Blog Affirmative Action Affirmative Action began as a plan to equalize the educational, employment, and contracting opportunities for minorities and women with opportunities given to their white, male counterparts. Such race-conscious Affirmative Action programs have been the source of much controversy and sometimes violent protests.
In the Beginning Inaffirmative action became an inflammatory public issue. But what did this mandate amount to? The Executive Order assigned to the Secretary of Labor the job of specifying rules of implementation. Through these contractor commitments, the Department could indirectly pressure recalcitrant labor unions, who supplied the employees at job sites.
Its predecessor, Order No. At first, university administrators and faculty found the rules of Order No. The number of racial and ethnic minorities receiving PhDs each year and thus eligible for faculty jobs was tiny.
Any mandate to increase their representation on campus would require more diligent searches by universities, to be sure, but searches fated nevertheless largely to mirror past results.
The Revised Order, on the other hand, effected a change that punctured any campus complacency: Some among the professoriate exploded in a fury of opposition to the new rules, while others responded with an equally vehement defense of them.
For several decades Anglo-American philosophy had treated moral and political questions obliquely. First, John Rawls published in A Theory of Justice, an elaborate, elegant, and inspiring defense of a normative theory of justice Rawls Properly understood, affirmative action did not require or even permit the use of gender or racial preferences.
Affirmative action, if it did not impose preferences outright, at least countenanced them. Among the yea-sayers, opinion divided between those who said preferences were morally permissible and those who said they were not.
The Controversy Engaged The essays by Thomson and Nagel defended the use of preferences but on different grounds. Thomson endorsed job preferences for women and African-Americans as a form of redress for their past exclusion from the academy and the workplace.
Preferential policies, in her view, worked a kind of justice. Nagel, by contrast, argued that preferences might work a kind of social good, and without doing violence to justice. Institutions could for one or another good reason properly depart from standard meritocratic selection criteria because the whole system of tying economic reward to earned credentials was itself indefensible.
Justice and desert lay at the heart of subsequent arguments. Preferential hiring seen as redress looks perverse, they contended, since it benefits individuals African-Americans and women possessing good educational credentials least likely harmed by past wrongs while it burdens individuals younger white male applicants least likely to be responsible for past wrongs Simon—19; Sher; Sher81—82; and Goldman—1.
What rights were at issue?About Affirmative Action, Diversity and Inclusion In its Final Report to President Eisenhower, the President's Committee on Government Contracts, headed by Vice President Richard Nixon, concluded: Overt discrimination, in the sense that an employer actually refuses to hire solely because of race, religion, color, or national origin is not .
A Common Good Approach I believe there's an equally valid moral argument for affirmative action that avoids the punitive overtones of the justice approach, focusing instead on why these programs are in everyone's best interest.
In resolving the affirmative action question for myself, I find the best guidance in a common good approach to ethics. Affirmative action programs presume that past discrimination and its resulting present disadvantage are relevant reasons for differential treatment.
True According to the principle of equality, in order to treat people differently in ways that deny them significant social benefits one need only show that there are real differences between them. Affirmative action has been the subject of legal battles on the basis that it is reverse discrimination against caucasians, but in most challenges to affirmative action the programs have been upheld.
affirmative action. The Affirmative Action Debate. The use of race as a factor in the college admissions process has been, and continues to be, a hotly debated topic.
Supporters of affirmative action make the following arguments: Affirmative action is more of a process than just an admissions policy. The Affirmative Action Debate. The use of race as a factor in the college admissions process has been, and continues to be, a hotly debated topic.
Supporters of affirmative action make the following arguments: Affirmative action is more of a process than just an admissions policy.