also hurts the Charter schools because they are often underfunded as well, and often close a lot, which hurts minorities more (Berliner & Hermans, 2022; Frankenburg et al., 2011). My opponent mentions also that this doesn’t fit the description of legal segregation, which I would agree with, but some individuals have used this to try to further segregate people. An example of this is the Michigan Manik report mentioning that they felt that school choice was important because it brought schooling back to where it was before public schools, which just so happened to be before minorities were allowed to be educated (Berliner & Hermans, 2022) Now I won’t make the argument that all proponents of this system are using it for this, but it is concerning enough that law/policy institutions have felt that this could possibly cause some legal concern in the future (Huffman 2018 ; Berliner & Hermans 2022).  (I won’t say I fully agree, but it speaks volumes this is being debated). 

I have answered many of my opponents claims from here in my intro to show that stats when done through checks and balances is not manipulated to fit a conclusion, but my opponent mentioning exceptions to the rule is a little bit of faulty reasoning. He mentions that minorities could achieve success in numerous fields, and that undermines white privilege, which does not ring true for any time in history. For example, a citation I have been using a lot is Carter G. Woodson who was a black historian who taught in college, was the second African American to have a PhD, was the only African American to obtain a PhD while having been a slave previously, and taught at a University (Woodson, 2018; Givens 2023; Berliner & Hermans, 2022). In addition to this the first African American who obtained his PhD, produced one of the very first sociological studies, and lived around the time slavery was prevalent (Givens, 2023; Brandies.edu). This individual happened to be WEB Dubious (Givens, 2023). There have always been exceptions to the rule, but that doesn’t prove white privilege doesn’t exist, any more than a claim that racism and unequal opportunities didn’t exist during their day. 

To start, my opponent vastly misrepresented my position in this area, all while actually citing sources from scholars to try and prove his point on this issue, even though many of them happen to agree with me. I will start where he misrepresented me by saying that I said that it was an unknown fact that white people didn’t let minorities attend schools, which was never the claim. The claim was just a random fact in history, which is not taught, but is about how minorities created schools, and white people when they saw it, took it by force after Black people built that school (Givens, 2023). There are also positives in black history that are not typically taught in school, such as Black people being the first to domesticate certain animals, and being influential to the arts (Woodson, 2018). My opponent during this claim happens to cite WEB Dubois, who also happened to think history was whitewashed, and even stated people tried to ignore the true reason for the civil war (Brandies.edu; Dubois, 2017).In the actual book my opponent is citing from him Dubois actually says that how black reconstruction was taught was based on a lie, which even had some benefits to poor white people (Brandies.edu; Dubois, 2017) (This actually even furthers my claim in regard to unfair starts too). To continue Dubois book soul of black folk actually states that there was a concept of personal whiteness, and even in many works coined the term, walking on the color line/veil (Dubois, 2016; Givens, 2023). Carter G Woodson, who I have been citing a lot in this debate felt history was whitewashed and helped create black history week at the time, which Dubois himself felt was a great accomplishment due to how history is whitewashed (Brandieus.edu). In addition to my opponents claims with this, he also claims that history in most states is not whitewashed, it is typically in the south, and Trump’s failure to pass the patriotic education was shown that our country fought against whitewashing. The problem with this, is my opponent decided to cite the 1619 report, which is being used to combat such issues, but also states that I am right as well (FAMU.edu). This report and others who cite it actually state that 42 states in the U.S. have used restrictive means to reject teachings of minority education, and these same 42 states have introduced legislation to ban critical race theory (FAMU.edu). This is obviously more than just the south, and only 17 states have started to add curricula about racial topics (FAMU.edu). All while individuals in specific states, are trying to pass legislation that would prohibit teaching such items, and actually ban books about racial topics (FAMU.edu). This of course was even when Trump was out of office, and with him being back in office, while cutting the department of education, it seems all too likely that he will have his way with attacking racial items (msu.edu). My opponent mentions that he failed to pass patriot education, which I have somewhat addressed that this doesn’t mean much due to his DEI removal, but I will further my argument through additional information. My argument will stem from the addition of school choice will actually allow for additional whitewashing to happen, and with his removal of the department of education makes this all too likely (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). This argument stems from private schools being more likely to have textbooks that downplay slavery similar to patriotic education (Berliner & Hermans 2022). Even if we ignore DEI removal, it’s not secret Trump has wanted school choice, which would lead to this anyway in the private school sector due to them not being under the same rules as public schools (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). My opponent mentioning leftist words is something I may agree with because I actually dislike both sides over different issues. 

I will start from the bottom due to him saying white people having more individuals in prison due to it being easier to answer. My introduction, answers this through population correction here, which when viewing based on percentage shows that minorities are highly overrepresented (Harvard.edu). This actually stands true in regard to his comments with police brutality as well, due to uneven population sizes using the correction method mentioned. To move now in order, my opponent mentions that hate crimes are ignored with white people, yet cites a media outlet, in which researchers view media outlets as unreliable compared to studies and educational writings (Friedman, 2006). Along with this my opponent shows a study, (which I am thankful for), which states that white people underreport hate crimes against them. The concept of reliability is important in this domain because, most studies show they are underreported in both groups (Field, 2018; Zaykowsi, 2010). This study actually showed more underrepresentation in reporting with black people, but I wouldn’t generalize based on this one study, because research is about reliability (Field, 2018; Zaykowsi, 2010). We see still in many articles that hate crimes especially by heavy violent crime is 30-40% more likely to happen to a black person (Washington.edu).  In addition to this my opponent claims I am making baseless claims that minorities are treated worse in prisons and that issues are not ignored. Along with this he mentions that white individuals make up the majority of sentences which is answered in my intro through population correction applied here. The claims are not baseless, due to the fact I used different data types through prison rates, hate crimes, police brutality, and qualitative data on minorities in prison (Annama, 2018). To add to this, we see articles that state that minorities are likely to face more time for the same crime with white individuals, which adds quantitative data to the mix (gsu.edu; Harvard.edu). To cite a law paper from the University of Michigan, shows that there are disparities in sentencing rates in several areas such as Black people being more likely to face a minimum charge compared to white people, “7.5% for white arrestees and 12.4% for comparable black arrestees” (Rehavi & Starr, 2014). This further shows that minorities are more likely to be treated worse in prison (Rehavi & Starr, 2014). 

I have answered all my opponent's data claims in the intro and have stated how this is commonly used in behavioral science to get to causation, which answers claims about lack of evidence. He also claimed that I cited just a few articles to back up my claims, while I have a decent number of articles that are considered stronger and more scholarly than his, especially if this was in an education outlet (Fox news? Media outlets are horribly biased). Each of these citations view the construct of race, or a methodology to get to causation, which my opponent doesn't have. This section has also included law papers, but even those actually use statistics for interpretations. I would finally like to point out that he used scholars that totally disagree with him in the whitewashed history section, all while using them against claims of whitewashing.  Even if we take this as a misreading instead of a distortion of facts (which I am willing to be charitable to my opponent by assuming it was a misreading), this does possibly undermine my opponents claims, due to the possibility of incorrectly quoting items. My final point is my method is known to get to causation, which means my methodology is stronger to discern what is true in society (Myers et al., 2017; Field, 2018). The claim of this debate is does white privilege exist, and with my first source showing that racism is a precursor to affecting opportunities for minorities, each data set provided shows something important to the debate (salsbury.edu). To conclude with the majority of evidence on my side I want my opponent to answer, a few questions to keep us from talking past each other. (I do want to say none of these critiques are anything I hold against my opponent. Not many know the power of how to interpret data and trying to use a lot of sources to support a position is hard, when trying to remember what goes where. This is true if you have a certain debate more than once.)

What is your definition of evidence?

What is your standard of evidence to determine what is true?

How is statistics manipulated in research?

How would you determine if someone went out of bounds from a legal perspective?

Rehavi, M. M., & Starr, S. B. (2014). Racial disparity in federal criminal sentences. Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 1320–1354. https://doi.org/10.1086/677255

Zaykowski, H. (2010). Racial disparities in hate crime reporting. Violence and Victims, 25(3), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.3.378

Ostrager, A.-E., Jordan, J., & High, T. R. (2025, February 10). President Trump acts to roll back dei initiatives. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance

Du Bois, W. E. B. (2017). Black Reconstruction in America.

Quillian, L., & Lee, J. J. (2023). Trends in racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring in six Western countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212875120

Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Abel, M., & Burger, R. (2023). Unpacking name-based race discrimination. SSRN Electronic Journal

Chicago Booth School of Business. (n.d.). https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/racial-bias-hiring

Huffman, A. A. (2018). Theneoliberal attack on the public education of students of color. Journal of Transformative Leadership& Policy Studies, 7(1), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.36851/jtlps.v7i1.494

Monarrez, T., Kisida, B., &Chingos, M. (2022). The effect of Charter Schools on school segregation. American EconomicJournal: Economic Policy, 14(1), 301–340. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190682 

Wilson, E. K. (2019). Chartersand choice: The new white flight. SSRN Electronic Journal, 233284. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3353473

Ruel, E. E., Wagner, W. E., & Gillespie, B. J. (2016). The practice of survey research: Theory and applications. Sage.lack, Latinx people are overrepresented in prison, study says — Harvard Gazette

Experimental and quasi-experiment AL designs ... (n.d.). https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Campbell&Stanley-1959-Exptl&QuasiExptlDesignsForResearch.pdf

Why mixed methods?. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (n.d.). https://publichealth.jhu.edu/academics/academic-program-finder/training-grants/mixed-methods-research-training-program-for-the-health-sciences/about-the-program/why-mixed-methods

Rice, D. B., Young, N. C., Taylor, R. M., & Leonard, S. R. (2024). politics and race in the workplace: Understanding how and when trump‐supporting managers hinder black employees from thriving at work. Human Resource Management Journal, 35(1), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12564

Lee, J. (2018).Understanding site selection of for-profit educational management organizationCharter Schools. Education PolicyAnalysis Archives, 26, 77. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3024

https://www.salisbury.edu/administration/diversity-and-inclusion/_files/anti-racism/what-is-white-privilege-really.pdf

I would again like to thank my opponent. For this round I will go in order, based on how my opponent responded while also responding to the cross exam questions as well. To start I will go through to try and answer everything adequately, so the audience could understand each thing. At the start, it does speak volumes that my opponent wouldn’t play ball with one of the cross exam questions because one was a definition and one was an actual criteria question. For those who don’t know, cross exam is used commonly in debate to further one’s own contention, set up your own arguments, and to point out errors (Pitt.edu). Regardless I do feel I can still answer items adequately, but simple questions are meant to further contentions in a debate, which is a common part of debate (Pitt.edu). 

I want to point out a few things that are fallacious with the reasoning of my opponent. To start I have used a robust assessment method from both quantitative and qualitative researchers (Freedman, 2006; Campbell & Stanley 1959; Field, 2018, Myers, 2017). Many of my sources go from qualitative, quantitative, history, law articles and expert opinions on topics. The audience can view the previous replies to see that I have done this. Basically the article he cited states that it is important to view additional data outside quantitative, which was done throughout my previous replies with qualitative data, law articles, history, and expert opinions (Sapokoa, 2024). This article made use of saying to add qualitative data, which I did in my previous statements, and I will do again in this section (Sapokoa, 2024). Adding this gets to causation as well because some factors can’t be measured in regular data, but many of the ones that my opponent is citing such as education levels can be (Field, 2018). Me adding additional context within history also matches an additional strength to my research component, which is shown through Anthony Onwenzbugy and Rebecca’s Frels research methodology (Onwenzbugy & Frels, 2016). To expand on this there are tiers into what is strongest with research with history being towards the bottom, surveys being right above this, qualitative studies being above this, quantitative being above this, mixed methods being above this, experimental, and quasi experimental above that (Quasi mixes both observation with quantitative. This is used a lot in education and I do hope to use it one day in my research lol) (Friedman, 2006; Campbell & Stanley 1959). My opponents own source actually shows importance towards statistics which is quoted in his article and says “The quantitative techniques excel in empirical inquiry based on numerical data and statistical tests, making them a reliable choice in all fields. Their strength lies in establishing cause and effect patterns and forecasting making them optimal for psychology, economics, public health, and education”(Sapokoa, 2024 pg 1). It continues to say that this is used as standard status for a variety of different academic fields and policy decisions (Sapokoa, 2024). This article really is showing that it is important to add other data such as qualitative data in addition to this because one data type alone has limitations (Field, 2018; Myers, 2017; Friedman 2006). This is part way why I added a variety of studies outside of quantitative methodologies to make my case. An additional way to also help narrow down issues is to get to causation from various correlations in multiple areas in one given phenomenon (Myers, 2017;Friedman, 2006)(This is real strong mixed with qualitative data). I actually don’t just mean the construct of race, but these sub topics that we have spoken on. Each have items viewing things through multiple lens of data to gain additional understanding (Field, 2018). Each item has been supplemented with additional citations from expert opinions, history, qualitative research, law articles, and educational research policy citations (Many of which my opponent is accusing me of not citing, even though this was done).

My opponent didn’t seem to touch my response to wages, which is probably due to me giving him multiple views of data as described by Andy Field (Field, 2018). He seems to try and talk about gender pay, which isn’t the topic of the debate and I would understand if it was to further his own point, but he never does with hiring data. Simply put, the factors he is stating were all accounted for based on the specified studies that I mentioned in the introduction and the first rebuttal. Pay based on education level, experience, and similar work experience all showed that minorities were marginalized in some way due to pay rate (Pew research; Berkely). This provided the exact context my opponent was looking for, but my opponent ignores it. To continue to build on my case due to my opponent not addressing the pay data I cited, a qualitative study also shows marginalization in the workplace, especially for minority women, which the study noted as racial discrimination (McGee, 2024).  The different minority women navigated this in different ways, but the research attributed the pay difference in relation to racism, which was cited in much of the information stated by different participants in the study (McGee et al., 2024). 

It is rather interesting that my opponent misrepresented my position here in numerous ways, while also accusing me of not citing policy, law, and viewing the research through an objective lens. To go in order, he cites the fourteenth amendment, but ignores I cited law papers, educational researchers’ opinions, educational policy information, and research that showed segregation to make my case. To add to the information from educational policy and law from before, I will also add another law article to further make my case, which states that schools are no longer as concerned with desegregating, but trying to provide better opportunities (Indiana law). To further make my point the law researchers mentioned that school choice does seem to segregate (Remember by choice segregation)by race, and has not shown evidence to improve outcomes (Indiana law). Law fights and debates about school choice at least date back to the Cleveland Voucher case, which ruled in favor of school choice (Brennan & Barroway, 2002). There have been a lot of court cases dealing with this, all while educational policy makers and researchers show concern due to growing evidence of uneven outcomes and segregation happening (Berliner & Herman’s, 2022) (I stated in my opening that I am not making a ruling in law with this, more to show this is debated due to the evidence of how outcomes are shown through research. I don’t know enough about law lol!). Before answering my opponent's segregation claims, he says I misrepresented school choice because residential location is the primary driver in school demographics. I actually never said that it wasn’t if we are talking about the public school sector alone. When accounting for school choice this is not the case, in which I showed that with my previous citations, which my opponent seemed to ignore. We actually see that our public schools nationally and by state are more integrated than our charter and private schools in most cases (Frankenburg et al., 2011; Berliner & Hermans, 2022). An example of segregation based on the school choice movement is that Charter schools are made up of mainly minority students, with the percentage of Black students in racially isolated charter schools being 69% during the 2015-2016 school year, and 56% of Latninx students being in predominately non-white schools of 90% (Vasquez-Heileg et al., 2019) (Similar numbers are in Frankenberg's article, but I wanted to use more recent data). In addition, Wilson through his analysis actually showed that there was a mechanism of white flight, where individuals who were white moved to schools that were opposite of minority members (Wilson, 2019). Researchers note that this can further segregate students, because school choice gives the opportunity to move people across county/district lines (Wilson, 2019: psu.edu) (Similar to white flight that was shown in the housing market back in the day, which is another nail in the coffin for this point). My opponent talks about this working with inclusivity, but there is no true basis for this claim. We already see that when viewing all the data, schools are now more segregated due to the school choice movement, so if we view the data objectively, how come the outcomes don’t show this especially for minority members? In addition if it were built for inclusivity, you wouldn’t have law articles, educational researchers, and educational policy citations worried about legal concerns with school choice (Brooking.edu; Huffman, 2018; Berliner & Hermans, 2022).(Berliner & Herman’s is actually a citation with a new author every chapter. My opponent would basically be saying 24 educational researchers/policymakers, are not viewing that data objectively). Qualitative results also show that individuals are moving, which shows contrasting reasons why, but the researchers note that it is causing segregation regardless (Ku.edu). One could make the case that there could be some racist implications due to there being a mechanism of white flight shown throughout studies, but due to this being a debate on white privilege I honestly don’t have to prove this (Many articles actually make this case, but I won’t due to enough topics being on the table already). I only have to show it hurts outcomes, which various researchers, policy writers, educational law people, and my new study also shows (Ku.edu). My new article does show some qualitative research where some individuals didn’t attend schools based on race, but I wouldn’t accuse every individual of this, and each person didn’t say that in this study (Ku.edu).

My opponent mentions that my historical examples undermine my arguments which make no sense. He lists a whole bunch of success from minority members, which happens to be outliers, which I can point to in any time of history. My question to my opponent from this would be, did you think racism hindered black success in the past (This would relate to white privilege by the way)? This is important, because I could list a lot of success in the past from minority members from individuals who were once slaves who started colleges such as Booker T Washington, (si.edu). To cite scholars on this matter who lived during this time, Carter G. Woodson actually noted that there was racism in institutions and the workplace. In his book, the mis-information of the negro he actually stated that white people would be content with some black people succeeding as long as the majority aren’t in control (Woodson, 2018). Naming off some individuals who succeed doesn’t change this fact because it was shown around the time slavery was even still present. We can find examples of minorities doing good in the 60s, even though wealth inequality was prevalent during those times as well (Givens, 2023; Brooking.edu). Woodson’s comments in history, are also shown in current times by researchers noting that racism currently is shown in more political environments and is known to affect the workplace (Rice et al., 2024) This explains success and Woodson even mentioned that some minorities will do well, but white people would remain mainly in power, which is cross referenced with the pay data, hiring data, political data, and political policy decisions mentioned earlier (Woodson, 2018). 

It is sort of interesting that I am accused of presenting extraordinary claims in this section and that I am going against scholarly consensus. To start I actually cited numerous historians such as Woodson and Givens. I have mentioned Woodson's credentials, but Jarvis Givens is a scholar who is an African American History teacher at Harvard (I am a PhD student and met him. He was a real nice and knowledgeable dude lol!) It’s crazy how I cite scholars and I am going against scholarly consensus and my opponent decides to cite Wikipedia in this section. Even though this should be enough to dismiss the claims because these citations have far less merit than mine, I will continue to provide additional evidence from the actual scholarly consciences. To point out first I never said they were the first to domesticate all animals, but they were the first to domesticate certain animals such as donkeys (ncbi.gov). There is a debate in whether they were the first to domesticate cattle, but they were one of the first and happened to do it before many European nations (Floridamusem.edu). My opponent then challenges that minorities were some of the first to build and create public schools. I actually never made this claim, I just said they created public schools, which they did and I cited plenty of history to back it up (Givens, 2023). Due to my claim never dealing with that I don’t have critique his reference which was just a slide show, but I just have to further my claim which is easy. Black people were essential in the creation of public schools, especially around the time reconstruction was going on (Givens, 2023; Berliner & Hermans 2022; nps.gov). Many minorities actually created schools up north as well during the time slavery was going on (Givens, 2023). I can provide a lot more citations if this gets challenged again, because this is the scholarly consensus. 

This may sound like a broken record, but my opponent misrepresented my points again which will be easily explained. I would first like to go out of order and address his claims regarding the 1619 project and WEB Dubois. He first mentions that these claims are without evidence, but were taken in context with his two paragraphs regarding whitewashed history. If you are trying to prove claims that history isn’t white washed these documents aren’t the ones you cite. References from my opponents own book and my online sources, show this (Because I wanted the audience to see lol). If you read citation cites like Purdue Owl, you would see that if you are using citations in your reference page, it is important to use them in your actual paper (Purdue Owl). Given how my opponent was defensive last round while misrepresenting numerous positions of mine, it seems more likely that he did misquote whether intentional or not.  To now go in order, my opponent misrepresented my argument in that Woodson's creation of black history was due solely in history being whitewashed, but he did view that it was and that was an important part of its creation (It’s hard to give a sole reason for this). I mainly used this to set up my argument my opponent cited with Dubious, because this scholar did believe history was whitewashed. Woodson believed this too, and in his writings actually said that history focused on white people, then showed some history towards “yellow people, less for red people, and even less for black people” (Woodson, 2018 p 12). Woodson also presented his dissertation in regard to black history against individuals on his committee that viewed minorities as not having a history and being inferior (Americanhistory.edu). My opponent thus doesn’t realize he partially made my point for me by saying that he founded the ASNLH to combat the omission of and distortion of black people in historical narratives would actually be admitting history was whitewashed. My opponent mentions that I would have to say due to Woodson having an impact on the education system, his own work would have to be critiqued due to it being part of a “whitewashed structure”. This happens to be a gross oversimplification, due to Woodson himself admitting that history was taught with white people at the fore front (Woodson, 2018). White washing is to leave out important information in regard to minorities in history, which is done and even Woodson admitted (Woodson, 2018). This of course wouldn’t do with him, but the structure of education itself, which Woodson would have had no power over. Textbooks oversimplified slavery and many positive things with minorities were not shown in history (Woodson, 2018; SCU.edu). Despite Woodson's advances, he would have even admitted that we had a ways to go in regard to this based on earlier comments mentioned (Woodson, 2018). Not to mention that teachers are not taught enough in this area, which means some don’t see how whitewashed it is (SCU.edu; Givens, 2023). This is actually why many minority members were against desegregation at the start, due to integrating causing a loss of history and culture in there society (Givens, 2023) (The integration was still needed but hard for many).

My opponent must not have fully read or understood the different data types presented in these sections. I not only cited statistics, but I cited law articles, researcher opinions, and qualitative research. I would first like to show before moving forward that this meets the criteria of causation, and even meets the criteria set forth in my opponents citation in the beginning due to me mixing data types (Sapokoa, 2024). I will state if you viewed my initial argument in the introduction, I didn’t use arrest rates alone as white privilege. I actually mixed data types due to knowing how data works in relation with confounding variables (Field, 2018). My opponent mentions items such as prison rates being affected by socioeconomic factors, which I would agree with, but is something that can be accounted for in statistical models due to many models involving confounding variables, covariates, and multiple independent and dependent variables (Fields, 2018; Myers, 2017). Now I didn’t rely on this as the main point but interloped it with other variables such as hate crimes, police brutality to draw conclusions. Broadly speaking, if we focus on things such as hate crimes the data we see that this happens with minorities on a much higher scale. The citation my opponent uses, which wouldn’t have the same rigorous data analysis as described above actually defeats his own point (fbi.gov). My opponent mentions that hate crimes across various groups exist, which I never disagreed with. I actually agreed, which invoked me to cite the qualitative study on the school to prison pipeline, which showed that this could happen to various groups while racism was still prevalent (Annama, 2018). I actually mentioned that this study also showed that additional discriminatory characteristics showed higher persecutions such as LGBTQ women of color (Anamma, 2018) (This was something I already addressed a few times). Speaking on the group he mentioned that matches best with this debate, due to our topic interlocking with race shows anti-white hate crimes are not near as bad as anti-black hate crime (fbi.gov). Based on my opponents own source, hate crime regarding anti-black hate crimes made up 47.1% while anti-white hate crime made up 20.1% (fbi.gov). Now when viewing this, my opponent of course mentions there are other factors to incarnation rates, which can mostly be accounted for (Maybe except for gang violence. As someone who is a researcher, but not in this field I wouldn’t know how to code that one specifically. Thankfully qualitative data was also used, along with law cites and unfair time data). I have added qualitative data, but remember incarnation rates wasn’t my main argument, but my set up for treatment in prison and police brutality. Issues with police brutality actually deal with brutality as it relates to unarmed minorities in many articles as well (Yale.edu). This defeats my opponents claim for other factors, because regardless of the crime (speaking on gang violence), unarmed killings to that degree are unjustified, especially when they reach statistical significance, due to Black people being killed at a three times higher rate that white people (Yale.edu). When matched with qualitative data in prison, observations from researchers and interviews showed that there was discrimination between individuals employed in the prison and minorities (Annama, 2018). We also see in the literature review section of another article’s qualitative findings that minorities felt helpless with police brutality. In scope this article focused on suicide rates in black people which was higher to black people compared to white people (This isn’t an argument from me, I just wanted the audience to know I pulled from the lit review in this article, which is acceptable based on a methodology being used) (Kinsley-Carney, 2024). With this in mind, my opponent did not touch mistreatment in prison in regard to unfair time regarding race based on data, law scholars, and law scholars using data. This could show that there is a flaw with his reasoning, and undermines his claim that I am just using data and not taking law into account.

My opponent mentions me biting the bullet as a weak argument, while ignoring my actual response that answered his claims. Classes have always been in the U.S., and I never claimed that poor white people benefited from slavery. The sad thing is that we see this in society today as well, which shows that certain things are shown to affect certain groups more (Annama, 2018; Woodson, 2018; Givens, 2023). This is actually shown in history as well, in which my opponent didn’t address my claims that poor white people still had a better start than minorities, due to black people being in slavery (Woodson, 2018). Notice, I never said that poor white people economically benefited from slavery, but that minorities had a slower start because they were enslaved (Woodson, 2018; Givens, 2023; Brooking.edu). This is true due to them not having initial skills to succeed because they were enslaved, and because education levels were not as good due to schooling only being on a second grade level (Givens, 2023). To further prove my point researchers and data sites match historical research, by noting that unequal pay and income relate to racial factors with one of them being slavery (Brooking.edu). Brookings.edu mentions that passing down of wealth was a giant part of this (Brooking.edu). Data, and historical consensus is with me on this point.

In conclusion, my interpretation gets to causation based on the criteria that I have stated in the beginning. Throughout this debate I have cited quantitative data, qualitative data, law articles, and expert opinions. Based on my own opponents research article my results are more generalizable, due to me mixing data based on this quote “In addition qualitative insights combined with quantitative results increase the generalizability of research findings.” (Sapokota, 2024 pg.6/157). Based on my own opponents research study along with my own I have met the burden of proof to show causality (Sapokoa, 2024; Field, 2018; Myers, 2017; Freedman 2006). My opponent accuse me of lacking crucial context all while I have cited qualitative studies and researcher opinions who have conducted research in the field. Additionally I have viewed confounders and multiple different variable types to help eliminate alternative explanations in addition to my qualitative data, expert opinions, and history. Along with accusing me of not using qualitative data my opponent says I make historical claims without additional evidence, even though each claim loops with researcher claims, data, policy actions, and other information we see everyday that can be measured (Owenzbugy & Frel, 2016). My opponent claims that I make no reference to law, which is crazy because he ignores my law citations along with education policy citations that I presented in my previous statements. I have cited some more, so hopefully my opponent doesn’t ignore those as well. It is also important to note, many of my opponents sources either prove I am right or go against many of the claims he is trying to make. Information regarding black success has been answered so I won’t answer again unless my opponent brings it back up. To conclude, not only have I met the burden of proof based on my opponents own article, I have also  used additional research criteria stated by Anthony Onwenzbugy and Rebecca’s Frels by adding expert opinions, history, and now law articles (Owenzbugy & Frels, 2016). Finally my research methodology is stronger, along with my opponent citing numerous unscholarly sources, which is known for bias, and is even frowned on in institutions if not used sparingly (ucsd.edu; Friedman 2006). With me meeting the burden of proof, I will end this section here while also reminding everyone about how racism links with white privilege. With white privilege being linked  with different types of racism, I have shown white privilege exists, due to racism being a precursor (Salsbury.edu). 

https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/appropriate-references.html#:~:text=Avoid%20such%20references%20if%20possible,scientific%20merit%20of%20the%20source.

Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications.

Sapkota, M. (2024). Implications and critiques of Quantitative Research: A systematic review. Journal of Learning Theory and Methodology, 5(3), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.17309/jltm.2024.5.3.09

https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/booker-t-washington-and-atlanta-compromise#:~:text=The%20vision%20of%20that%20schoolroom,known%20today%20as%20Tuskegee%20University.

VasquezHeilig,J., Brewer, T. J., & Williams, Y. (2019). Choice without inclusion?:Comparingtheintensity of racial segregation in charters and public schools at the local,state and NationalLevels. Education Sciences, 9(3), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030205

Huffman, A. A. (2018). Theneoliberal attack on the public education of students of color.Journal of Transformative Leadership& Policy Studies, 7(1), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.36851/jtlps.v7i1.494

The preceding analysis compellingly refutes the notion of pervasive, systemic white privilege in contemporary America. Arguments attempting to uphold this concept crumble under scrutiny, revealing reliance on misinterpreted statistics, logical fallacies, and unsubstantiated historical narratives – including a distorted view of efforts to promote Black history that ignores both dedicated pioneers like Carter G. Woodson and established academic fields. The very premise that history has been universally 'whitewashed' to serve white interests fails when confronted with facts and the actual mechanisms of historical study.

More fundamentally, the assertion of systemic white privilege fails the test of concrete evidence. It requires proof of embedded discriminatory systems, not just statistical correlations or misrepresented issues like school choice. Indeed, exploring school choice reveals the hypocrisy in defending existing de facto segregation while attacking escape routes. Furthermore, the decades-long history of affirmative action, legally sanctioning preferential treatment for minorities, stands as a stark contradiction to any claim of unchallenged, universal white advantage.

I want to start again by thanking my opponent for his reply. To start, I would like to remind everyone the definition of white privilege “White privilege refers to the unearned advantages afforded to people who are assumed, based largely on complexion and related physical features, to be of European ancestry” (Rider). Based on my citation in the very beginning, racism is considered linked with this because without racism, none of these items would exist as they do currently and to the degree they have (salary.edu). Before continuing I would like to point out again, that my method leads to causality based on my own citations and my opponent's own citation, which I showed in previous replies (Sapakoa). Interestingly enough the methodology he cited matches my methodology due to me citing qualitative studies along with quantitative (John Hopkins; Friedman, 2006). My opponent will also claim that I have mainly focused on stats, while I have added qualitative material in, which matches with his methodology based on his own article (Sapokoa; John Hopkins). Keep in mind qualitative data usually has less participants and usually involves either observations or interviews (Ruel et al., 2016). 

My opponent at the end has accused me of making some logical fallacies along with statistical errors. This is odd because I have been citing statisticians and researchers this whole debate for a methodology. To continue though whether it was inadvertent or not my opponent made several, which I will address and add definitions here. I will then code them with the fallacy name in its subsequence section in the response. My opponent in some sections commits a deliberate ignorance fallacy which is defined as “is the fallacy of simply choosing not to listen, “tuning out" or turning off any information, evidence or arguments that challenge one's beliefs” (utep.edu) Another fallacy made by my opponent is a strawman especially in regard to some history claims because he/she “oversimplifies the opponent's viewpoint and then attacks a hollow form of the argument” (PurdueOwl.edu). 

I will say I did address topicality with gender pay mainly because I was unsure if he was making the same argument towards minorities. I actually did answer this last round while also giving qualitative data to back up my quantitative, which does match my own methodology along with my opponent's methodology (Sapokoa; Field, 2018; John Hopkins). I’m unsure if my opponent understands this, which is not me trying to sound wrong, but there is a lot to stats, and it can get complicated if one is not trained in it. I answered this because I mentioned the models accounted for items, he asked such as education levels, years of experience, and hours worked (Field, 2018). In addition, I have added qualitative data to expand on this answer which is shown to get to causation when mixing it with quantitative data, based on the methodology I presented along with my opponents' research article (Sapokoa). Things such as race, years of experience, education levesl and hours worked would be things that are considered independent variables/predictor variables while pay would be your dependent variable/outcome variable (Field, 2018). This kind of methodology is common in research, because multiple variables predict multiple things, which my opponent alluded to by saying pay is determined by multiple things. That is why researchers have to account for these things in their statistical models. An example of this is how pew research mentions that “College-educated black and Hispanic men earn roughly 80% the hourly wages of white college educated men ($25 and $26 vs. $32, respectively) (Pewresearch). Along with this it mentions that “black and Hispanic women with a college degree earn only about 70% the hourly wages of similarly educated white men” (Pewresearch). In the rebuttal I cited data for part time and full-time workers with minorities vs. white people where I showed how individuals without a college degree in regard to race are paid far less (Berkley; Pewresearch). When we view the qualitative data that was brushed over in the previous reply, we see that this also showed discrimination in hiring. Remember based on my own opponents' source for methodology this would count as a way to generalize results, and along with my sources, get to causation (Sapokoa John Hopkins). To add to this data, we see that when we view different industries, we see that minorities are paid considerably less in professional fields, management and related occupations (bls.gov). In addition, a Harvard study, continues to show that minorities are paid less than white people, while another study also confirms that educated minorities are typically paid less (Hbs.edu; syr.edu). Based on my opponent ignoring the claims mentioned in the previous replies that addressed his concern with different variables such as hours worked, education, different fields, and different hours worked, he is either having a hard to understanding how these data models work, or he is committing a deliberate ignorance fallacy as stated in the beginning (utep.edu).

My opponent here shows that he doesn’t understand statistical methodology, because you get to these figures through data models that deal with uneven sample sizes, percentages based on the population, or weighting items (Field, 2018). This is important because there are far more white people than there are black people (census.gov). Depending on what year you view the census, we can see white people make up about 75.3% of the population (census.gov). This means by sheer number of course there would be because there are far more white people compared to any other race. Instead, it has to be viewed through the methods mentioned such as viewing percentages (Field, 2018). In him saying this, him mentioning there being more white people in low paying jobs still doesn’t change the fact that when comparing these factors minorities are still paid less than white people. An example can be shown from the jobs without degree data set that showed minorities are paid less (Berkley). Additionally, treatment of jobs is shown in more than just poor working areas. This has to do with my DEI study, Pew research, and my qualitative data with treatment of minorities in STEM fields is data that involves more than just low paying jobs (Pewresearch; Rice et al., 2024; MGee, 2024). Results for each have been reported, so this argument is interesting to say the least. To add to this argument to further prove my point data shows examples of items such as STEM fields result in 62% of Black people report being discriminated in the STEM field and 50% of Hispanics feel they are discriminated at work based on race (Pewresearch). With this being self-reported measures, we can at least infer that the broader minority population feels discriminated by race, which can be generalized to the broader population based on random sampling methods (Ruel et al., 2016).

My opponent mentions affirmative action possibly giving minorities specific advantages over white individuals but based on data presented that does seem contrary to the case. Yes, affirmative action was supposed to help minorities, because we do see discrimination within hiring fields. We saw my hiring data which my opponent hasn’t really touched again, pay data, and discrimination at work which could affect this. One could argue unequal outcomes affects this as well, but I will argue on minorities with the same credentials as white individuals. To understand affirmative action, one must view how it was originally created to provide equal opportunity (uci.edu). In education there were some instances where it wasn’t done the best, which my opponent happens to cite. Regardless of a couple instances of bad outcomes there has been court rulings where it has been done pretty well such as Gutter V Bolinger (Cornell Law). This case did take race into account but used a number of other factors as well. Whenever a policy is first being implemented there will always be a misuse of it, and we can find it in everything. This doesn’t relate to hiring though because as shown by my past references I showed minorities are less likely to be hired even with the same credentials (Quiallan & Le, 2023; Abel & Burger, 2023). Citing a few instances doesn’t discount the majority of cases if we talk about a phenomenon in society. To remind the audience I showed minorities are less likely to be hired by 50% in most cases even with similar credentials, which destroys the narrative that minorities are getting advantages (Chicago.edu; Quillan & Le, 2023). To continue there are actually advantages to adding more minorities in workplaces such as them understanding certain phenomenon in research better if it relates to vulnerable populations, them having a pedagogy to teaching that works better for minority students, and some advantages in other fields when interacting with other minorities (Givens, 2023; Fitzpatrick, 2010). Additionally, when racial items are removed in universities for gaining participants, which results in more white participants, there typically isn’t an improvement in test scores (Cornell.edu). Simply put, bringing one court case in regard to college admissions doesn’t show that this system typically works to the advantage of minorities for hiring which is shown through the data. Due to this point not really being quantified through data, my point with hiring discrimination to minorities does seem to still hold weight. Affirmative action was meant to help minorities, which it has in many cases, but my opponent showing it as a way for racism not to be involved in hiring is questionable at best. We have seen the data, which my opponent has yet to rebut especially with hiring, but to add to my argument it would be like saying racism didn’t exist after slavery because minorities could get an education and work jobs (Givens, 2023). My opponent I hope would disagree with this statement because like what he mentioned in his reply makes no sense when we see that data opposes his narrative. We mainly see racial discrimination through political means which has been shown through policy, actions from Trump, action from employers, hiring, and pay presented in my previous replies. To conclude this section my opponent hints that stuff like this actually hurts white people, which is just not shown in the data. An example of this is that research has shown that out of the 91,000 discrimination cases in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, we see only 3% of cases discriminate against white men (upstate.edu). To continue Rutgers also conducted a study from the U.S. Department of Labor which showed discrimination against white men was not shown to be an issue and many claims were without merit (upstate.edu).

The argument my opponent is making here is a strawman of my argument. I never said minorities created most public schools, just that they did create many public schools (Givens, 2023). Him showing data to slavery doesn’t rebut this claim because I never claimed they were the first. They did create numerous public schools in which scholars note heavily, so I will add another citation to prove my point (americanhistory.edu). Additionally, his argument about domestication lacking evidence is a deliberate ignorance fallacy, due to me providing multiple citations and him not providing counter arguments back. Basically, this is him saying it lack substantiation with me providing citations from historians, researchers, and archeologists. To again further my contention, Africans were the first to domesticate donkeys as stated before, which is backed up by an additional citation (ufl.edu). There is a debate about cattle domestication, so I hold off on that claim because I see arguments for multiple places based on my previous citation and this citations claim (Missouri.edu). Basically, my claims are the consensus of scholars while my opponent doesn’t offer much to rebut in this area.

I can tell my opponent hasn’t gone through much of Woodson's work, or he has only read part of it. To start, history being whitewashed is a fact which is shown through making the suffering of minorities not look as bad, through presenting white individuals to look better than they were in history, and to make the contribution of minorities less than they were (Givens, 2023). Negro week was created by Woodson, which later became black history month did help raise awareness to historical items for minorities and did help a lot with improving knowledge of history (Givens, 2023; Harvard; Dbu.edu). This doesn’t change the fact that in most of our public schools our history is whitewashed (Harvard). My opponent didn’t engage with points in textbooks being whitewashed and slavery being significantly downplayed so I will further my own contention with showing more instances where history has been ignored in many settings such as the Haitian revolution not being discussed in most public-school settings (web.edu). Ignoring that my opponent didn’t address policy issues with whitewashing mentioned earlier, textbooks, and slavery being downplayed, him mentioning colleges teaching this doesn’t further his own contention. Taking classes such that my opponent mentions is a choice, whether it be a choice in major or an optional class due to this being college and not k-12 education. This means most individuals will not receive these courses, even if they are in college. That is why each of my citations which are from colleges, history teachers (Such as African American Historian Jarvis Givens), or old historians such as Woodson back me up. 

My opponent is correct in that Woodson did create negro week that eventually became black history month, but he grossly misrepresents Woodson while claiming that I am doing so. Before furthering my own contention, I do want to mention that I put direct quotes from Woodson himself in regard to how history is taught which already defeats his point, which makes me feel he hasn’t read much of his work. To start, teaching of how history is done shapes our youth and teaching about African American History in one month doesn’t change most items are overlooked (Harvard). We constantly see individuals such as Trump try to change racial items in books, which seems to be something that may happen, because who is in charge often determines this (Harvard). Furthering my contention individuals such as researchers from Harvard actually note many punishments given to African Americans were actually downplayed in many history books and often not presented as racist (Harvard). History and how it is taught shapes how individuals think, which is something Woodson often mentioned. My opponent misrepresenting Woodson is puzzling because he wrote a whole book in which he mentioned that the teachings of mainly Europeans in history, ill-prepared minorities for society and caused a lack of identify within the black community (Woodson, 2018). Woodson did try to help fill this void, with other minority scholars through historical pursuits, but with everything shown currently we still have a long way to go (Howard.edu). To quote Woodson himself again to show his view of whitewashed history “The thought of the inferiority of the Negro is drilled into him in almost every class he enters and in almost every book he studies” (Harvard). Things have gotten better, but we can see that the system still needs vast improvements. To conclude the history section my opponent mentions that I have to provide legal items, policy information, and discriminatory practices with impact. My opponent again makes a deliberate ignorance fallacy because this was already done through citing historians from the past and modern time, educational researchers, policy documents, policy documents my opponent actually cited, and textbook information. This shows the information that my opponent has asked for and has ignored throughout the debate. Also, legality is important at times, but if history hasn’t been taught to its fullest extent since the US’s founding, this statement doesn’t make sense. Law has changed and hasn’t been favorable to minorities, which can be shown through the civil rights movement taking place recently in the 50s-60s (Givens, 2023). Also, many things in law have been unfair to minorities, which I cited law articles in my previous reply, where these law scholars mentioned issues within this system.

I would first like to point out that in my reply I never dismissed de facto segregation in public schools. It was actually a contingent in one on my arguments due to vouchers hurting public schools' that minorities are in worse (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). I actually admitted schools are segregated in the public sector, and even by metrics my opponent mentions. The issue about this is, my opponent never had a counter for the data which showed that private and charter schools are de facto segregated at higher levels than public schools (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). Last round I provided raw numbers to show charters were more segregated than public schools, but I will continue to add numbers which show that most states that have charters, have charter schools that are more segregated than there public school counterpart, while suburban areas also show segregation by 30% for charters in racially isolated schools, which is higher than public schools (Frankenberg & Siegel-Hawley 2024). My opponents' best point in this whole debate is that minorities are choosing this. The problem is that one can’t fully blame them, but this doesn’t change the full issue facing them in schools. When we look by race, most individuals support the school that their children are going too regardless of school type (PDK, Berliner & Hermans 2022, vouchers.gov). Of course, most the people leaving public school want to do so, but this discounts the views of others who support the schools their kids go to. One could make the argument that many individuals don’t like the public-school sphere, but when you look deeper, most parents actually like the school their child is attending, the teacher their child has, and overall school involvement (PDK; Voucher.edu). This is actually regardless of public school or not (PDK). Additionally, my argument isn’t so much that other schools exist, it’s more that the additional segregation along with vouchers is removing the funding from minority schools, which in turn gives them a worse education (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). My opponent didn’t answer that this actually has shut schools down in the U.S. primarily in minority communities (voucher.edu). The founders of this movement such as Milton Friedman which my opponent cited, Brennan & Barroway, and Chub & Moe actually mentioned this as a possibility because their goal was to create a business-like competition, which would force certain public schools to do better or face closing (Berliner & Hermans, 2022; Brennan & Barroway 2002). Other scholars mention that the school choice movement does this, but the problem with this, is that a business environment for schools creates winners and losers (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). And in schools, it should be we create the best environment for everyone to succeed instead of closing some options down, which does happen in particularly poor and minority communities (Berliner & Hermans, 2022). Due to most parents supporting their own child’s school, the way the system works could possibly cause severe cuts to minorities schools or possible closing some schools down, despite most of these parents supporting the school their child goes to (PDK; Berliner & Hermans, 2022).

My opponent tries to further his contention by mentioning that rural white individuals often live in poverty, and have issues with poor education, lower class status, and poverty that comes from location. The problem with this is, that my original data did view a lot of different items, and when we look into this, we still see racial implications. Pay can affect where you live, but when we isolate and look at these areas, by themselves, we see that minorities are way more impoverished in these areas than white individuals (usa.gov). The sad thing with this is yet again my opponents own source agrees with me on this, with non-metro blacks making up 30.7% of individuals in poverty, while native Americans made up 29.6% of this population, Hispanics made up 21.7% of this population, and whites made up 13.3% of this population (usa.gov). Through understanding how variables work, it is important to view each group within said population, and when viewing my opponents' sources, it shows that minorities are hurt worse in these respects (usa.gov; Field, 2018).

My opponent in this section continues to make a deliberate ignorance fallacy and a strawman due to many of his claims that he reports I said not being ones I’ve stated while others ignore information I stated, such as minorities not having access to the same education and access to opportunities (Givens, 2023; Purdue; Utep.edu). I never said poor white people benefited from slavery, but more that black people were hurt far worse from it, which even bares true with outcomes today (Givens, 2023; Woodson, 2018; Harvard). To start in addition to minorities not having much income, worse schooling opportunities, and no skills to sell, we actually see that many minorities that were originally enslaved sometimes stayed with their slave master due to not being able to make a living due to lack of skills (Givens, 2023). Around slavery time, the wealth gap between minorities and white people were 60 to 1, with minorities holding .02$ per $1 dollar for white people (Harvard). We obviously see these outcomes impact minorities all the way to the 60s with less opportunities and less schooling which put minorities in a worse situation (Givens, 2023). What is interesting, is my opponent decides to continue to cite sources that goes against his claims, due to it agreeing with me. To use the authors, own words from my opponents' citation “Whites own about 86.8% of the wealth in this country” (fed.gov). When we move to a different part of the citation it mentions that one reason income inequality may exist is due to saving rates, wealth, and income (fed.gov). The article then mentions that a “long history of discrimination has left Black and Hispanic households with substantially less wealth even in the beginning of their sample period” (fed.gov). This article does mention minorities in particular being at a disadvantage compared to white people throughout it, even though items that they may attribute to the gap may differ (fed.gov). In addition, more articles continue to state that minorities have less wealth than white people, with one article saying white people had 10 times as much wealth (Harvard Gusset). Similar to this the median white net worth ranges from 100,00-200,000 while the median black and Hispanic net worth ranges from 10,000-20,000. This shows white people are more likely to have material to pass down (Harvard.edu; Harvard Guesset). Remember also from my previous citations that poor white people are more likely to have more than poor black people. 

In conclusion I have answered all my opponents points by pointing out the flaw in their reasoning, citing experts that disagree with him, viewing data from multiple lens, and using my opponents own citations to refute claims that he made. My opponent talks about viewing correlations doesn’t just get to causation, but that ignores much of my other citations which my opponent seemed to ignore throughout this debate. Throughout the debate I used correlations from multiple areas, through multiple lens of the data, I’ve eliminated confounding variables that would possibly explain the data, and I have used qualitative data (Field, 2018; Friedman, 2006; John Hopkins). Remember based on this, my opponents own methodology grants this, which would show he has also committed a moving the goal post fallacy by going against his own terms of causation or generalizability (Sapokoa). I would also like to point out that many of my opponents' citations also agreed with me on the very items he was citing them for, which would also make me wonder how he knows better than experts or why he is not citing them correctly. In addition, I have added law, policy, and history which had been ignored except for instances of Carter G Woodson, which is proven he misrepresented through the quotes of the author himself. All of his main claims he made in his conclusion won’t be gone over in here due to me addressing them earlier, but when voting on this topic one must look at this carefully. Who handled the data better, who had the better methodology to dececern truth, who represented sources better, and who provided more scholarly sources? I not only performed better in these aspects, but due to racism being a precursor of white privilege, I have shown this through various citations and methodologies. (Some articles cited are in references earlier to save room lol!)

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/racial-bias-hiring#:~:text=Applicants%20with%20white%20names%20need,Employer%22%20did%20not%20discriminate%20less.

https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/ejroc/myths-and-facts-about-vouchers#:~:text=Vouchers%20Programs%20do%20not%20Impact,cuts%20and%20even%20school%20closings.

Quillian, L., & Lee, J. J. (2023). Trends in racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring in six Western countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212875120

Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2010). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Pearson.

Sapkota, M. (2024). Implications and critiques of Quantitative Research: A systematic review. Journal of Learning Theory and Methodology, 5(3), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.17309/jltm.2024.5.3.09

Rice, D. B., Young, N. C., Taylor, R. M., & Leonard, S. R. (2024). politics and race in the workplace: Understanding how and when trump‐supporting managers hinder black employees from thriving at work. Human Resource Management Journal, 35(1), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12564

Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications.

McGee, E., Cox, M. F., Main, J. B., Miles, M. L., & Hailu, M. F. (2024). Wage disparities in academia for engineering women of color and the limitations of advocacy and agency. Research in Higher Education, 65(5), 914–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-023-09766-3

Frankenberg, E. & Siegel-Hawley,G. (2024). Understanding Suburban School Segregation: Toward a RenewedCivil Rights Agenda. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles,UCLA

TESTING DOESN'T MEASURE UP FOR AMERICANS: The 47TH Annual PDK/Gallup Poll OF THE PUBLIC'S ATTITUDES TOWARD THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

I thank my opponent for this engaging debate. To save time, I will focus on my final point for my closing argument. Voters should remember that while my opponent may use wordplay to distance themselves from the traditional definition of white privilege, even as they argue for its existence, they still face the same fundamental problems with that concept.

First, to argue for white privilege, proponents must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it tangibly exists within society. Otherwise, the argument rests on subjective feelings about a non-existent concept, not on objective facts. In this regard, my opponent has ultimately failed to establish that white privilege exists.[^1][^2][^3]

Second, beyond potentially manipulative statistical data, there is no factual evidence that white people benefit from a system designed to exclude minorities. Indeed, we have established the existence of decades-long minority privilege—a reality my opponent ignores despite overwhelming evidence.[^4][^5][^6]

Furthermore, my opponent promotes unsubstantiated theories over facts, claiming history was 'whitewashed'[^7] while misinterpreting scholars like Carter G. Woodson. Woodson highlighted the underrepresentation of African American history due to bias[^8], a crucial distinction from alleging wholesale 'whitewashing'.[^9] Challenging established history requires rigorous proof[^10], which my opponent lacks, effectively spreading misinformation instead.

My opponent also incorrectly claims we are regressing on racial segregation, ignoring legal milestones like the 14th Amendment and Brown v. Board of Education which dismantled legal segregation.[^11] They further misrepresent school choice—a movement opposing mandatory school assignments and not inherently racially motivated[^12]—as segregationist. In reality, school choice could potentially lessen segregation's impact by breaking the link between residence and school assignment.[^13]

Perhaps most damning, my opponent failed to substantiate their own definition linking white privilege specifically to 'assumed European ancestry.'[^14] They offered no evidence for this precise link—difficult given distinct American versus European identities/cultures[^15]—and instead argued generally about 'white' privilege using stats and history. This contradicts their own provided definition.

My opponent also argued about generational wealth, yet acknowledged most white people gained no direct material wealth from slavery, as few had ancestors who profited massively.[^16] This acknowledgment contradicts their broader argument. They shifted, arguing that while direct wealth wasn't gained, whites received a 'head start' or 'natural advantage' simply because Black people were held back by slavery. While such relative advantage might exist in specific contexts, attributing it to a systemic generational wealth transfer benefiting all whites[^17], rather than situational factors or the direct harm to Black people, is false.

My arguments show the opposition relies on statistics over facts, promoting unfounded 'whitewashing' conspiracies[^7] while ignoring that legal segregation ended[^11] and systemic white generational wealth from slavery is largely unproven.[^17] Politically and legally, racial equality largely exists today; contrary arguments often highlight minority privileges via affirmative action[^4][^5][^6], further undermining claims of white privilege.

Therefore, the case presented for white privilege fails at every critical juncture. It lacks empirical proof, relies on misinterpretations of history and law, ignores evidence of minority advantages, and contradicts its own definitions and concessions. The narrative crumbles under factual scrutiny. Voters must see these arguments for what they are: an attempt to divide based on unsubstantiated theories rather than uniting based on the reality of legal equality and shared progress. I urge you to reject this flawed and divisive concept.

Notes
[^1]: "White Privilege: A Myth," YIP Institute, June 21, 2021, https://yipinstitute.org/article/white-privilege-a-myth.[^2]: "Debunking 'White Privilege'," The Objective Standard, February 20, 2022, https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/debunking-white-privilege.[^3]: Vincent Harinam and Rob Henderson, "Why White Privilege Is Wrong—Part 1," Quillette, August 22, 2019, https://quillette.com/2019/08/22/why-white-privilege-is-wrong-part-1/.[^4]: "Affirmative Action: Equality or Reverse Discrimination?" Liberty University Honors Program Senior Thesis, 2010, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=honors.[^5]: "What Is Affirmative Action? How It Works and Example," Investopedia, updated March 11, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affirmative-action.asp.[^6]: "The rise of “reverse” discrimination claims," Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, JD Supra, November 6, 2024, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-rise-of-reverse-discrimination-3306674/.[^7]: "The Misinformation Trap - Conspiracy Theories," The University of Southern Mississippi Libraries, accessed April 18, 2025, https://aquila.usm.edu/misinformationtrap_conspiracytheories/.[^8]: Lily Rothman, "This Is How February Became Black History Month," Time, January 29, 2016, https://time.com/4197928/history-black-history-month/.[^9]: Courtney Erdman, "History in its entirety: How whitewashed history education leaves much of history, students out," The Badger Herald, April 5, 2021, https://badgerherald.com/news/campus/2021/04/05/history-in-its-entirety-how-whitewashed-history-education-leave-much-of-history-students-out/.[^10]: "What is Historical Revisionism?" Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnológico de Monterrey, August 20, 2021, https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-news/historical-revisionism/.[^11]: See: "Brown v. Board of Education (1954)," National Archives and Records Administration, accessed April 18, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education; and "What Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964? What's Included and History," Investopedia, updated January 28, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/civil-rights-act-1964.asp.[^12]: "Beyond Enrollment: What Parents Really Want from Their Children's Education," EdChoice, November 12, 2024, https://www.edchoice.org/engage/beyond-enrollment-what-parents-really-want-from-their-childrens-education/.[^13]: Brandon Dutcher, "School Choice Reduces Racial Segregation," Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, December 7, 2015, https://ocpathink.org/post/analysis/school-choice-reduces-racial-segregation.[^14]: Kyla Wazana Tompkins, "Whiteness," Keywords for American Cultural Studies, New York University Press, accessed April 18, 2025, https://keywords.nyupress.org/american-cultural-studies/essay/whiteness/.[^15]: "One American Identity, Two Distinct Meanings," Bruce D. Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization, University of Colorado Boulder, accessed April 18, 2025, https://www.colorado.edu/center/benson/western-civilization/summer-institute/summer-institute-essays/one-american-identity-two-distinct.[^16]: Robert A. Margo, "Slavery in the United States," EH.Net Encyclopedia, ed. Robert Whaples, accessed April 18, 2025, https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/.[^17]: Tyler Cowen, "How much have white Americans benefited from slavery and its legacy?" Marginal Revolution (blog), May 25, 2014, https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/how-much-have-white-americans-benefited-from-slavery-and-its-legacy.html.