# data[].attributes.body
"In fall 2013, of all full-time faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 43 percent were White males, 35 percent were White females, 3 percent were Black males, 3 percent were Black females, 2 percent were Hispanic males, 2 percent were Hispanic females, 6 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander males, and 4 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander females. Making up less than 1 percent each were full-time faculty who were American Indian/Alaska Native and of Two or more races. Among full-time professors, 58 percent were White males, 26 percent were White females, 2 percent were Black males, 1 percent were Black females, 2 percent were Hispanic males, 1 percent were Hispanic females, 7 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander males, and 2 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander females. Making up less than 1 percent each were professors who were American Indian/Alaska Native and of Two or more races."
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

# data[].attributes.body
1As President Lyndon Johnson said in 1965, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair."

President Johnson's speech eloquently stated the rationale behind the contemporary use of affirmative action programs to achieve equal opportunity, especially in the fields of employment and higher education.

The emphasis is on opportunity: affirmative action programs are meant to break down barriers, both visible and invisible, to level the playing field, and to make sure everyone is given an equal break. They are not meant to guarantee equal results -- but instead proceed on the common-sense notion that if equality of opportunity were a reality, African Americans, women, people with disabilities and other groups facing discrimination would be fairly represented in the nation's work force and educational institutions.

The debate over affirmative action demarcates a philosophical divide, separating those with sharply different views of the "American dilemma" -- how the nation should treat African Americans, other people of color and women. This division centers on a number of questions: to what extent discrimination and bias persist, especially in a systemic way; to what degree affirmative action programs have been effective in providing otherwise unavailable opportunities in education, employment, and business; and to what extent affirmative action programs appear to unduly benefit African Americans and other people of color at the expense of the white majority.

The continuing need for affirmative action is demonstrated by the data. For example, the National Asian and Pacific American Legal Consortium reports that although white men make up only 48% of the college-educated workforce, they hold over 90% of the top jobs in the news media, 96% of CEO positions, 86% of law firm partnerships, and 85% of tenured college faculty positions.

Affirmative action is not, as some critics charge, a uniquely modern concept fashioned by contemporary liberals in defiance of history or tradition. Although the techniques that we now call "affirmative action" are of fairly recent design, the conceptual recognition of the need to take affirmative, or positive legal action to redress discrimination's impact, rather than simply ending discrimination, has been around since the Civil War. During Reconstruction (the period immediately after the Civil War), the Constitution was amended and other federal initiatives, such as the creation of the Freedman's Bureau, were undertaken to establish equal opportunity for the former slaves. These initiatives were at least modestly successful, bringing about African American participation in elections for the first time.
The court's decision in Adarand emboldened affirmative action's opponents to launch a full-scale assault in Congress and in state legislatures, as well as in the courts. They saw some success on the state level, as California enacted Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibits all affirmative action programs in employment, education, and contracting. The State of Washington followed suit as well, with Initiative 200. The effect of such efforts soon became clear, as the number of African Americans and Latinos admitted to California's top public universities quickly plummeted. Such initiatives, however, have failed in other states.

At the federal level, President Clinton immediately made clear his determination to "mend, not end" affirmative action in light of the Adarand decision. And the Administration's efforts paid off. Affirmative action's opponents failed in their attempts to move legislation in the late 1990s that would have banned all federal affirmative action programs. In fact, in 1998, Congress reauthorized the disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program run by the Department of Transportation (DOT) by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

This DBE program directs that not less than 10% of funds appropriated for federal transportation procurement should be expended with small disadvantaged business enterprises (generally owned and controlled by women and minorities; however, socially and economically disadvantaged white males are also eligible to compete in the program). The DBE program relies on a system of aspirational goals established by states and localities based on the local availability of qualified DBEs. DOT has never penalized a state of locality for failing to achieve its goals, and the program explicitly prohibits quotas.

While consistently maintaining the constitutionality of its DBE regulations, the Department of Transportation made further changes in the DBE designed to improve the program's effectiveness and tailor it even more narrowly in response to the 1995 Adarand decision. In the fall of 2000, the 10th Circuit agreed, concluding that the regulations satisfied strict scrutiny because they were justified by the government's compelling interest in ending discrimination against minority contractors and they were appropriately and narrowly tailored. In 2001, the Supreme Court accepted this case for review.
affirmitvie action helps

# data[].attributes.body
Women earn approximately 77 cents for every dollar men earn. Minority women fare
significantly worse - black women earn 66 cents, while Hispanic women earn 56 cents for every
dollar men earn. (“Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 1999,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, May 2000)

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence that affirmative action should be legal.

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence that affirmative action should be legal.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2002, the median household
income for whites was $44,964, compared with
$29,177 for blacks.

Blacks have the highest poverty rate at 24.1% and Non-Hispanic whites the lowest at 9%.

The Poverty rate for Blacks and Hispanics is more than double that of non-Hispanic Whites.

Therefore, affirmative actions should remain legal, so that minorities will be able to advance. In other words, it gives everyone an equal playing field.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inductive reasoning for Affirmative Action

# data[].attributes.subject
Inductive reasoning for Affirmative Action

# data[].attributes.body
In 1965 only 5% of undergraduate students, 1% of law students, 2% of medical students were African American. After President Johnson's executive order to force government agencies to adopt affirmative action policies. Colleges across America followed suit. More underrepresented and previously oppressed minorities began to receive higher paying occupations.

Recently the NCES has noted that 69% of white students enrolled directly in college compared to 65%, and 63% of black and Hispanic students, respectively.

Therefore Affirmative Action policies should continue to be legal in the United States to aid minorities in achieving higher paying occupations, and to reverse years of discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/bdbellamy1/gxvr41qu2kiy