Definition of Affirmative Action - Assignment Example

Affirmative action Affirmative action started out as a policy designed to address past discrimination against women, people based on their race and other minorities (Pojman 476). It deploys measures that aim at improving their educational and economic opportunities. Affirmative action requires institutions of higher learning, corporations, and other organizations to introduce programs meant to ensure equal treatment of all applicants (Dworkin 486). This definition tries to convince the reader that affirmative action is carried out in good faith to try to make up for precedent discrimination against these groups of individuals. Despite this argument, affirmative action has been met by many different views. This paper essay gives an insight on the works written by Pojman and Dworkin on their perception of Affirmative Action. Pojman focused on the moral issue surrounding Affirmative action after the Supreme Court ruled some forms of reverse discrimination constitution (478). He both supports and rejects Affirmative action as he claims that it does carry some moral weight. Pojman examines seven arguments regarding Affirmative Action; first four negative and the next three positive while attempting to explain why Affirmative Action fails. Pojman scorns the compensation argument terming it a distorted notion of compensation (478). He argues that the United States government was not directly involved in slavery and much of the harm done on blacks was as an outcome of private discrimination. Pojman argues that setting quotas in skilled positions and preferential treatments in higher learning institution for Blacks is not the solution since there is no clarity on whether all blacks were harmed in the same way, unjustly harmed, or harmed more than poor whites (478). United States existence in the 17thand 18th century was deeply characterized with slavery and oppression of Blacks, Native Americans and other minority groups (Pojman 479). These groups of people had their land taken from them, provided unpaid labour, were subject to brutal punishments and were denied most of their fundamental rights was stated in the constitution. Pojman claims that the government was not directly involved, but the government gave this private sector the right of ownership over these people and did nothing when their constitutional rights were violated (480). Affirmative action merely offers a way to compensate the descendants for the offences done to their ancestors by neutralizing the competitive disadvantage that Africans Americans continue to suffer because of past prejudice. He argues that those who benefitted from past injustice should not be made to compensate for their ancestors injustices (Pojman 478). He states that young white males, women, and blacks should be given equal opportunity of enrollment in universities and employment regardless of their background situation or gender. The white population that benefitted from past injustices has the capital to enroll their children in good private schools and consequently get better jobs. Poor Whites and Blacks who still live in segregated neighborhoods and go to poor schools do not share the same luxury. Honest, hardworking marginalised students who are every bit as capable as White students may not hold the same qualifications because of these disadvantages. In Pojman’s arguments against affirmative action, he begins by claiming that, for affirmative action to prevail, a different group of people must be discriminated (479). Innocent young White males become the new minorities and which now bear the whole brunt of compensation payments to Blacks. He gives an example of his brilliant philosopher friend with the outstanding publication in first level publishing who had difficulty obtaining a tenure track position (Pojman 479). The committee was under instruction to hire a Black man or a woman. Pojman, however, does not look at the reasons the committee may have had for considering only blacks or females for the tenure track position. Pojman claims his friend did not get the job because of his race. This suggestion is ridiculous because a large proportion of those who were already hired and probably the hiring committee were from his race. A substantial percentage of the Black community always starts it job application process at a disadvantage. This is mainly because they lack the appropriate education backdrop and, as a result, may not exhibit the same qualifications as their White colleagues, but is every bit as capable as they are. In his second argument against Affirmative Action, he insists that the affirmative action encourages mediocrity and incompetence and blames it for Americas diminishing standards. He gives an example of a black student who was enrolled at his college based on AA who failed his writing exam, retook it eight times, still failed it, but was allowed to graduate (Pojman 450). This might have been a crude decision on the on the members, but they are not in a position defend the white students who get into colleges without preferential treatment, perform equally bad, and are allowed to graduate. The main aim of Affirmative Action is to provide everyone an equal chance of getting into colleges and professions. It is always desirable to bring people into areas of study or work they may not have deemed possible to change stereotypes. In his last argument against Affirmative Action, he argues that the highest positions in the society should be given to well deserving people (Dworkin 481). He presents the case of meritocracy and contends that it is a symbol of respect for anyone inner worth by giving students what they deserve as a person and not as a group. The argument from the principle merit seems persuasive, but we need not forget that some of these ‘qualified’ people attained these qualifications because of proper foundations. The large minority group needed a boost in order to attain these qualifications. In President Johnson’s words, one need not take the other person who has been shambled by chains, liberate them, bring them to the commencement of a race and then tell them they are free to contend, and still think that you have been entirely just (Dworkin 483). In his article, Dworkin disapproves the common misconception that the Affirmative Action setups aim to attain a racially conscious society divided into ethnic groups each entitled to some proportion able share of opportunities (486). He expresses clearly his support for affirmative action terming them, programs serving some more general concern and not just individual rights. He defends Affirmative Action calling them necessary means to minimize racial consciousness in the American society. He argues that increasing the number of Blacks working in professions will minimize the sense of injustice and racial consciousness in the African American society to a state where African Americans may state to observe themselves individuals who can succeed as others through initiative and talent (Dworkin 486) Dworkin illustrates his argument by presenting the case of Allan Bakke at the University of Michigan (485). Allan sued the university arguing that the affirmative action program deprived him his individual moral, constitutional right. General arguments commonly made was that Bakke had a right to be assessed on his merits, as an individual or as any black man, not to be excepted from any opportunity on the basis of his race. Dworkin explains merits according to different professional universities arguing that merits are not simply defined by academic qualifications of an individual, but also by a personal assessment of the interviewee’s chances of working effectively in that profession.in this case, the medical field in the view of the current society’s need for medical service (485). Dworkin also explains individual rights according to different professions arguing that every admission must rely on generalizations that are justified only statistically (489). It is because of these generalizations that Bakke was denied enrollment in some colleges because he did not fit the age limit generalization these institutions had set. Dworkins argues that if we were to follow individuals’ rights then these institutions violated Bakkes right to be regarded as a person and not as part of a group (489). He argues that the last catch phrase, Bakke had no right to be excluded from medical school because of his race as this seems more plausible since exclusions based on race have previously been motivated by contempt for the secluded race. Bakke s’ claim, however, appears to lack specifics (Dworkin 489). If Bakke claims he was excluded because of prejudice against his race then that would be downright despicable since a high percentage of those who were accepted were members of his race. The Affirmative Action program maintains that his race is still widely thought to be superior Dworkin concludes by arguing that Affirmative Action’s programs are serving a more general concern. Racial justice has become a special need and such programs are the only means that offer any significant means of achieving a racially conscious free society. If Affirmative Action is conked out, public colleges and universities will face a difficult decision. They can try to create diversity by weighing heavily on admissions to those factors that are considered close substitutes for race or they can take a braver step towards an effort to end the discrimination between the Whites and Blacks in terms of education. Works cited Dworkin, Ronald. Affirmative Action: Does it Work?. Affirmative Action: Is it Fair? In Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 2002. Print. Pojman, Louis. The Moral Status of Affirmative Action, in Julie McDonald, ed., Contemporary Moral Issues in a Just Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998. Print Read More