Affirmative Action in University Admissions
Affirmative Action in University Admission: Liberal Theory
Respect for the autonomy of a person rejects distributive justice in higher education admission
‘All justice involves discrimination’1
Aristotle’s teleological view on justice focuses on the goal of an action rather than its initial fairness. As it is the outcome that matters, discrimination on the way is inevitable in order to achieve equality in a society. The case of Cheryl Hopwood’s rejection to the University of Texas due to affirmative action yields the discussion about distributive justice and whether discrimination in order to achieve an equal society is just. Despite having the same grades as fellow applicants from ethnic minorities, she was denied access to the university on the grounds of her skin color, as the college claimed to favor a diverse student body.
In the light of liberalist theory, this issue poses a great paradox by touching not only upon the question of liberty vs. equality, but also concerning the kind of moral action and intention that is applicable in order to maintain equality in society. Predominantly, however, it yields the conflict between pledges in favor of the phenomenon diversity against the autonomy of a person in social policy. Opposing classical Aristotelian theory, it will be argued that despite three justifications of affirmative action, the liberal principle of personal autonomy should outweigh diversity motivated discrimination in university admissions. The main theoretical justification to this will be an extension of Kantian philosophy, which focuses upon the fact that people should never be used as means to an end but rather an end themselves. This will be extended by Robert Nozick’s principle of the ‘separateness of persons’. Despite acknowledging the importance of equality in a society, Cheryl Hopwood’s rejection to higher education on the grounds of ethnicity needs to be rejected, as equality means equal opportunities rather than equal outcomes
Respect for the autonomy of a person rejects distributive justice in higher education admission
‘All justice involves discrimination’1
Aristotle’s teleological view on justice focuses on the goal of an action rather than its initial fairness. As it is the outcome that matters, discrimination on the way is inevitable in order to achieve equality in a society. The case of Cheryl Hopwood’s rejection to the University of Texas due to affirmative action yields the discussion about distributive justice and whether discrimination in order to achieve an equal society is just. Despite having the same grades as fellow applicants from ethnic minorities, she was denied access to the university on the grounds of her skin color, as the college claimed to favor a diverse student body.
In the light of liberalist theory, this issue poses a great paradox by touching not only upon the question of liberty vs. equality, but also concerning the kind of moral action and intention that is applicable in order to maintain equality in society. Predominantly, however, it yields the conflict between pledges in favor of the phenomenon diversity against the autonomy of a person in social policy. Opposing classical Aristotelian theory, it will be argued that despite three justifications of affirmative action, the liberal principle of personal autonomy should outweigh diversity motivated discrimination in university admissions. The main theoretical justification to this will be an extension of Kantian philosophy, which focuses upon the fact that people should never be used as means to an end but rather an end themselves. This will be extended by Robert Nozick’s principle of the ‘separateness of persons’. Despite acknowledging the importance of equality in a society, Cheryl Hopwood’s rejection to higher education on the grounds of ethnicity needs to be rejected, as equality means equal opportunities rather than equal outcomes