Why should the evidence for this be completely discounted? We turn to that argument. So we should presume that if we were living in a just society, there would be roughly proportionate representation in every field e. Our common humanity should be a sufficient basis for us to see the possibility of success in people of virtue and merit.
In fact, it is poor white youth who become the new pariahs on the job market. Arguments Against Affirmative Action 7. The first six will be negative, attempting to show that the best arguments for Affirmative Action fail.
In one form this argument holds that since no one deserves anything, society may use any criteria it pleases to distribute goods. With regard to cognitive skills we must consult the best evidence we have on average group differences. But the same is true of most of what comes under the label "merit.
To yield to the demand, however tempting it may be to do so, for "role-models-just-like-us" is to treat people like means not ends. The elimination of the unfair advantage can be determined by showing that the percentage of blacks hired and admitted at least roughly equaled the percentage of blacks in the population.
Neither do most football or basketball fans care whether their team reflects ethnic and gender diversity, but whether they are the best combination of players available.
But now enters AA. Suppose further that Michael Jordan and I are in high school together and we are both qualified to play basketball, only he is far better than I.
Yet, predominantly black schools offer far fewer AP classes, making it harder for exceptional black students to compete against the grades that exceptional white and Asian students are able to muster.
So it is permissible if a minimally qualified black or woman is admitted to law or medical school ahead of a white male with excellent credentials or if a less qualified person from an "underutilized" group gets a professorship ahead of an eminently better qualified white male.
In what follows I will mainly concentrate on Affirmative Action policies with regard to race, but the arguments can be extended to cover ethnicity and gender. You would probably wish that the matter of unequal results was not brought up in the first place, but once it has been, would you not be in your rights to defend yourself by producing evidence, showing that average physiological differences exist between Blacks and Whites and Asians, so that we should not presume unjust discrimination?
This is especially relevant if my objections to the Equal Results Argument 3 above are correct. If A harms B regarding x, B has a right to compensation from A in regards to x. Hardly a week goes by but that the subject of Affirmative Action does not come up. They were protected from competing with blacks and other non-whites in athletics, employment, and even dating!
I will not argue for or against the principle of Weak Affirmative Action. They can only afford 2 children, but lack of ability or whatever prevents them from keeping their family size down.
At this point we get into the problem of whether innocent non-blacks should have to pay a penalty in terms of preferential hiring of blacks.
Diversity may expand our moral horizons. They may be innocent of oppressing blacks, other minorities, and women, but they have unjustly benefitted from that oppression or discrimination. Take two families of different racial groups, Green and Blue. What good is a role model who is inferior to other professors or physicians or business personnel?
They cannot compete with the Greens. Wadsworth Publishing Co,p. If John is the star tailback of our college team with a promising professional future, and I accidentally but culpably drive my pick-up truck over his legs, and so cripple him, John may be due compensation, but he is not due the tailback spot on the football team.
They can be overridden. Do I deserve to start in his position because I would have been as good as he is had someone not cheated me as a child?
UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms. Furthermore, if A dies or disappears, B has no moral right to claim that society compensate him for the stolen car - though if he has insurance, he can make such a claim to the insurance company.This fact has convinced many Americans that steps beyond mere nondiscrimination are necessary to undo the effects of centuries of racial discrimination.
One such step is affirmative action. The Affirmative Action Debate Today Affirmative action is controversial because many whites, especially white males, see it as reverse discrimination. Strong Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination. It says it is right to do wrong to correct a wrong. It is the policy that is currently being promoted under the name of Affirmative Action, so it I will use that term or "AA" for short throughout this essay to stand for this version of affirmative action.
Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination Cases. 1) Regents of the University of California v Bakke 2) City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Until this case there was debate on whether intermediate scrutiny or even rational basis was the appropriate standard. The court ruled that the University of Michigan's affirmative action program was.
Affirmative Action: Equality or Reverse Discrimination? Affirmative action is a program that serves to rectify the effects of purportedly past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and opportunities to minorities and women.
Affirmative action is simply reverse discrimination. In fact, the very notion of using race-based policies to combat racism is illogical. To truly end racism, we need to. Affirmative action is a discrimination process.
The United States has done everything they can to make this country as equal as possible. Affirmative action turns down students who deserve a spot in a school just because a school needs to meet a quota.Download