An Ethical and Practical Defense of Affirmative Action
An Ethical and Practical Defense of Affirmative Action
Affirmative action has been the subject of increasing debate and tension in
American society. However, the debate over affirmative action has become ensnared in rhetoric that pits equality of opportunity against the equality of results. The debate has been more emotional than intellectual, and has generated more tension than shed light on the issue. Participants in the debate have over examined the ethical and moral issues that affirmative action raises while forgetting to scrutinize the system that has created the need for them. Too often, affirmative action is looked upon as the panacea for a nation once ill with, but now cured of, the virulent disease of racial discrimination.
Affirmative action is, and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and perhaps even flawed remedy for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups in American society. Working as it should, it affords groups greater equality of opportunity in a social context marked by substantial inequalities and structural forces that impede a fair assessment of their capabilities.
In this essay I will expose what I see as the shortcomings of the current ethical attacks on affirmative action (1), the main one being, that these attacks are devoid of proper historical context and shrouded in white male hegemony and privilege. Then, I will discuss the moral and ethical issues raised by continuing to function within a system that systematically disadvantages historically marginalized groups. With that as a backdrop, I will make a positive case for continuing affirmative action programs and discuss the practical concerns that continuing such programs may raise. Perhaps the biggest complaint that one hears about affirmative action policies aimed at helping
Black Americans is that they violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws. The claim is that these programs distort what
Affirmative action has been the subject of increasing debate and tension in
American society. However, the debate over affirmative action has become ensnared in rhetoric that pits equality of opportunity against the equality of results. The debate has been more emotional than intellectual, and has generated more tension than shed light on the issue. Participants in the debate have over examined the ethical and moral issues that affirmative action raises while forgetting to scrutinize the system that has created the need for them. Too often, affirmative action is looked upon as the panacea for a nation once ill with, but now cured of, the virulent disease of racial discrimination.
Affirmative action is, and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and perhaps even flawed remedy for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups in American society. Working as it should, it affords groups greater equality of opportunity in a social context marked by substantial inequalities and structural forces that impede a fair assessment of their capabilities.
In this essay I will expose what I see as the shortcomings of the current ethical attacks on affirmative action (1), the main one being, that these attacks are devoid of proper historical context and shrouded in white male hegemony and privilege. Then, I will discuss the moral and ethical issues raised by continuing to function within a system that systematically disadvantages historically marginalized groups. With that as a backdrop, I will make a positive case for continuing affirmative action programs and discuss the practical concerns that continuing such programs may raise. Perhaps the biggest complaint that one hears about affirmative action policies aimed at helping
Black Americans is that they violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws. The claim is that these programs distort what