The Moral Status of Affirmative Action
What would be your main claim and possible arguments to the statement?
Strong affirmative action, i.e. the preferential hiring of less qualified candidates in order to address racial or gender inequalities is unjustified.
Pojman begins by defining what he means by discrimination, prejudice, bias, equal opportunity and affirmative action. He then gives a short history showing how weak affirmative action, i.e. attempts to ensure equal opportunity in employment and education opportunities has shifted to strong affirmative action, i.e. the preferential hiring or admittance of less qualified candidates on the basis of race or gender. He attempts to establish his main claim by considering seven arguments for strong affirmative action and seeking to destroy them. He concludes by giving seven arguments against affirmative action.
- Argument #1: Affirmative action is justified inasmuch as it provides role models for under-represented groups.
Replies: (a) More important than having role models of one's own type is having genuinely good people, of whatever race or gender, to emulate.
(b) It is counterproductive to provide under-qualified role models for under-represented groups.
- Argument #2: Affirmative action is justified inasmuch as it breaks stereotypes.
Reply: Affirmative action is an ineffective way to remove stereotypes and may in fact serve to reinforce stereotypes.
- Argument #3: Affirmative action is justified inasmuch as we know that inequalities in society are the result of prejudice, i.e. we would have the same proportions from every race , gender and ethnic group in the higher positions in society if prejudice were not a factor.
Reply: This ignores the fact that many factors other than prejudice may bring about inequalities of representation in certain jobs.
- Argument #4: Minorities have been wronged by whites, therefore white society should compensate minorities through programs of strong affirmative action.
Replies: (a) Normally, we think of compensation being owed by the individuals who did the wrong to the individuals they wronged. It seems impossible to fine tune affirmative action to this degree.
(b) There is no way to know what would have been the case if prejudice had not intervened.
Argument #5: Young white males, although innocent of any wrongdoing, have benefited from past prejudice and therefore it is appropriate that less qualified minority members receive preferential treatment over them.
Replies: (a) Normally, we think of compensation being owed by the individuals who did the wrong to the individuals they wronged.
(b) There is no reason to think that being the innocent beneficiary of wrongdoing means that one should not be hired on the basis of one's qualifications.
Argument #6: Strong affirmative action is justified inasmuch as no individual deserves the talents upon which his or her qualifications are based.
Reply: This undermines the notion of moral responsibility. "If we accept the notion of responsibility at all, we must hold that persons deserve the fruits of their labor and conscious choices."
Arguments Against Affirmative Action
Argument #1: Strong affirmative action requires unjustified discrimination against young white males who are innocent of any wrongdoing. It especially handicaps ethnic and poor white males.
Argument #2: Strong affirmative action encourages members of under-represented groups to think of themselves as victims.
Argument #3: Strong affirmative action encourages mediocrity and incompetence.
Argument #4: Strong affirmative action tends to assume that any under-representation is the result of prejudice and thus shifts the burden of proof, i.e. unequal representation is taken to indicate prejudice unless one can prove otherwise.
Argument #5: Strong affirmative action tends to undermine a proper valuing of merit.
Argument #6: Strong affirmative action programs lead to slippery slopes in which many groups other than those initially targeted insist on preferential treatment.
Argument #7: There is mounting evidence that programs of affirmative action do not lead to the results that are intended, i.e. in some cases they do more harm than good.
You might also like to view...
Suppose a poll shows Smith leading Jones by 52 percent to 48 percent for U.S. Senate. What can be said about the results of this poll?
A) If the margin of error is ± 1 percent, then Smith is certainly ahead of Jones. B) If the margin of error is more than ± 2 percent, then Jones might lead Smith. C) If the sample is random, then the results of the poll are unimpeachable. D) If the confidence level is 99 percent, then Smith is certainly ahead of Jones. E) If the margin of error is ± 3 percent, then Jones is ahead of Smith.
In what way is the work of the Spirit "liberative"?
a. The Spirit frees us and energizes us to resist injustice. b. The Spirit gives freedom as a continuation of the liberative work of Christ. c. In all of these ways. d. The Spirit frees us to follow Christ's pattern of self-giving love. e. The liberative work of the Spirit is at work not only among humans but throughout the whole created order.
Aristotle believes that happiness is
a. achieved only in the afterlife. b. the same as pleasure. c. the final goal of everyone’s activity. d. necessarily in tension with morality.
Aristotle’s term for the highest human good is
a) ethica. b) excellencia. c) eudaimonia. d) sophia.