Introduction
The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which prohibits considering race as a basis for college admissions, marks a significant turning point in the affirmative action debate. Proponents of “strong” affirmative action argue that there are instances where race should still be considered in hiring and college admissions decisions. This essay will analyze the perspectives of three philosophers – Pojman, Wasserstrom, and Rawls – to evaluate the validity of strong affirmative action and whether they would agree or disagree with its implementation.
[order_button_a]
Pojman’s Evaluation of Strong Affirmative Action
Pillars of Meritocracy
Pojman’s notion of meritocracy emphasizes the importance of rewarding individuals based on their individual talents, abilities, and efforts. He believes that individuals should be judged and treated based on their merits to ensure fairness and justice in society (Pojman, 2017). In Pojman’s view, affirmative action policies that prioritize race as a determining factor in college admissions or hiring decisions may undermine the principles of meritocracy. By favoring candidates solely based on their race, the focus shifts away from their actual qualifications and accomplishments. Pojman contends that such policies could lead to the selection of less qualified candidates over more qualified ones, which may result in the degradation of institutional standards and hinder the pursuit of excellence.
Furthermore, Pojman argues that the idea of meritocracy is closely tied to individual responsibility. The “Responsibility Criterion” proposed by Pojman posits that individuals should not be held accountable for circumstances beyond their control, such as their race or gender (Pojman, 2017). This criterion promotes equal opportunities for all, regardless of their background. By considering race as a decisive factor in admissions or hiring, strong affirmative action could potentially contradict the Responsibility Criterion, as it may hold certain individuals responsible for historical injustices that they did not perpetrate.
The “Responsibility Criterion” and the Impact on Affirmative Action:
The Responsibility Criterion presents a challenge for advocates of strong affirmative action, as it may require a nuanced approach to determine who bears responsibility for past injustices. Some proponents of affirmative action argue that the lingering effects of historical discrimination and systemic racism continue to disadvantage certain racial or ethnic groups. They contend that society has a collective responsibility to address these inequities through affirmative action policies.
However, Pojman’s perspective on individual responsibility may lead him to question the extent to which current individuals should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors. He might argue that a more effective approach to rectifying historical injustices would involve addressing socio-economic disparities and providing equal opportunities for all, irrespective of their racial or ethnic background. Pojman would advocate for policies that focus on uplifting marginalized communities and addressing the root causes of disparities.
Wasserstrom’s Evaluation of Strong Affirmative Action
The Tennis Court Example
Wasserstrom’s tennis court example illustrates that when there is a history of discrimination or bias against certain groups, corrective measures may be required to level the playing field. He suggests that affirmative action, or preferential treatment, can be justified as a temporary measure to address past injustices and promote equality (Wasserstrom, 2019). Wasserstrom acknowledges that certain groups, particularly racial minorities and women, have faced systemic discrimination, resulting in limited access to educational and employment opportunities.
Wasserstrom’s Support for Preferential Treatment
Wasserstrom’s support for preferential treatment aligns with the concept of reparation-based affirmative action. He would argue that strong affirmative action, when employed as a temporary remedy, can help offset the historical disadvantages faced by marginalized groups. Wasserstrom’s perspective recognizes the importance of addressing historical injustices while simultaneously acknowledging the need for a time-bound and goal-oriented approach to affirmative action.
While Wasserstrom supports strong affirmative action in certain contexts, he may also emphasize the importance of periodic evaluations to ensure that such policies remain effective and do not perpetuate new forms of discrimination. He might advocate for clear criteria and goals for these policies, with a commitment to phasing them out once their intended objectives are achieved. Wasserstrom’s perspective on preferential treatment centers on its role as a temporary measure aimed at achieving social equality rather than perpetuating reverse discrimination.
[order_button_b]
Rawls’ Perspective on Considering Race and Gender
Key Concepts of Rawls’ Theory
Rawls’ theory of justice emphasizes the principle of justice as fairness. He argues that societal arrangements should be designed to benefit the least advantaged members of society, ensuring that they receive a fair share of resources and opportunities (Rawls, 2020). Rawls envisions a just society in which everyone has equal access to the basic goods and opportunities needed to lead a fulfilling life.
Race and Gender in Hiring and Admissions
Rawls would likely reject the consideration of race or gender as direct factors in hiring and admissions decisions, as this would violate his principle of justice as fairness. Instead, he would advocate for policies that address socio-economic disparities and provide equal opportunities for all, without resorting to direct preferential treatment based on race or gender (Rawls, 2020).
Rawls’ perspective would lead him to focus on policies that uplift socio-economically disadvantaged individuals, regardless of their race or gender. He would argue for the provision of quality education, healthcare, and other essential services to level the playing field and enhance equal opportunities. Rawls would propose social and economic policies that target the systemic factors contributing to disparities rather than directly considering an individual’s race or gender in admissions or hiring decisions.
Most Convincing Analysis and Permissibility of Considering Race and Gender
Among the three philosophers, Wasserstrom’s analysis offers the most convincing argument, as he recognizes that in certain contexts, strong affirmative action can be justified as a temporary measure to address historical injustices and promote equality. Wasserstrom’s perspective strikes a balance between acknowledging the need to address systemic discrimination and advocating for an eventual phasing-out of affirmative action policies once their intended goals are achieved.
While the perspectives of Pojman and Rawls highlight important aspects related to meritocracy and justice, Wasserstrom’s argument acknowledges the complexity of historical injustices and their impact on present-day inequalities. His support for temporary preferential treatment is grounded in the goal of creating a more just and equitable society. However, this justification should be limited to cases where there is a clear history of discrimination and a demonstrable need for corrective action.
ConclusionÂ
The permissibility of considering an applicant’s race and/or gender remains a complex and contentious issue. While strong affirmative action may serve as a short-term remedy to address historical injustices, it should be implemented with caution and in accordance with the principles of justice, fairness, and equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background.
[order_button_c]
References
Pojman, L. P. (2017). The moral status of affirmative action. In J. Arthur & A. S. Boylan (Eds.), Morality and moral controversies: Readings in moral, social, and political philosophy (9th ed., pp. 333-341). Pearson.
Wasserstrom, R. (2019). Preferential treatment and the diversity argument. In J. Arthur & A. S. Boylan (Eds.), Morality and moral controversies: Readings in moral, social, and political philosophy (10th ed., pp. 398-409). Pearson.
Rawls, J. (2020). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.