ARGUMENTS FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Moral Conversation Project: Discuss the phenomena that Steele presents and the explanations he puts forward. What implications do these have for the affirmative action debate? I. Recall our distinctions from last time (put in somewhat less confusing terms) A. (1) qualifications (qualities, in light of an institution’s standards and goals, that make someone a suitable or desirable potential member) vs. (2) evidence of qualifications. E.g., ability to benefit academically, culturally, socially, etc. and to contribute to the benefit of other students, etc. vs. test scores, grade point average, admissions essay, interview, etc. B. (1) merit vs. (2) desert. C. (1) absolute qualification vs. (2) relative qualification D. Different forms of affirmative action, specifically: 1. Treating race as a desirable feature (qualification), or as evidence of it. 2. Reserving places for qualified racial minorities. II A worry opponents have is that, although D1 and D2 differ theoretically, they will not differ practically, if race is given more than a little weight. In institutions that practice D1, how much weight is race given? A. The 1997 Time/Princeton Review guide to college admissions gives an unscientific estimation of the following contributions to a candidate’s “desirability”: Westinghouse Science Award 40 points Celebrity parent 40 points Prospective varsity athlete 25 points Toughest high school courses 21 points Parent recently gave large gift 6 points Underrepresented minority 6 points Foreign student 5 points Student from unusual state 5 points Alumni parent 5 points Academic parent 5 points Prestigious private school 5 points II. Arguments for affirmative action: A. Natural Rights Theory B. Contractualism C. Utilitarianism III. Natural Rights A. (Backward-looking) argument from reparations or compensation: 1. Blacks, as a group, have historically suffered substantial systematic violation of (Lockean) natural rights. 2. Victims of rights violations acquire a right to compensation. 3. AA programs are one way of fulfilling this right. B. There are various issues concerning this argument: 1. In general, victims are owed compensation by those who violate the right, whereas the costs of AA are borne by innocent third parties. 2. Moreover, the benefits of AA do not go to those black individuals who had their Lockean rights violated. 3. Therefore, AA cannot be justified as compensation for the violation of natural rights. C. Is there a reply to this counter-argument? 1. As for the B1 (the costs being borne by innocent third parties) consider: a. German government compensation of Jews after WWII b. U.S. government compensation of Japanese-Americans for internment during WWII. c. Swiss government compensation to Holocaust survivors for the complicity of Swiss banks. 2. Here there is an ongoing responsible agency. Might a similar argument be made here? Collective responsibility for slavery? For condoning violence against blacks (e.g., lynchings), etc. 3. What about B2? Can benefits to descendants compensate for injuries to ancestors? Consider Boxill’s stolen bicycle example? If you discover whom it really belong to after he died, should you not return it to his descendants? 4. In addition to the specific violations of liberty, acts of violence, etc. consider also the injury to blacks as a group, and to individual blacks as members of that group of subordination, i.e. treatment as inferiors. Should that injury be compensated? Could AA be so regarded? IV. (Forward-looking) consequentialist (utilitarian) arguments for AA. A. The general form of these arguments is that AA promotes valuable ends. B. These ends have been variously proposed to be: 1. overall happiness 2. student diversity (to enhance student education) 3. greater equality 4. a more vibrant, diverse society 5. a workforce that is trained to deal with an increasingly diverse society and international economy. C. Problems. 1. Does AA really have these effects? 2. Does AA cause unintended negative side effects? 3. Do these ends, valuable as they may be, justify sacrificing the claims of innocent non-black applicants? D. The consequentialist arguments can be made either internally or externally to the goals of institutions of higher education. 1. If external, then there is the problem raised in C3 2. However, if internal, then perhaps this issue can be overcome. For example, if fostering a diverse student body is internal to the goals of a university, then it may be no violation of the claim (right) to equal consideration to take race into account, since a learning environment that includes racial diversity may then be internal to the university’s proper mission. V. Contractualism—Justice as Fairness A. Recall Rawls’s argument that hypothetical agents behind a veil of ignorance would choose principles of justice that call for: 1. The most extensive system of equal basic liberties 2. Socioeconomic inequalities only as these a. function to raise all segments of society, and b. are combined with fair equality of opportunity B. “Fair equality of opportunity” requires that individuals born into society with the same native talents should have roughly the same probabilities of success in life, other things being equal. C. Suppose we ask: Would eliminating affirmative action increase or decrease inequalities in probability of success for individuals of different race with similar native abilities? D. To evaluate this question we need to know something about native 1. Difference in IQ. Does this show a difference in average native academic ability? 2. If the outcaste hypothesis is a better explanation of the observed difference in mean IQ, then this suggests that eliminating AA would substantially increase the relevant inequalities. E. If so, then justice as fairness would seem not only to permit, but indeed, to require AA, at least, other things being equal. F. And, if Rawls is right, the argument that stands behind the principles of justice, that they would be chosen in the original position, also supports the case for AA. G. Another route to the same conclusion relies on Rawls’s first principle, which includes equal democratic political liberties. 1. In a just society, each citizen has equal rights of political participation. 2. The role of a public institution of higher learning in a just society is, at least partly, to prepare students to participate as equal citizens in political debate and decision-making. 3. Among the most difficult and controverted questions in our society are those around the issue of race. 4. Effective participation as equal citizens in political debates on issues around race requires being thoughtful and reflective about racial bias and the ways race affects citizens’ lives. 5. Students are likelier to develop these skills if they have significant frequent engagement with students of different races. 6. In order, therefore, to prepare students for equal citizenship, institutions of higher education should provide an academic and social culture that has substantial racial diversity. 7. If it is necessary to achieve such racial diversity, therefore, justice not only permits AA, it requires it, at least other things being equal.