Chapter 7: Affirmative Action (Sandel 2009)
Cheryl Hopwood case of discrimination at the Unviersity of Texas Law School
University had a strict minority admissions policy- affirmative actions administrations policy
Is it unjust to consider race and ethnicity as factors in hiring or university admissions?
Three reasons proponents of affirmative action for taking race and ethnicity into account: correcting for bias in standardised texts, compensating for past wrongs and promoting diversity
Correcting for the testing gap
Ability of SAT to predict academic and career success has long been disputed
Depends on race, socio-economic background etc.
Attempt to find the most accurate measure of each individual's academic promise
About compensatory argument and diversity argument
Compensating for past wrongs
Minority students should be given preference to make up for a history of discrimination
Distribute the benefit that compensates for past injustice and its lingering effects
However many who benefit are middle class, economic struggle dismissed
Should be based on class and not race
Promoting diversity
Argument for the common good for wider society
Students learn more. Equipping disadvantaged minorities to assume positions of leadership contributes to the common good
Principal objection questions the effectiveness of affirmative action policies. Damages self-esteem and leads to heightened racial tension
Affirmative action does more harm than good
Do racial preferences violate rights
Kantain or Rawlsian liberals- Using race or ethnicity as a factor in admissions is unfair
Utilitarians support the idea, if using race violates Hopwood's rights then doing so is unjust
Depends on university preferences, universities have rights to their own admissions policy
The mission defines the relative merits.
Racial segregation and anti-Jewish quotas
click to edit