Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

Joe, I have forgotten. Why do you reject the "reparation" rationale for affirmative action?
I see it as a way of helping the handicapped descendants of past victims to "catchi up". Are not those who suffer the disadvantages produced by past conditions also victims? This would obviously not apply to, say, the minority child of the exceptional parents who have become advantaged despite past conditions. I'm sure, if we look carefully enough, we will also find deserving poor whites who ascendants have suffered the blows of past discrimination.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, I have forgotten. Why do you reject the "reparation" rationale for affirmative action?
I see it as a way of helping the handicapped descendants of past victims to "catchi up". Are not those who suffer the disadvantages produced by past conditions also victims? This would obviously not apply to, say, the minority child of the exceptional parents who have become advantaged despite past conditions. I'm sure, if we look carefully enough, we will also find deserving poor whites who ascendants have suffered the blows of past discrimination.

"Reparations" implies the payment of compensation from one person or group to another. In affirmative action, however, there is no payment of anything, because there is no loss suffered by whites. As I have mentioned before, a white applicant who is passed over for a job in favor of a minority applicant doesn't lose anything, since he wasn't entitled to anything in the first place. The white applicant, therefore, does not "pay" for the sins of his ancestors, any more than the minority applicant receives "restitution" for the injuries of his ancestors.

0 Replies

Now I remember. So there is no restitution, but (let me phrase it differently) can't there be some kind of "correction" of a bad situation wherein present-day minorities are protected from the structural consequences of past inequities, even if the inequities were not directly against them?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Now I remember. So there is no restitution, but (let me phrase it differently) can't there be some kind of "correction" of a bad situation wherein present-day minorities are protected from the structural consequences of past inequities, even if the inequities were not directly against them?

Affirmative action is an attempt to correct a bad situation as it currently exists. Although it is true that the roots of this bad situation are located in the past, affirmative action attempts to remedy present discrimination.

0 Replies

Thanks.

0 Replies

I think many people here have different definitions of what they think affirmative action is. Let's get them straight right now.

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

I think many people here have different definitions of what they think affirmative action is. Let's get them straight right now.

Very well, Carbon, what's your definition?

0 Replies

I think affirmative action is something that is meant to give the minorities a leg up when it comes to college, because of thier shortcomings in life like the place they live, thier incomes, etc.

I however disagree with the purpose, because of my belief that if things are equal, they must be equal to the other races. In my opinion, the spot on applications for race should be taken away completely.

What is yours Joe?

0 Replies

A number of good definitions can be found here. I'm satisfied with: "a policy designed to redress discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities."

CarbonSystem wrote:

I however disagree with the purpose, because of my belief that if things are equal, they must be equal to the other races.

Then you believe in a false equality. It's like saying that you don't care whether some runners in a 100-yard race get to start at the 50-yard mark, because the important thing is that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate.

0 Replies

I disagree.

I think a great thing would be for them to give more money to less fortunate applicants, that would be a great thing.

I however disagree with minorites getting help if they're in any situation other than horrible. That is referring to someone's economic situation. But they don't draw the line there, and that is what sparks the controversy.

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

I however disagree with the purpose, because of my belief that if things are equal, they must be equal to the other races.

You're right. If things are equal then indeed, there exists no necessity for affirmative action policies based on egalitarian ideals of justice. However, this is discernibly not the case, therefore, there is no compelling argument to justify the dismantling of these existing structures.

With regards to the definition of equality, I have mentioned this previously but I feel the need to elaborate further. Opponents of AA policies use a very simplistic understanding of equality as a basis for criticism. This is quite misguided as:

"The principle of equality before the law does not mean the absolute equality, namely the equal treatment of men without regard to individual, concrete circumstances, but it means relative equality, namely the principle to treat equally what are equal and unequally what are unequalTo treat unequal matters differently according to their inequality is not only permitted but required."

-Judge's Tanaka's dictum in the South West Africa Case, 1966

This exposition is reflected in works as early as Aristotles' Nicomachean Ethics (on numerical and proportional equality).

Quote:

I think affirmative action is something that is meant to give the minorities a leg up when it comes to college, because of thier shortcomings in life like the place they live, thier incomes, etc.

Quote:

I think a great thing would be for them to give more money to less fortunate applicants, that would be a great thing.

How does more money overcome systematic discrimination? And why is allocating more money to a minority candidate more effective than employing an AA approach?

Quote:

they don't draw the line there, and that is what sparks the controversy.

Where is the line drawn?

edited: typo

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

I disagree.

I think a great thing would be for them to give more money to less fortunate applicants, that would be a great thing.

I however disagree with minorites getting help if they're in any situation other than horrible. That is referring to someone's economic situation. But they don't draw the line there, and that is what sparks the controversy.

It seems quite clear that you object to affirmative action, Carbon, but you still haven't articulated a reason for why you object. You've already stated that your opposition to affirmative action is not related to some standard of fairness, but then what does that leave? Is there some sort of unarticulated moral standard that you are relying upon for your position? Or perhaps some metaphysical or esthetic principle? Help us out here.

0 Replies

I object to affirmative action becuase in my view, it is plain wrong. Giving someone who did not do as well on certain criteria, a spot, instead of the person who did better. This could be anyone, no matter what thier race is. It is about a standard of fairness. It is the fact that when these people graduate college, which one will be the most succesful. The correct answer does not have the word white or black in it. The best way to determine how someone may do in the future is what they've done in the past. And I know for certain, that the color of somebody's skin will not have an affect on the way thier mind processes things, thier work ethic, or their determination. Those are all things that are different from individual to individual. You cannot give an entire race a leg up when some of that race already has a leg up.

My opposition to AA also has to do with the fact that it is too vague in it's purpose. Right now, it is too general and that is why people object to it. Until the lines are clearly drawn, and the gray area dissapears, AA should not be in effect.

0 Replies

On Feb. 16, Carbon System wrote:

No I would say it isn't fair. But in the same token it is not unfair. That would not be considered fair to anyone, but it is not unfair either. In your situation, there is no justification to choose one applicant over the other.

Unfair is much like if you're deserving of a certain thing and you don't recieve it. So obviously, this cannot be an unfair situation. It is a lot like getting cut from the high school basketball team.

Yet, on Feb. 21, CarbonSystem wrote:

I object to affirmative action becuase in my view, it is plain wrong. Giving someone who did not do as well on certain criteria, a spot, instead of the person who did better. This could be anyone, no matter what thier race is. It is about a standard of fairness.

First you state that your objection to affirmative action is not about fairness, and now you state that it is all about fairness. Let me know when you make up your mind, Carbon.

0 Replies

I've made up my mind. It's about fairness. The first quote is from a hypothetical situation, where my opinion would change if applied to affirmative action.

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

I've made up my mind. It's about fairness. The first quote is from a hypothetical situation, where my opinion would change if applied to affirmative action.

My hypothetical described a paradigmatic case of affirmative action. For the sake of convenience, I'll repeat it here:

Suppose there are two applicants for a single position. Both applicants are qualified for the job. One is white, the other is a member of a minority. The employer has a rule: all other things being equal, qualified minority job applicants shall be preferred over qualified non-minority job applicants. Consequently, the minority applicant is given the job. Is that unfair to the white applicant, and, if so, why?Now, if you think that choosing the minority applicant in this hypothetical was "neither fair nor unfair," you'll have to explain how affirmative action, in general, is "unfair." What distinguishes affirmative action, as a general proposition, from what's going on in this hypothetical?

0 Replies

Joe, your hypothetical correctly forces people to justify their claim to the INHERENT unfairness of affirmative action. Your hypothetical situation contains no unfairness, since the white has no basis for claiming the job was his property and that it was in effect stolen.
But it seems to me that most people who object to affirmative action have in their minds the image of minorities taking jobs away from whites who are substantially more qualified than they are.
Unfortunately, some people consciously or unconsciously consider race to be a qualifying trait. That applies, perhaps, to both sides of the argument.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

But it seems to me that most people who object to affirmative action have in their minds the image of minorities taking jobs away from whites who are substantially more qualified than they are.

Correct. This is my impression of what is happening. Is this inaccurate?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

But it seems to me that most people who object to affirmative action have in their minds the image of minorities taking jobs away from whites who are substantially more qualified than they are.

Yes, I believe this is the common perception of affirmative action. And it is erroneous.

0 Replies

JLN and rosborne, The essence of the issue is clear. However, as having worked in management most of my professional career, I have always posed "what if" situations to applicants for their response, and the person that gave the best answer got hired - if all else seemed equal. c.i.

0 Replies

Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know