Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chap 7: Arguing Affirmative Action - Coggle Diagram
Chap 7: Arguing Affirmative Action
Arguements in favor or Affirmative Action
Correcting for the Testing Gap
race and ethnicity into account is to correct for possible bias in standardized tests.
attempt to find the most accurate measure of each individual’s academic promise
using standardized tests to predict academic success requires interpreting the scores in light of students’ family, social, cultural, and educational backgrounds.
Example: black and Hispanic students on the whole score lower than white students on standardized tests, even adjusting for economic class
Promoting Diversity
Common good of the society
Equipping disadvantaged communities to assume leadership positions contributes to the common good.(e.text.7)
Means of advancing society i.e. universities/colleges
Allows students to learn from one another
Counter Argument : Diversity will not necessarily bring a more pluralistic society
It can lead to low self esteem of the minority
Counter argument: May do more harm than good
Compensating for Past Wrongs
Remedy for past history e.g. slavery, segregation
Benefits the recipient thus compensating the effects of history/ wrong doings
Helps the disadvantaged of communities that were affected by these wrongdoings
Counter arguement
Affirmative action should solely be based on class not race
Arguements Against Affirmative Action
Do Racial Preference Violate Rights?
Using race or ethnicity as a factor in admission is wrong
Put white people at disadvantage without proper reason
Example of Cheryl Hopwood :green_cross:
Counteraguement: Affirmative Action doesn't violate anybody's right :explode:
Most traditional criteria for university admission involves factors beyond one's control
Example: background, ability to do well on test, ability to do well in sport :green_cross:
Universities define their missions in various way
Applicants do not have a right over how universities choose to prize one quality over others
Once the standards are set, you have legitimate expectation to admission when you surpass others in those qualities
Admission is not an honor bestowed to reward superior merit or virtue (pg. 174) :
No one is morally deserved to be admitted
Admission is based on serving the university's missions, not merit nor virtue
Missions define relevant merits, not the other way around.
Utilitarians think this objection would not carry much weight :red_cross:
The educational and civic benefits outweight the disappointment it cause to white applicants who lose out
Kantian or Rawlsian liberals think differently from Utilitarians
Desirable ends should not override individual rights
People should not be judged according to factors they can't control
The right at stake: the right to be considered acording to academic criteria alone
Racial Segregation and Anti-Jewish Quotas
universities may set any admissions criteria that advance their mission as they define it, is it possible to condemn racist exclusion and antiSemitic restrictions?
Example：Texas law school :green_cross:
in its segregationist days, the Texas law school used race as a badge of inferiority, whereas today’s racial preferences do not insult or stigmatize anyone.
Hopwood and Dworkin’s answer
Hopwood considered her rejection unfair, but she cannot claim that it expresses hatred or contempt. (pg. 179)
Segregation-era racial exclusion depended on “the despicable idea that one race may be inherently more worthy than another,” whereas affirmative action involves no such prejudice. (pg. 200)
Affirmative Action for Whites?
Can it sometimes justify racial preference for white? (pg.177)
Example: Starrett City Case :green_cross:
"Occupancy control" based on race
African American and Hispanic group have to wait longer for an apartment due to higher demand but lower availability
Quotas were based not on prejudice or contempt
Black applicants found the race-conscious policy unfair
This is not unfair if you accept the diversity rationale
limit African American and Hispaic populaion to 40%
Racial preferences do not violate anyone's rights under 2 conditions
Diversity serves the common good
No one is discriminated against based on hatred or contempt
No one deserves to be considered for an apartment/freshman seat in class according to his/her merit
Merit can only be counted once the mission is defined
Morality
Why Not Auction College Admission?
Legacy preferences want to build school spirit over time
Can lead to alumni parents contributing more financial support
Development Admits
Applicants can be admitted even with lower than average tests scored because of a financial contribution the family could make
Can lower the integrity of the University
Universities should pursue scholarly excellence while trying to balance civic goods
"Selling education as if it were merely a consumer good is a kind of corruption" (pg.183)
Hard to separate justice and rights from honor and virtue
Can Justice Be Detached from Moral Desert
Renunciation of moral desert
Morally Attractive
Undermines the idea that "success is the crown virtue" (pg.178)
Disquieting
Getting ahead and our success as a reflection of virtue
This leads to less compassion for those who are less successful
Justice is honorific
Merit arises from social institutions
"Certain goods are appropriate to certain social institutions, and to ignore these goods in allocating roles can be a kind of corruption" (pg.179).
Example Hopwood's Case :green_cross:
Justice is tangled with honor and moral desert should not be related to admission