Affirmative Action
Compensatory Argument
Diversity Argument
Proponents of Affirmative Action
"in the name of common good"
compensating for past wrongs
Views affirmative action as compensation for past wrongs
creates a desirable student body
students are able to learn more from one another when they are not from similar backgrounds
Argues minority students should be given preference to make up for a history of discrimination that has placed them at an unfair disadvantage.
Different Cases
click to edit
broadens the range of intellectual and cultural perspectives
treats admissions as a benefit to recipient and seeks to distribute that benefit in a fashion that compensates for past injustices and their lingering affects.
equipping disadvantaged minorities with the opportunities of leadership and professional roles helps further the university's "civic purpose and contributes to the common good
Cheryl Hopwood Case
Applied for the University of Texas Law school and didn't get it because she was a white student. Even though black students with lower scores got accepted. She argues that she is a victim of discrimination.
Bakke Case
Supreme Court ruling that upheld affirmative action, which meant it allowed race to be a factor in college admission policy.
Critiques
Critiiques
some critics believe that those who profit from affirmative action are not always those who've suffered
practical objection
principled objections
They also argue that those who pay compensation are rarely responsible for the wrongs
Justice with Moral desert
claims that affirmative action is not unjust, but rather unlikely to achieve its goals and may do more harm instead of good
Success is the crown of virtue, and determines strength based on fortune
Critics state middle-class minority students that don't experience the hardships of their Latino and Black counterparts of lower socio-economic standing
objections
Jobs and opportunities are rewarded as they deserve to run deep
questions how effective affirmative action truly is
does not reduce prejudice and inequalities
will not bring about a more diverse society
damage the morale and self-esteem of minority students
overall, increase racial tensions and resentment among everyone
Distributive justice is about the qualities of what is worthy to be honored
The theory is complicated, and denied schools, university and offices, etc, the freedom of finding their mission and purposes.
See Cheryl Hopwood Case
Correcting for bias in standardized tests
Compensating for past wrongs
Promoting diversity
Rights
Do Racial Preferences Violate Rights?
objection: however worthy the goal of a more diverse classroom or equal society, and however successful affirmative action policies are, its not fair to use race/ethnicity in admissions
violates rights of applicants who are put at "competitive disadvantage"
basically if its not "fair" to white people it shouldn't be implemented despite centuries of systemic racism putting them at a competitive advantage
Utilitarian response: objection doesn't care much weight.
Affirmative action would rely upon the academic/social/civic benefits produced vs white applicants disappointment
Kantian and Rawlsian response: desirable ends do not override individual rights
There are no rights to higher education