Affirmative Action as a Form of Reverse Discrimination - Book Report/Review Example

Affirmative Action as a Form of Reverse Discrimination Dworkin Claims that affirmative action is not a form of reverse discrimination. Affirmative action was introduced as a measure to increase employment of minority groups and women, as well as admission in learning institution, and in the process reduce racial divisions in America. Dworking claims that affirmative action is not aimed at reverse discrimination, but aimed at achieving equality and representation of blacks in the professional fields where they are almost absent. For example, in the medical field, 1970 census revealed that there were only 2.1% blacks of US doctors. This he believes is not healthy for black community from the patients who need to be treated by the people they trust, to young girls and boys who need professional models from their race whom they can identify with. As a result, he urges people to treat affirmative action with sympathy and look at it with open mind rather than with mindless maxim. Dworking that affirmative action should be treated as an urgent course because the society is racially conscious. In addition, he states that there are misrepresentations of blacks in various sectors of professions, and the only way to achieve equity among racial presentations in the workplaces and learning institutions. Failing to be admitted or selected for a job is nothing new, every time there are candidates many of them are left out due to inadequacy of the required qualifications. This could be in terms academic qualifications, experiences or skills and knowledge required for a particular job. Similarly, IQ or intelligence tests leave out candidates out of the race due to failure to attain the required scores. Nevertheless, the author claims that race cannot be equated to these measures because, unlike the above, it is motivated by historical contempt for the race that has been excluded. This exclusion is a form of insult because it was generated by contempt and prejudice, for example, in the case of blacks who have been discriminated to the extent hat whites sees them not as fellow people, but a race. He further states that for Bakke, it was just a case of disappointment from losing out on the selection. The affirmative action is something that serves a general purpose, which has the interest of many people or the general public against one person. Moreover, the resources are scarce thus should be used where they are needed most to benefit the general society, and so the author argues that Bakke has no right to prevent such measures. To some extent I agree with Dworking that affirmative action is not aimed at reverse discrimination because it was introduced for a good course. The situation in the country at that time was worse because blacks were extremely prejudiced and discriminated. In addition, the country was divided on a racial basis whereby opportunities only existed for whites, but blacks had no access to job and admission opportunities. However, I think that in long term affirmative action could actually lead to reverse discrimination. For example, in an area where majority of job applicants are white and the highest number of posts are reserved for blacks, it will create an imbalance. For instance, Bakke felt that his constitutional right was violated because he believes if such programs continue, then with time it will be whites who will be marginalized when it comes to admissions and access to employment opportunities. Therefore, the affirmative programs should include some measures to ensure that equal opportunities is maintained, but is not exceeded at the expense of other individuals. Leopold claims that we ought to extend the moral community to include the non-sentient natural environment. Every individual belongs to a community, which defines the roles and obligations of everyone in it, as well as the way people should behave and act towards one another. Similarly, there are several other elements that make up part of a community and these are such as soil, among other things that make up the non-salient environment. Leopold claims that these things mark the boundary of the community, and thus, should be treated as a moral community just like human beings. He claims that the balance of nature or mechanism of life requires plants, animals, other forms of nature and human beings to complete the cycle of life. Therefore, he believes that not-sentient forms are essential to human beings and the community, thus, conservation that is recently emphasized should be treated as moral issue rather economic issue. Hence, tackling the issue of environmental sustainability and conservation of natural resources requires the issue to be considered from a moral perspective. For example, he notes, “one cannot round out a real understanding of the situation in the Southwest without likewise considering its moral aspects” (Leopold 665). Moreover, conservation of nature was emphasized on the grounds of decency rather than dollar. The non-salient natures serves an imperative function in the lives of humans, thus, deserve to be treated with the same respect. For instance, humans benefit a lot from the land or oil, but they disregard it and scatter it everywhere in the form of soil erosion. He further proves his claim by referring to other philosophers’ points of view on organized animate nature, for example, Onpensky who notes that if we were to observe inside the human body, then flesh would appear as an elemental phenomena found in an inanimate nature. This shows the need to support non-sentient nature, since they are as important as parts of the body that one cannot do without. People strive for prosperity, safety, long life and comfort, but amidst all these, it is necessary to think objectively about the non-salient elements that make all these wishes and dreams a reality. I agree that non-salient nature should be treated with great respect because without them man cannot survive. However, to treat them as a moral community is a different thing. This would mean that the non-sentient nature is given the same status as human beings. As we all know, humans were created more superior than other forms, thus, it would look well if they were accorded the same status as human beings. Nevertheless, this does not mean that people have to mistreat or mishandle these elements that are crucial to life. Furthermore, considering non-sentient nature as a moral part of the community would interfere with the forces of nature because this means that humans would be restricted on using such elements or forms of nature for their personal gain. God created man and availed these things to help him in his endeavors, thus, the use should not be restricted in the name of morality. What should happen is that man should be conscious when utilizing these elements by not degrading them, and also by ensuring their preservation and sustainability. Read More