Given the way-leftness of many/most sociologists, it is commonly claimed that there is a bias against students who choose to do papers that adopt conservative positions on issues of the day. I'm sure this probably happens, sometimes, although I'm equally sure its incidence rate is massively exaggerated. Myself, I have always found it more interesting when students take positions that disagree with my own, and, besides, I think that, if anything, I personally may be more likely to give conservative papers more of a benefit of the doubt because I am paranoid about being unfairly biased.
In any event, of the common conservative stances taken in undergraduate social science classes, perhaps none is so popular among white students as to argue against race-based affirmative action in college admissions. This is all fine, except students should recognize that there is some irony to their passionate opinion if the paper they turn in is completely ineptly and lazily done. Put yourself in the professor's shoes: imagine reading a paper that sloppily manages to make every junior-high and high-school compositional error as it sounds off on how there are all these hyperdeserving white kids who are being denied admission to your university because their spaces are being devoured by that enormous proportion of students--maybe here at UW as high as 3-4 percent!--who are black. You can perhaps understand how a professor might wonder whether these hordes of deserving whites denied admission are instead being more obviously wronged by whatever admissions policy happened to let your seemingly-undeserving-sorry-self through the door.
(Post prompted by/pilfered from a conversation with DH)