["[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-01 00:00]\n<User>I'd like to share some important information:\nProponents of affirmative action recognize that the policy is inherently unequal; however, minding the inescapable fact that historic inequalities exist in America, they believe the policy is much more fair than one in which these circumstances are not taken into account. Furthermore, those in favor of affirmative action see it as an effort towards inclusion rather than a discriminatory practice. \"Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.\"\n\nThere are a multitude of supporters as well as opponents to the policy of affirmative action. Many presidents throughout the last century have failed to take a very firm stance on the policy, and the public has had to discern the president's opinion for themselves. Bill Clinton, however, made his stance on affirmative action very clear in a speech on July 19, 1995, nearly two and a half years after his inauguration. In his speech, he discussed the history in the United States that brought the policy into fruition: slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. Clinton also mentioned a point similar to President Lyndon B. Johnson's \"Freedom is not Enough\" speech, and declared that just outlawing discrimination in the country would not be enough to give everyone in America equality. He addressed the arguments that affirmative action hurt the white middle class and said that the policy was not the source of their problems. Clinton plainly outlined his stance on affirmative action, saying:\n\nThe National Conference of State Legislatures held in Washington D.C. stated in a 2014 overview that many supporters for affirmative action argue that policies stemming from affirmative action help to open doors for historically excluded groups in workplace settings and higher education. Workplace diversity has become a business management concept in which employers actively seek to promote an inclusive workplace. By valuing diversity, employers have the capacity to create an environment in which there is a culture of respect for individual differences as well as the ability to draw in talent and ideas from all segments of the population. By creating this diverse workforce, these employers and companies gain a competitive advantage in an increasingly global economy. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, many private sector employers have concluded that a diverse workforce makes a \"company stronger, more profitable, and a better place to work.\" Therefore, these diversity promoting policies are implemented for competitive reasons rather than as a response to discrimination, but have shown the value in having diversity.\n\nIn the year 2000, according to a study by American Association of University Professors (AAUP), affirmative action promoted diversity within colleges and universities. This has been shown to have positive effects on the educational outcomes and experiences of college students as well as the teaching of faculty members. According to a study by Geoffrey Maruyama and Jos\u00e9 F. Moreno, the results showed that faculty members believed diversity helps students to reach the essential goals of a college education, Caucasian students suffer no detrimental effects from classroom diversity, and that attention to multicultural learning improves the ability of colleges and universities to accomplish their missions. Furthermore, a diverse population of students offers unique perspectives in order to challenge preconceived notions through exposure to the experiences and ideas of others. According to Professor Gurin of the University of Michigan, skills such as \"perspective-taking, acceptance of differences, a willingness and capacity to find commonalities among differences, acceptance of conflict as normal, conflict resolution, participation in democracy, and interest in the wider social world\" can potentially be developed in college while being exposed to heterogeneous group of students. In addition, broadening perspectives helps students confront personal and substantive stereotypes and fosters discussion about racial and ethnic issues in a classroom setting. Furthermore, the 2000 AAUP study states that having a diversity of views leads to a better discussion and greater understanding among the students on issues of race, tolerance, fairness, etc.\n\nRichard Sander claims that by artificially elevating minority students into schools they otherwise would not be capable of attending, this discourages them and tends to engender failure and high dropout rates for these students. For example, about half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes, black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites, and interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched. He claims that the supposed \"beneficiaries\" of affirmative action \u2013 minorities \u2013 do not actually benefit and rather are harmed by the policy. Sander's claims have been disputed, and his empirical analyses have been subject to substantial criticism. A group including some of the country's lead statistical methodologists told the Supreme Court that Sander's analyses were sufficiently flawed that the Court would be wise to ignore them entirely. At the same time many scholars have found that minorities gain substantially from affirmative action.\n\nThe controversy surrounding affirmative action's effectiveness is based on the idea of class inequality. Opponents of racial affirmative action argue that the program actually benefits middle- and upper-class African Americans and Hispanic Americans at the expense of lower-class European Americans and Asian Americans. This argument supports the idea of class-based affirmative action. America's poor is disproportionately made up of people of color, so class-based affirmative action would disproportionately help people of color. This would eliminate the need for race-based affirmative action as well as reducing any disproportionate benefits for middle- and upper-class people of color.\n<Assistant>Thanks for the information. I've saved it.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-02 00:00]\n<User>Here are some facts I recently discovered:\nIn 1976, a group of Italian American professors at City University of New York asked to be added as an affirmative action category for promotion and hiring. Italian Americans are usually considered white in the US and would not be covered under affirmative action policies, but the professors believed they were underrepresented. Libertarian economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies.\n\nFrederick Lynch, the author of Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, did a study on white males that said they were victims of reverse discrimination. Lynch explains that these white men felt frustrated and unfairly victimized by affirmative action. Shelby Steele, another author against affirmative action, wanted to see affirmative action go back to its original meaning of enforcing equal opportunity. He argued that blacks had to take full responsibility in their education and in maintaining a job. Steele believes that there is still a long way to go in America to reach our goals of eradicating discrimination.\n\nTerry Eastland, the author who wrote From Ending Affirmative Action: The Case for Colorblind Justice states, \"Most arguments for affirmative action fall into two categories: remedying past discrimination and promoting diversity\". Eastland believes that the founders of affirmative action did not anticipate how the benefits of affirmative action would go to those who did not need it, mostly middle class minorities. Additionally, she argues that affirmative action carries with it a stigma that can create feelings of self-doubt and entitlement in minorities. Eastland believes that affirmative action is a great risk that only sometimes pays off, and that without it we would be able to compete more freely with one another. Libertarian economist Thomas Sowell identified what he says are negative results of affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor white or Asian); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best \u2013 the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile \u2013 thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they engender animosity toward preferred groups as well.:115\u2013147\n\nSome commentators have defined reverse discrimination as a policy or practice in which members of a majority are discriminated against in favor of a historically disadvantaged group or minority.[non-primary source needed] Many argue that reverse discrimination results from affirmative action policies and that these policies are just another form of discrimination no different from examples in the past. People like Ward Connerly assert that affirmative action requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate. According to these opponents, this contradiction might make affirmative action counter-productive. One argument for reverse discrimination is the idea that affirmative action encourages mediocrity and incompetence. Job positions would not be offered to the applicants who are the most qualified, but to applicants with a special trait such as a certain race, ethnicity, or gender. For example, opponents say affirmative action causes unprepared applicants to be accepted in highly demanding educational institutions or jobs which result in eventual failure (see, for example, Richard Sander's study of affirmative action in Law School, bar exam and eventual performance at law firms). Other opponents say that affirmative action lowers the bar and so denies those who strive for excellence on their own merit and the sense of real achievement. Opponents of affirmative action suggest that merit should be the primary factor considered in applying for job positions, college, graduate school, etc.\n\nAnother popular argument for affirmative action is the compensation argument. Blacks were mistreated in the past for a morally irrelevant characteristic of being black so society today should compensate for the injuries. This causes reverse discrimination in the form of preferential hirings, contracts, and scholarships as a means to ameliorate past wrongs. Many opponents argue that this form of reparation is morally indefensible because if blacks were harmed for being black in the past, then preferential treatment for this same trait is illogical. In addition, arguments are made that whites today who innocently benefited from past injustices should not be punished for something they had no control over. Therefore, they are being reverse discriminated against because they are receiving the punishment that should be given to people who willingly and knowingly benefited from discriminatory practices\n\nSome opponents further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages groups to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the disenfranchised within better-off groups (such as lower-class whites and Asians).There has recently been a strong push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions, in reaction to the controversial and unprecedented decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or sex in admissions considerations. Some opponents believe, among other things, that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who belong to a group it's supposed to help, therefore making affirmative action counter-productive. Furthermore, opponents of affirmative action claim that these policies dehumanize individuals and applicants to jobs or school are judged as members of a group without consideration for the individual person.\n<Assistant>I've processed this information and will remember it.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-03 00:00]\n<User>I want to tell you about some new discoveries:\nIn the US, a prominent form of racial preferences relates to access to education, particularly admission to universities and other forms of higher education. Race, ethnicity, native language, social class, geographical origin, parental attendance of the university in question (legacy admissions), and/or gender are sometimes taken into account when the university assesses an applicant's grades and test scores. Individuals can also be awarded scholarships and have fees paid on the basis of criteria listed above. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment. The Court said that \"goals\" and \"timetables\" for diversity could be set instead.\n\nThe racial preferences debate related to admission to US colleges and universities reflects competing notions of the mission of colleges: \"To what extent should they pursue scholarly excellence, to what extent civic goods, and how should these purposes be balanced?\". Scholars such as Ronald Dworkin have asserted that no college applicant has a right to expect that a university will design its admissions policies in a way that prizes any particular set of qualities. In this view, admission is not an honor bestowed to reward superior merit but rather a way to advance the mission as each university defines it. If diversity is a goal of the university and their racial preferences do not discriminate against applicants based on hatred or contempt, then affirmative action can be judged acceptable based on the criteria related to the mission the university sets for itself.\n\nTo accommodate the ruling in Hopwood v. Texas banning any use of race in school admissions, the State of Texas passed a law guaranteeing entry to any state university if a student finished in the top 10% of their graduating class. Florida and California have also replaced racial quotas with class rank and other criteria. Class rank tends to benefit top students at less competitive high schools, to the detriment of students at more competitive high schools. This effect, however, may be intentional since less-funded, less competitive schools are more likely to be schools where minority enrollment is high. Critics argue that class rank is more a measure of one's peers than of one's self. The top 10% rule adds racial diversity only because schools are still highly racially segregated because of residential patterns. The class rank rule has the same consequence as traditional affirmative action: opening schools to students who would otherwise not be admitted had the given school used a holistic, merit-based approach. From 1996 to 1998, Texas had merit-based admission to its state universities, and minority enrollment dropped. The state's adoption of the \"top 10 percent\" rule returned minority enrollment to pre-1996 levels.\n\nDuring a panel discussion at Harvard University's reunion for African American alumni during the 2003\u201304 academic year, two prominent black professors at the institution\u2014Lani Guinier and Henry Louis Gates\u2014pointed out an unintended effect of affirmative action policies at Harvard. They stated that only about a third of black Harvard undergraduates were from families in which all four grandparents were born into the African American community. The majority of black students at Harvard were Caribbean and African immigrants or their children, with some others the mixed-race children of biracial couples. One Harvard student, born in the South Bronx to a black family whose ancestors have been in the United States for multiple generations, said that there were so few Harvard students from the historic African American community that they took to calling themselves \"the descendants\" (i.e., descendants of American slaves). The reasons for this underrepresentation of historic African Americans, and possible remedies, remain a subject of debate.\n<Assistant>I understand. I'll keep this in mind.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-04 00:00]\n<User>I've gathered some additional data to share:\nUCLA professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004 issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of racial preferences in law schools. He noted that, prior to his article, there had been no comprehensive study on the effects of affirmative action. The article presents a study that shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam. The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended. Less qualified black students would attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched in abilities with their classmates and thus perform relatively better. Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibited the use of racial preferences by public universities in California. This change occurred after studies showed that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for whites.\n\nA study in 2007 by Mark Long, an economics professor at the University of Washington, demonstrated that the alternatives of affirmative action proved ineffective in restoring minority enrollment in public flagship universities in California, Texas, and Washington. More specifically, apparent rebounds of minority enrollment can be explained by increasing minority enrollment in high schools of those states, and the beneficiaries of class-based (not race) affirmative action would be white students. At the same time, affirmative action itself is both morally and materially costly: 52 percent of white populace (compared to 14 percent of black) thought it should be abolished, implying white distaste of using racial identity, and full-file review is expected to cost the universities an additional $1.5 million to $2 million per year, excluding possible cost of litigation.\n\nIn 2006, Jian Li, a Chinese undergraduate at Yale University, filed a civil rights complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against Princeton University, claiming that his race played a role in their decision to reject his application for admission and seeking the suspension of federal financial assistance to the university until it \"discontinues discrimination against Asian Americans in all forms\" by eliminating race and legacy preferences. Princeton Dean of Admissions Janet Rapelye responded to the claims in the November 30, 2006, issue of the Daily Princetonian by stating that \"the numbers don't indicate [discrimination].\" She said that Li was not admitted because \"many others had far better qualifications.\" Li's extracurricular activities were described as \"not all that outstanding\". Li countered in an email, saying that his placement on the waitlist undermines Rapelye's claim. \"Princeton had initially waitlisted my application,\" Li said. \"So if it were not for a yield which was higher than expected, the admissions office very well may have admitted a candidate whose \"outside activities were not all that outstanding\".\n<Assistant>Noted. I'll remember these details.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-05 00:00]\n<User>Let me tell you about some new developments:\nIn 2012, Abigail Fisher, an undergraduate student at Louisiana State University, and Rachel Multer Michalewicz, a law student at Southern Methodist University, filed a lawsuit to challenge the University of Texas admissions policy, asserting it had a \"race-conscious policy\" that \"violated their civil and constitutional rights\". The University of Texas employs the \"Top Ten Percent Law\", under which admission to any public college or university in Texas is guaranteed to high school students who graduate in the top ten percent of their high school class. Fisher has brought the admissions policy to court because she believes that she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas based on her race, and thus, her right to equal protection according to the 14th Amendment was violated. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher on October 10, 2012, and rendered an ambiguous ruling in 2013 that sent the case back to the lower court, stipulating only that the University must demonstrate that it could not achieve diversity through other, non-race sensitive means. In July 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that U of T maintained a \"holistic\" approach in its application of affirmative action, and could continue the practice. On February 10, 2015, lawyers for Fisher filed a new case in the Supreme Court. It is a renewed complaint that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit got the issue wrong \u2014 on the second try as well as on the first. The Supreme Court agreed in June 2015 to hear the case a second time. It will likely be decided by June 2016.\n\nOn November 17, 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation, filed lawsuits in federal district court challenging the admissions practices of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The UNC-Chapel Hill lawsuit alleges discrimination against white and Asian students, while the Harvard lawsuit focuses on discrimination against Asian applicants. Both universities requested the court to halt the lawsuits until the U.S. Supreme Court provides clarification of relevant law by ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin for the second time. This Supreme Court case will likely be decided in June 2016 or slightly earlier.\n\nIn May 2015, a coalition of more than 60 Asian-American organizations filed federal complaints with the Education and Justice Departments against Harvard University. The coalition asked for a civil rights investigation into what they described as Harvard's discriminatory admission practices against Asian-American applicants. The complaint asserts that recent studies indicate that Harvard has engaged in systematic and continuous discrimination against Asian Americans in its \"holistic\" admissions process. Asian-American applicants with near-perfect test scores, top-one-percent grade point averages, academic awards, and leadership positions are allegedly rejected by Harvard because the university uses racial stereotypes, racially differentiated standards, and de facto racial quotas. This federal complaint was dismissed in July 2015 because the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit makes similar allegations.\n\nThe competition is open to any eligible club down to Levels 10 of the English football league system - all 92 professional clubs in the Premier League and Football League (Levels 1 to 4), and several hundred \"non-league\" teams in Steps 1 to 6 of the National League System (Levels 5 to 10). A record 763 clubs competed in 2011\u201312. The tournament consists of 12 randomly drawn rounds followed by the semi-finals and the final. Entrants are not seeded, although a system of byes based on league level ensures higher ranked teams enter in later rounds - the minimum number of games needed to win the competition ranges from six to fourteen.\n\nThe first six rounds are the Qualifying Competition, from which 32 teams progress to the first round of the Competition Proper, meeting the first of the 92 professional teams. The last entrants are the Premier League and Championship clubs, into the draw for the Third Round Proper. In the modern era, non-league teams have never reached the quarter finals, and teams below Level 2 have never reached the final.[note 1] As a result, as well as who wins, significant focus is given to those \"minnows\" (smaller teams) who progress furthest, especially if they achieve an unlikely \"giant-killing\" victory.\n\nWinners receive the FA Cup trophy, of which there have been two designs and five actual cups; the latest is a 2014 replica of the second design, introduced in 1911. Winners also qualify for European football and a place in the FA Community Shield match. Arsenal are the current holders, having beaten Aston Villa 4\u20130 in the 2015 final to win the cup for the second year in a row. It was their 12th FA Cup title overall, making Arsenal the FA Cup's most successful club ahead of Manchester United on 11.\n<Assistant>Understood. I'll keep these facts for future reference.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-06 00:00]\n<User>Here are some new facts I learnt just now:\nIn 1863, the newly founded Football Association (the FA) published the Laws of the Game of Association Football, unifying the various different rules in use before then. On 20 July 1871, in the offices of The Sportsman newspaper, the FA Secretary C. W. Alcock proposed to the FA committee that \"it is desirable that a Challenge Cup should be established in connection with the Association for which all clubs belonging to the Association should be invited to compete\". The inaugural FA Cup tournament kicked off in November 1871. After thirteen games in all, Wanderers were crowned the winners in the final, on 16 March 1872. Wanderers retained the trophy the following year. The modern cup was beginning to be established by the 1888\u201389 season, when qualifying rounds were introduced.\n\nFollowing the 1914\u201315 edition, the competition was suspended due to the First World War, and didn't resume until 1919\u201320. The 1922\u201323 competition saw the first final to be played in the newly opened Wembley Stadium (known at the time as the Empire Stadium). Due to the outbreak of World War II, the competition wasn't played between the 1938\u201339 and 1945\u201346 editions. Due to the wartime breaks, the competition didn't celebrate its centenary year until 1980\u201381; fittingly the final featured a goal by Ricky Villa which was later voted the greatest goal ever scored at Wembley Stadium, but has since been replaced by Steven Gerrard.\n\nThe competition is open to any club down to Level 10 of the English football league system which meets the eligibility criteria. All clubs in the top four levels (the Premier League and the three divisions of the Football League) are automatically eligible. Clubs in the next six levels (non-league football) are also eligible provided they have played in either the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase competitions in the previous season. Newly formed clubs, such as F.C. United of Manchester in 2005\u201306 and also 2006\u201307, may not therefore play in the FA Cup in their first season. All clubs entering the competition must also have a suitable stadium.\n\nIt is very rare for top clubs to miss the competition, although it can happen in exceptional circumstances. Defending holders Manchester United did not enter the 1999\u20132000 FA Cup, as they were already in the inaugural Club World Championship, with the club stating that entering both tournaments would overload their fixture schedule and make it more difficult to defend their Champions League and Premiership titles. The club claimed that they did not want to devalue the FA Cup by fielding a weaker side. The move benefited United as they received a two-week break and won the 1999\u20132000 league title by an 18-point margin, although they did not progress past the group stage of the Club World Championship. The withdrawal from the FA Cup, however, drew considerable criticism as this weakened the tournament's prestige and Sir Alex Ferguson later admitted his regret regarding their handling of the situation.\n<Assistant>Wonderful. I'll remember these key points.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-07 00:00]\n<User>I want to share some knowledge I just acquired:\nWelsh sides that play in English leagues are eligible, although since the creation of the League of Wales there are only six clubs remaining: Cardiff City (the only non-English team to win the tournament, in 1927), Swansea City, Newport County, Wrexham, Merthyr Town and Colwyn Bay. In the early years other teams from Wales, Ireland and Scotland also took part in the competition, with Glasgow side Queen's Park losing the final to Blackburn Rovers in 1884 and 1885 before being barred from entering by the Scottish Football Association. In the 2013\u201314 season the first Channel Island club entered the competition when Guernsey F.C. competed for the first time.\n\nThe number of entrants has increased greatly in recent years. In the 2004\u201305 season, 660 clubs entered the competition, beating the long-standing record of 656 from the 1921\u201322 season. In 2005\u201306 this increased to 674 entrants, in 2006\u201307 to 687, in 2007\u201308 to 731 clubs, and for the 2008\u201309 and 2009\u201310 competitions it reached 762. The number has varied slightly but remained roughly stable since then, with 759 clubs participating in 2010\u201311, a record 763 in 2011\u201312, 758 for 2012\u201313, 737 for 2013\u201314 and 736 for 2014\u201315. By comparison, the other major English domestic cup, the League Cup, involves only the 92 members of the Premier League and Football League.\n\nBeginning in August, the competition proceeds as a knockout tournament throughout, consisting of twelve rounds, a semi-final and then a final, in May. A system of byes ensures clubs above Level 9 and 10 enter the competition at later stages. There is no seeding, the fixtures in each round being determined by a random draw. Prior to the semi-finals, fixtures ending in a tie are replayed once only. The first six rounds are qualifiers, with the draws organised on a regional basis. The next six rounds are the \"proper\" rounds where all clubs are in one draw.\n\nThe final is normally held the Saturday after the Premier League season finishes in May. The only seasons in recent times when this pattern was not followed were 1999\u20132000, when most rounds were played a few weeks earlier than normal as an experiment, and 2010\u201311 and 2012\u201313 when the FA Cup Final was played before the Premier League season had finished, to allow Wembley Stadium to be ready for the UEFA Champions League final, as well as in 2011\u201312 to allow England time to prepare for that summer's European Championships.\n\nUntil the 1990s further replays would be played until one team was victorious. Some ties took as many as six matches to settle; in their 1975 campaign, Fulham played a total of 12 games over six rounds, which remains the most games played by a team to reach a final. Replays were traditionally played three or four days after the original game, but from 1991\u201392 they were staged at least 10 days later on police advice. This led to penalty shoot-outs being introduced, the first of which came on 26 November 1991 when Rotherham United eliminated Scunthorpe United.\n\nThe FA Cup winners qualify for the following season's UEFA Europa League (formerly named the UEFA Cup; until 1998 they entered the Cup Winners' Cup instead). This European place applies even if the team is relegated or is not in the English top flight. In the past, if the FA Cup winning team also qualified for the following season's Champions League or Europa League through their league position, then the losing FA Cup finalist was given the Europa League place instead. FA Cup winners enter the Europa League at the group stage. Losing finalists, if they entered the Europa League, began earlier, at the play-off or third qualifying round stage. From the 2015\u201316 UEFA Europa League season, however, UEFA will not allow the runners-up to qualify for the Europa League through the competition.\n\nThe semi-finals have been played exclusively at the rebuilt Wembley Stadium since 2008, one year after it opened and after it had already hosted a final (in 2007). For the first decade of the competition, the Kennington Oval was used as the semi-final venue. In the period between this first decade and the reopening of Wembley, semi-finals were played at high-capacity neutral venues around England; usually the home grounds of teams not involved in that semi-final, chosen to be roughly equidistant between the two teams for fairness of travel. The top three most used venues in this period were Villa Park in Birmingham (55 times), Hillsborough in Sheffield (34 times) and Old Trafford in Manchester (23 times). The original Wembley Stadium was also used seven times for semi-final, between 1991 and 2000 (the last held there), but not always for fixtures featuring London teams. In 2005, both were held at the Millennium Stadium.\n\nIn 2003 the FA took the decision to permanently use the new Wembley for semi-finals to recoup debts in financing the new stadium. This was controversial, with the move seen as both unfair to fans of teams located far from London, as well as taking some of the prestige away from a Wembley final. In defending the move, the FA has also cited the extra capacity Wembley offers, although the 2013 fixture between Millwall and Wigan led to the unprecedented step of placing 6,000 tickets on sale to neutral fans after the game failed to sell out. A fan poll by The Guardian in 2013 found 86% opposition to Wembley semi-finals.\n\nThe final has been played at the rebuilt Wembley Stadium since it opened, in 2007. The rebuilding process meant that between 2001 and 2006 they were hosted at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff in Wales. Prior to rebuilding, the final was hosted by the original Wembley Stadium since it opened in 1923 (being originally named the Empire Stadium). One exception to this 78 year series of Empire Stadium finals (including five replays) was the 1970 replay between Leeds and Chelsea, held at Old Trafford in Manchester.\n\nIn the 51 years prior to the Empire Stadium opening, the final (including 8 replays) was held in a variety of locations, predominantly in London, and mainly at the Kennington Oval and then Crystal Palace. It was played 22 times in the Oval (the inaugural competition in 1872, and then all but two times until 1892). After the Oval, Crystal Palace hosted 21 finals from 1895 to 1914, broken up by 4 four replays elsewhere. The other London venues were Stamford Bridge from 1920 to 1922 (the last three finals before the move to Empire Stadium); and Oxford University's Lillie Bridge in Fulham for the second ever final, in 1873. The other venues used sparingly in this period were all outside of London, as follows:\n<Assistant>I've captured all of this valuable information.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-08 00:00]\n<User>The following are some more news I learnt:\nThe FA permitted artificial turf (3G) pitches in all rounds of the competition from the 2014\u201315 edition and beyond. Under the 2015-16 rules, the pitch must be of FIFA One Star quality, or Two Star for ties if they involve one of the 92 professional clubs. This followed approval two years previously for their use in the qualifying rounds only - if a team with a 3G pitch progressed to the competition proper, they had to switch their tie to the ground of another eligible entrant with a natural grass pitch. Having been strong proponents of the surface, the first match in the proper rounds to be played on a 3G surface was a televised first round replay at Maidstone United's Gallagher Stadium on 20 November 2015.\n\nThe trophy comes in three parts - the cup itself, plus a lid and a base. There have been two designs of trophy in use, but five physical trophies have been presented. The original trophy, known as the \"little tin idol\", was 18 inches high and made by Martin, Hall & Co. It was stolen in 1895 and never recovered, and so was replaced by an exact replica, used until 1910. The FA decided to change the design after the 1909 winners, Manchester United, made their own replica, leading the FA to realise they did not own the copyright. This new, larger design was by Messers Fattorini and Sons, and was used from 1911. In order to preserve this original, from 1992 it was replaced by an exact replica, although this had to be replaced after just over two decades, after showing wear and tear from being handled more than in previous eras. This third replica, first used in 2014, was built heavier to withstand the increased handling. Of the four surviving trophies, only the 1895 replica has entered private ownership.\n\nThe name of the winning team is engraved on the silver band around the base as soon as the final has finished, in order to be ready in time for the presentation ceremony. This means the engraver has just five minutes to perform a task which would take twenty under normal conditions, although time is saved by engraving the year on during the match, and sketching the presumed winner. During the final, the trophy wears is decorated with ribbons in the colours of both finalists, with the loser's ribbons being removed at the end of the game. Traditionally, at Wembley finals, the presentation is made at the Royal Box, with players, led by the captain, mounting a staircase to a gangway in front of the box and returning by a second staircase on the other side of the box. At Cardiff the presentation was made on a podium on the pitch.\n\nThe tradition of presenting the trophy immediately after the game did not start until the 1882 final; after the first final in 1872 the trophy was not presented to the winners, Wanderers, until a reception held four weeks later in the Pall Mall Restaurant in London. Under the original rules, the trophy was to be permanently presented to any club which won the competition three times, although when inaugural winners Wanderers achieved this feat by the 1876 final, the rules were changed by FA Secretary CW Alcock (who was also captain of Wanderers in their first victory).\n\nAlmost 60 years later, 80 year old career criminal Henry (Harry) James Burge claimed to have committed the theft, confessing to a newspaper, with the story being published in the Sunday Pictorial newspaper on 23 February 1958. He claimed to have carried out the robbery with two other men, although when discrepancies with a contemporaneous report in the Birmingham Post newspaper (the crime pre-dated written police reports) in his account of the means of entry and other items stolen, detectives decided there was no realistic possibility of a conviction and the case was closed. Burge claimed the cup had been melted down to make counterfeit half-crown coins, which matched known intelligence of the time, in which stolen silver was being used to forge coins which were then laundered through betting shops at a local racecourse, although Burge had no past history of forgery in a record of 42 previous convictions for which he had spent 42 years in prison. He had been further imprisoned in 1957 for seven years for theft from cars. Released in 1961, he died in 1964.\n\nAfter being rendered obsolete by the redesign, the 1895 replica was presented in 1910 to the FA's long-serving president Lord Kinnaird. Kinnaird died in 1923, and his family kept it in their possession, out of view, until putting it up for auction in 2005. It was duly sold at Christie's auction house on 19 May 2005 for \u00a3420,000 (\u00a3478,400 including auction fees and taxes). The sale price set a new world record for a piece of football memorabilia, surpassing the \u00a3254,000 paid for the Jules Rimet World Cup Trophy in 1997. The successful bidder was David Gold, the then joint chairman of Birmingham City; claiming the FA and government were doing nothing proactive to ensure the trophy remained in the country, Gold stated his purchase was motivated by wanting to save it for the nation. Accordingly, Gold presented the trophy to the National Football Museum in Preston on 20 April 2006, where it went on immediate public display. It later moved with the museum to its new location in Manchester. In November 2012, it was ceremonially presented to Royal Engineers, after they beat Wanderers 7\u20131 in a charity replay of the first FA Cup final.\n\nSince the start of the 1994\u201395 season, the FA Cup has been sponsored. However, to protect the identity of the competition, the sponsored name has always included 'The FA Cup' in addition to the sponsor's name, unlike sponsorship deals for the League Cup where the word 'cup' is preceded by only the sponsor's name. Sponsorship deals run for four years, though \u2013 as in the case of E.ON \u2013 one-year extensions may be agreed. Emirates airline is the sponsor from 2015 to 2018, renaming the competition as 'The Emirates FA Cup', unlike previous editions, which included 'The FA Cup in association with E.ON' and 'The FA Cup with Budweiser'.\n\nThe possibility of unlikely victories in the earlier rounds of the competition, where lower ranked teams beat higher placed opposition, known as \"giant killings\", is much anticipated by the public, and is considered an integral part of the tradition and prestige of the competition, alongside that gained by teams winning the competition. Almost every club in the League Pyramid has a fondly remembered giant-killing act in its history. It is considered particularly newsworthy when a top Premier League team suffers an upset defeat, or where the giant-killer is a non-league club, i.e. from outside the professional levels of The Football League.\n<Assistant>I've captured all of this valuable information.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-09 00:00]\n<User>I've gathered some additional data to share:\nThe Football League was founded in 1888, 16 years after the first FA Cup competition. Since the creation of The Football League, Tottenham Hotspur is the only non-league \"giant-killer\" to win the Cup, taking the 1901 FA Cup with a victory over reigning league runners-up Sheffield United: although at that time, there were only two divisions and 36 clubs in the Football League, and Spurs were champions of the next lowest football tier - the Southern League and probably already good enough for the First Division (as was shown when they joined the Second Division in 1908 and immediately won promotion to the First.) Only two other actual non-League clubs have even reached the final since the founding of the League: Sheffield Wednesday in 1890 (champions of the Football Alliance, a rival league which was already effectively the Second Division, which it formally became in 1892 \u2013 Wednesday being let straight into the First Division), and Southampton in 1900 and 1902 (in which years they were also Southern League champions, proving the strength of that league: again, they were probably of equivalent standard to a First Division club at the time, but Southampton's form subsequently faded and they did not join the League till 1920 and the formation of the Third Division.)\n\nChasetown, whilst playing at Level 8 of English football during the 2007\u201308 competition, are the lowest-ranked team to play in the Third Round Proper (final 64, of 731 teams entered that season). Chasetown was then a member of the Southern League Division One Midlands (a lower level within the Southern Football League), when they lost to Football League Championship (Level 2) team Cardiff City, the eventual FA Cup runners-up that year. Their success earned the lowly organisation over \u00a360,000 in prize money.\n\nSeven clubs have won the FA Cup as part of a League and Cup double, namely Preston North End (1889), Aston Villa (1897), Tottenham Hotspur (1961), Arsenal (1971, 1998, 2002), Liverpool (1986), Manchester United (1994, 1996, 1999) and Chelsea (2010). In 1993, Arsenal became the first side to win both the FA Cup and the League Cup in the same season when they beat Sheffield Wednesday 2\u20131 in both finals. Liverpool (in 2001) and Chelsea (in 2007) have since repeated this feat. In 2012, Chelsea accomplished a different cup double consisting of the FA Cup and the 2012 Champions League. In 1998\u201399, Manchester United added the 1999 Champions League title to their league and cup double to complete a unique Treble. Two years later, in 2000\u201301, Liverpool won the FA Cup, League Cup and UEFA Cup to complete a cup treble. An English Treble has never been achieved.\n\nThe final has never been contested by two teams from outside the top division and there have only been eight winners who weren't in the top flight: Notts County (1894); Tottenham Hotspur (1901); Wolverhampton Wanderers (1908); Barnsley (1912); West Bromwich Albion (1931); Sunderland (1973), Southampton (1976) and West Ham United (1980). With the exception of Tottenham, these clubs were all playing in the second tier (the old Second Division) - Tottenham were playing in the Southern League and were only elected to the Football League in 1908, meaning they are the only non-league winners of the FA Cup. Other than Tottenham's victory, only 24 finalists have come from outside English football's top tier, with a record of 7 wins and 17 runners-up: and none at all from the third tier or lower, Southampton (1902) being the last finalist from outside the top two tiers.\n<Assistant>Perfect. I've stored this information in my memory.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-10 00:00]\n<User>Let me provide you with some new details:\nIn the early years of coverage the BBC had exclusive radio coverage with a picture of the pitch marked in the Radio Times with numbered squares to help the listener follow the match on the radio. The first FA Cup Final on Radio was in 1926 between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City but this was only broadcast in Manchester, the first national final on BBC Radio was between Arsenal and Cardiff in 1927. The first final on BBC Television was in 1937 in a match which featured Sunderland and Preston North End but this was not televised in full. The following season's final between Preston and Huddersfield was covered in full by the BBC. When ITV was formed in 1955 they shared final coverage with the BBC in one of the only club matches shown live on television, during the 1970s and 1980s coverage became more elaborate with BBC and ITV trying to steal viewers from the others by starting coverage earlier and earlier some starting as early as 9 a.m. which was six hours before kick off. Nowadays, this continues with Setanta and ESPN having all-day broadcasts from Wembley, but terrestrial TV coverage usually begins two hours before kick off. The sharing of rights between BBC and ITV continued from 1955 to 1988, when ITV lost coverage to the new Sports Channel which later became Sky Sports.\n\nFrom 1988 to 1997, the BBC and Sky Sports had coverage of the FA Cup, the BBC had highlights on Match of the Day and usually one match per round while Sky had the same deal. From 1997 to 2001, ITV and Sky shared live coverage with both having two matches per round and BBC continuing with highlights on Match of the Day. From 2002 to 2008, BBC and Sky again shared coverage with BBC having two or three matches per round and Sky having one or two. From 2008\u201309 to 2013\u201314, FA Cup matches are shown live by ITV across England and Wales, with UTV broadcasting to Northern Ireland but STV refusing to show them. ITV shows 16 FA Cup games per season, including the first pick of live matches from each of the first to sixth rounds of the competition, plus one semi-final exclusively live. The final is also shown live on ITV. Under the same 2008 contract, Setanta Sports showed three games and one replay in each round from round three to five, two quarter-finals, one semi-final and the final. The channel also broadcast ITV's matches exclusively to Scotland, after the ITV franchise holder in Scotland, STV, decided not to broadcast FA Cup games. Setanta entered administration in June 2009 and as a result the FA terminated Setanta's deal to broadcast FA-sanctioned competitions and England internationals. As a result of Setanta going out of business ITV showed the competition exclusively in the 2009\u201310 season with between three and four matches per round, all quarter finals, semi-finals and final live as the FA could not find a pay TV broadcaster in time. ESPN bought the competition for the 2010\u201311 to 2012\u201313 season and during this time Rebecca Lowe became the first woman to host the FA Cup Final in the UK.\n\nMany[who?] expected BSkyB to make a bid to show some of the remaining FA Cup games for the remainder of the 2009\u201310 season which would include a semi-final and shared rights to the final. ESPN took over the package Setanta held for the FA Cup from the 2010\u201311 season. The 2011 final was also shown live on Sky 3D in addition to ESPN (who provided the 3D coverage for Sky 3D) and ITV. Following the sale of ESPN's UK and Ireland channels to BT, ESPN's rights package transferred to BT Sport from the 2013\u201314 season.\n\nThe region, as part of Lorraine, was part of the Holy Roman Empire, and then was gradually annexed by France in the 17th century, and formalized as one of the provinces of France. The Calvinist manufacturing republic of Mulhouse, known as Stadtrepublik M\u00fclhausen, became a part of Alsace after a vote by its citizens on 4 January 1798. Alsace is frequently mentioned with and as part of Lorraine and the former duchy of Lorraine, since it was a vital part of the duchy, and later because German possession as the imperial province (Alsace-Lorraine, 1871\u20131918) was contested in the 19th and 20th centuries; France and Germany exchanged control of parts of Lorraine (including Alsace) four times in 75 years.\n<Assistant>Excellent. I've documented all of this information."]
[{"question": "What is one of the issues with affirmative action?", "answer": "inherently unequal"}, {"question": "What did President Clinton claim would not be enough to give everyone in American equality?", "answer": "just outlawing discrimination"}, {"question": "Where was the National Conference of State Legislatures held in 2014?", "answer": "Washington D.C."}, {"question": "Who supposedly suffers no detrimental effects from classroom diversity?", "answer": "Caucasian students"}, {"question": "In which year did the AAUP release their study?", "answer": "2000"}, {"question": "Who claims that artificially raising minority students into schools has a negative effect on them?", "answer": "Richard Sander"}, {"question": "What was a negative effect of affirmative action according to Richard Sander?", "answer": "high dropout rates"}, {"question": "Where do half of the black college students rank in terms of their performance relative to the rest of their class?", "answer": "bottom 20 percent"}, {"question": "What is the failure rate for black law school graduates compared to whites for the bar exam?", "answer": "four times"}, {"question": "Which idea is the controversy of affirmative action primarily based upon?", "answer": "class inequality"}, {"question": "At who's expense other than Asian Americans are upper-class African Americans and Hispanic Americans supposedly benefiting?", "answer": "lower-class European Americans"}, {"question": "What do some people believe should be the basis for affirmative action instead of race based legislation?", "answer": "class-based affirmative action"}, {"question": "Who primarily makes up America's poor group?", "answer": "people of color"}, {"question": "Which year did the Italian American Professors make their request?", "answer": "1976"}, {"question": "What moral position does Shelby Steele hold?", "answer": "against affirmative action"}, {"question": "What does Shelby Steele believe that the true concept of affirmative action is?", "answer": "enforcing equal opportunity"}, {"question": "What is a typical argument in favor of affirmative action?", "answer": "compensation argument"}, {"question": "Other than failing to achieve its goal, what else do opponents to affirmative action claim it has?", "answer": "undesirable side-effects"}, {"question": "Other than benefiting more privileged people within minority groups, what is another argument against affirmative action?", "answer": "may increase racial tension"}, {"question": "How many Michigan voters elected to ban affirmative action for university admissions?", "answer": "60%"}, {"question": "What is another term for kids who get preferential treatment due to their parents attending the same university?", "answer": "legacy admissions"}, {"question": "What is one example of what racial quotas were replaced with?", "answer": "class rank"}, {"question": "What was going on at Harvard University during the 2003 - 04 academic year?", "answer": "a panel discussion"}, {"question": "What portion of black Harvard undergraduates came from families in which all four grandparents were born into the African American community?", "answer": "a third"}, {"question": "What did the African American students at Harvard that could trace their lineage back multiple generations begin calling themselves?", "answer": "the descendants"}, {"question": "Other than the reasons for the under representation of African Americans, what else is still up for debate?", "answer": "possible remedies"}, {"question": "To which university does Richard H. Sander belong?", "answer": "UCLA"}, {"question": "How much does the article estimate the black lawyer population would potentially grow if affirmative action was ended?", "answer": "eight percent"}, {"question": "In which year did Long publish his study?", "answer": "2007"}, {"question": "Who would supposedly be the beneficiaries of a class-based style affirmative action?", "answer": "white students"}, {"question": "What percentage of the black population thought affirmative action should be abolished?", "answer": "14"}, {"question": "With which organization did Li file a civil rights complaint?", "answer": "Office for Civil Rights"}, {"question": "Which university was Li alleging racial discrimination against?", "answer": "Princeton University"}, {"question": "Which University had a lawsuit filed against it?", "answer": "University of Texas"}, {"question": "What did the plaintiffs claim the university had for an admissions policy?", "answer": "race-conscious policy"}, {"question": "When will the Supreme Court likely hear the case for the second time?", "answer": "June 2016"}, {"question": "How many Asian organizations were involved in filing the federal complaints?", "answer": "more than 60"}, {"question": "Who did the organizations file the complaints with?", "answer": "Education and Justice Departments"}, {"question": "Who was the target of the filing?", "answer": "Harvard University"}, {"question": "Who is the competition open too?", "answer": "any eligible club"}, {"question": "How many clubs competed in 20011-12?", "answer": "763 clubs"}, {"question": "How many rounds in the tournament?", "answer": "12"}, {"question": "How many games are needed to win?", "answer": "six to fourteen"}, {"question": "What rounds are the qualifiers?", "answer": "first six rounds"}, {"question": "How many teams in the first round?", "answer": "92 professional teams."}, {"question": "What do winners receive?", "answer": "the FA Cup trophy"}, {"question": "How many FA cup designs have there been?", "answer": "two"}, {"question": "How many FA cups have there been?", "answer": "five actual cups"}, {"question": "When did the inaugural  FA cup tournament take place?", "answer": "November 1871"}, {"question": "When did Wembly stadium open?", "answer": "1922\u201323"}, {"question": "What was Webly stadium called at that time?", "answer": "Empire Stadium"}, {"question": "How many clubs entered in 2005-06?", "answer": "674"}, {"question": "How many clubs entered in 2006-07?", "answer": "687"}, {"question": "How many clubs entered in 2007-08?", "answer": "731"}, {"question": "When is the final?", "answer": "May"}, {"question": "What is the cup called now?", "answer": "Cup Winners' Cup"}, {"question": "Where is Millennium Stadium located?", "answer": "Cardiff in Wales"}, {"question": "How many times has Crystal Palce hosted the FA cup?", "answer": "21"}, {"question": "How many replays took place at the Oval?", "answer": "8 replays"}, {"question": "How many professional clubs are there?", "answer": "92"}, {"question": "How long go did this crime take place?", "answer": "60 years"}, {"question": "Who was the long-serving president of the FA cup?", "answer": "Lord Kinnaird"}, {"question": "Who won the bid?", "answer": "David Gold"}, {"question": "What is the competition called now?", "answer": "The Emirates FA Cup"}, {"question": "What year did they win the cup?", "answer": "1901"}, {"question": "Who did they delete for the cup?", "answer": "Sheffield United"}, {"question": "Who is the lowest rank to play in the  third round proper?", "answer": "Chasetown"}, {"question": "What place did Chasetown come in?", "answer": "final 64"}, {"question": "What year did that take place?", "answer": "1993"}, {"question": "Who was the first outside club to win?", "answer": "Notts County"}, {"question": "What year did that take place?", "answer": "1894"}, {"question": "Who took over after ESPN?", "answer": "BT Sport"}, {"question": "Which other country had control over Alsace?", "answer": "France"}, {"question": "How many times did Germany and France switched and had control of Alscace?", "answer": "four times"}]