Affirmative action in the United States is morally justified.

Sorry this is my first time debating on this site so i was unaware of the protocol i was breaking by asking you to go 1st. Go ahead and correct me if I'm outa line on anything else in the future. I offer the following framework to the debate- Justice is defined as a good-willed solution to a problem. Affirmative action, as defined in accordance to the U. S. government, is individual preferences benefiting those historically excluded, that takes into account other factors than merit. For a debate about justice of an idea, we cannot look at specific examples of Affirmative Action to see the big picture; there are simply too many ways to implement it. Instead we must access if giving those disadvantaged by factors out of their control deserve an equalizing boost. As the pro, we will demonstrate that it is indeed justified to equalize the playing field, even if we have to look onto factors such outside of merit. That being said, my 1st contention is the status quo. Rawls Difference principle of philosophy permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. If this was a perfect world, we wouldn't have an insurmountable class structure; if this was a perfect world we wouldn't need Affirmative action, which like the Civil rights movement, is the next stepping stone to equality. Contention1 (status quo) A)The Status quo is that of discrimination and racism, putting the non-majority groups at a disadvantage. Even with affirmative action (and much more so if it were to be eliminated), African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and American Indians face grossly unequal opportunity in American society. If you are born as a member of any of these groups, you will be two to three times as likely to be born into poverty. These disadvantages are not just economic; in a recent study done by Dr. Marianne Bertrand, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, she found that resumes with African American names has a 50% less call-back rate that their white counterparts regardless of qualifications. B)The Status quo gives unjust advantage to the well-established majority. An example of this is legacy students being 3 times more likely than the general population to be accepted into their college of choice regardless of merit. A study out of Duke University concluded that legacy students entered Duke with lower grades and performed poorer the first year. Not only did the Duke Legacy students earn lower grades initially, but they were more likely to be wealthy and white graduates of private high-schools, thus perpetuating an already established upper-classes' dominance on white collar fields. The Status Quo states that inequalities benefit the best off in our society, by the basic principles of philosophy, this is not justice. Rawls states that maintaining this justice is in the best interest of everyone, even the advantaged group. That moves me to my 2nd contention: Affirmative action is diversity Contention 2 (diversity is good) A)The result of Affirmative Action in college, According to testimony in the Gratz v. Bollinger supreme court case "In a racially homogeneous class of students, significant viewpoints would be missing" and It has been shown that members of heterogeneous working groups offer more creative solutions to problems than those in homogeneous groups (Cox, 1993; McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996). [In sum], They show greater potential for critical thinking. Lastly, "attending a diverse college also resulted in more diverse friends, neighbors, and work associates nine years after college entry. " B)Affirmative Action's duty in the workplace. In areas of high-minority density, Health problems abound, because our ghettos, barrios, and Indian reservations have become dumping grounds for hazardous materials and industries that pollute but do not employ. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, minority physicians are 5 times more likely to practice in areas of high minority density and an additional 13,000 physicians are needed to serve the 50 million minorities who don't have access to a physician. Across all fields, a more diverse business means a more productive business. Finally, my third contention demonstrates Affirmative Action's potential and just intent in achieving a more equal playing field. A)Under Affirmative action, progress has been made. An ACLU briefing paper on affirmative action reports: "Six million women have received opportunities in employment and education directly because of affirmative action programs, and in the last 10 years the overall number of black professional women has grown 125% B)Without Affirmative action, progress is lost and a roll-back effect occurs. UC-Berkeley admitted 61% fewer minorities in 1998 - the year the state first implemented its ban on affirmative action. Even with the ban on Affirmative Action, the under qualified majority legacy students were still admitted. According to a 2009 study from the National Science Foundation that with a nation-wide ban on Affirmative Action a 35% drop of minorities would occur in institutions of higher learning. Furthermore, a removal of Affirmative Action in the workplace would result in millions of opportunities for minorities and women to be lost and racism would continue to define our hiring processes. In the past, the major inequalities of the status quo justified affirmative action for minorities, now as time change we must look to the new ways to promote equal opportunity for all, no matter what family they we born into.