lecture 8 affirmative action (aa). a few facts in the us, 8.7% of bachelor, 7.8% of master and 5% of...

Lecture 8

Affirmative action (AA)

A few facts

In the US, 8.7% of bachelor, 7.8% of master and 5% of Ph.D. graduates were African American (year 2000).

There are only two US universities with African American faculty > 4% (year 2012)

African American percentage in total US population: 12.4%

A further fact

Of 40.000 university professors in Canada (2007-08), 34% were female.

Of 13.000 Canadian full professors, 30% were female.

Female professors’ salaries ≈ 90% of male professors’ salaries.

One more fact

Norway: publicly listed corporations must have 40% representation of women on boards of directors.

So what?

Do there facts represent injustice?If so, what is to be done?

University of California vs. Allan Bakke

Affirmative action at the University of California (Davis) Medical School: 16 places from 100 reserved for ‘minority’ applicants

UC Davis’ justification

1. To reduce long-standing disadvantage of ethnic minorities practising medicine.

2. To combat social discrimination.3. To increase number of doctors who practise

in disadvantaged communities.4. To create a more (ethnically) diverse student

body.

Arguments in favour of AA

Compensating for past injustices

Principle of compensation

A perpetrator, P, commits an act of injustice against a victim, V. Justice is restored when P compensates V for the wrongdoing.

Problems with compensation

a) Is it feasible to make perpetrators pay compensation?

b) Is it feasible to compensate victims?c) What is the right sort or amount of

compensation?d) Will some people be ‘compensated’ when

they do not deserve compensation?

Reverse Discrimination

‘Reverse discrimination’ is a term used by critics of AA who say:If discrimination against, e.g., blacks in the past is wrong, then so is discrimination against white males today.

All discrimination is wrong.

Counterargument to reverse discrimination

Discrimination against blacks and women in the past is different to ‘discrimination’ against whites in AA programmes.

Why? Past discrimination was ‘based on contempt or even loathing for the excluded group’; such people were thought only fit to be underlings and subordinates.

Diversity arguments for AA

Greater diversity in education is a goal towards which universities should strive through AA programmes.

Role model argument

What is the purpose (telos) of a university

Two alternatives:1) a university may decide which social

purposes it should serve and it should select students accordingly.

2) A university must select students according to their academic merit; it is illegitimate for a university to admit students according to other criteria.

Three responses

1) Utilitarian2) Rights-based3) Aristotelian (“virtue ethics”)

Allan Bakke (a reprise)

Civil Rights Act (1964)Title VI - Nondiscrimination In Federally

Assisted Programs“no person … shall be excluded from

participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”.

Dworkin’s view

(Sandel, pp. 173-4)AA does not violate people’s rights because

there is no right to be judged for university admission according to one’s grade point average alone.

(Desert vs. entitlement).

Aristotelian view

The purpose of a university is to promote academic excellence; the sole admissions criterion should therefore be academic excellence (given by, e.g. high school grade point averages).

To admit students according to other criteria would be to undermine the purpose of the university.

Aristotelian view (cont.)

Allan Bakke deserved a place at UC Davis’ Medical School because he possessed the ‘virtues’ promoted by the university better than minority applicants (on account of his higher test score).