An example of one such support is FIRSTNAME Higginbotham, a University of Baltimore professor of law, who believes that race-based AA is, “vital in the United States given the country’s history of […] pervasive racial discrimination” and another advocate stating in a similar fashion, “The affirmative action policies promoted by Stanford recognize that […] African Americans were treated differently because of their race. The important efforts over the years […] have gone a considerable distance in facing up to this history” (Ogletree, 2011). This argument may seem justified as affirmative action is inherently a reverse of racist preferences which seeks to provide disadvantaged groups with equal opportunity. However, large racial preferences implemented through the use of race-based AA have been shown to place minority college applicants in schools where they cannot effectively learn, perform or compete with their counterparts (Sander & Taylor, 2012). The significance of this effect is that due to their inability to perform in the environments where AA places them, their drop-out rates appear much higher than those of non-minorities. This, in turn, perpetuates some of the negative stereotypes which were used as a justification for racial discrimination in the past; specifically, providing reason for questions to be raised about the intelligence and competence of historically disadvantaged groups. Moreover, the California Proposition 209 ban on racial preferences caused a drop in the percentage of minority drop-outs in the schools impacted. Interestingly, the amount of minorities receiving Bachelor’s degrees in those schools didn’t change along with the drop-out rate (Sander & Taylor, 2012). Therefore, the absence of affirmative action does not correlate with a