A634.4.4.RB_DellElceCamila
A634.4.4.RB – Is Affirmative Action Ethical?
Racism is
a deeply embedded attitude that, in spite of the Civil Rights legislation, and
a national verbal acclaim that racial discrimination is wrong and should be punished,
still exists. Lafollette (2007) identifies four items that are considered
morally relevant. First, the acts that are performed on a small scale are
considered to be less damaging than those that are part of a larger
network. Second, when discrimination affects a wide array of behaviors,
rather than just a few, it can be more damaging. Third, the strength of
the perpetrator determines the extent of the harm, and finally, long term,
versus short term, is more harmful. America (1986) believes that very few
groups are exempt from injustices, and many could request compensation.
As LaFollette (2007) further indicates, the context of discrimination is related
to its moral relevance. Therefore the history, economy, politics, and many
other factors must be considered in applying our moral judgments. He makes
a good point in saying that an inference that all expectations that are derived
from our past significant influences can be considered discriminatory, and
subsequently, they weaken the discrimination argument itself. He believes
that the context of discrimination is very important. Racist’s behaviors are
not directed at individuals, but at people because of the group in which they
are members. Although he suggests that only white males were given property
rights, this does not suggest that race is the only factor that resulted in
criteria for loss. As a classmate mentioned it in one of the discussion
posts, we are not ignoring previous injustices against minorities, but we are
also aware that those days are long go. Therefore, a new vision needs to be
taken. LaFollette mentioned, “supporters of affirmative action think that
contemporary whites should compensate blacks, even though the central
perpetrators and victims are dead” (2007, p. 1409). On the contrary, those
opposed to this believe, agree that they owe nothing since they were not the
aggressors back in the day.
The real concern is that as a nation, we are trying to implement a process that
is intended to make up for past wrongs, and it is apparent that it is not
working well. The specific individuals who were wronged may have passed on, or
do not always seek payback. Additionally, the individuals who committed the
wrong may also have passed on, or have moved on with future generations. Although
I hesitate to phrase it this way, the players in past unethical practices may
no longer be relevant to repairing the problem. Therefore, the challenge is to
payback something owed to a previous generation, to a new generation of individuals.
Similarly, in the case of the women not getting accepted to the University of
Texas, Abigail Fisher stated, “I hope the justices will rule that UT is not
allowed to treat undergraduate applicants differently because of their race or
ethnicity” (Glum, 2015). Her case was discussed in class, and brought a lot of
attention not because of an injustice, but because of the race discrimination
to the apparent acceptance to the school. Obviously, nobody deserves to be left
out just because of his or her race. Additionally, it is set up to take from a
new group of people who do not necessarily have any personal history of racism,
in order to move that compensation into the hands of a generation of people who
did not experience the negative treatment. If this is the case, then the
assumption is that each generation is entitled to the wealth accumulation of
their ancestors, or the potential wealth that might have been possible. The
ethical nature of the determination of whether affirmative action is right has
to include a discussion of who is giving and receiving in the process.
America
(1986) describes the problem as a social debt that is owed resulting from the
accumulation of current class benefits from past discrimination. Therefore,
he believes that ethically the redistribution payments intended to set past
debts right is sound. He believes that the redistribution will
inconvenience or penalize only the best off who can reasonably be considered in
the class of beneficiaries. I am not sure that this is necessarily the
ethical action to take. It is similar to saying that if you work really
hard and make a good amount of money, we are entitled to take your money more
than others, simply because you have more of it. We seem to be saying that
because you have done well, we believe it is better to take from you simply
because you may not feel it as much. How does this discover, and apply
consequences, for those who actually participated? The question about the
ethical nature of affirmative action has to be completed by the question of
whether it is ethical to accept compensation, or different treatment, based on
the events of previous ancestors who are not present. Additionally, does
the statement that one is from a specific group entitle them to preferential
treatment simply by membership in a group? What about the various groups
who never suffered slavery, or had ancestors who married the individuals who were
expected to have slaves? Is there compensation owed for activities that
did not occur?
I believe
that the greater discrepancy is often a socioeconomic difference in the quality
of the education. In spite of the length of education (12 years to achieve a
high school diploma) being equal across all racial lines, often the quality
available does not match across the spectrum. I suspect that providing a job
with a high salary to an individual who meets a race qualification could only
result in confirming the discriminatory comments, if the individual did not
earn the right to maintain the job based on ability. As Kenneth Ponds
described, “Racism assumes the superiority of one group over another, an
attitude of arrogance and ignorance - racism extends beyond personal values and
beliefs” (Ponds, 2013). A classmate commented that accepting the concept of one
race is part of racial healing and the diminishment of trauma as described by
Kenneth Ponds (2013). Perhaps, understanding where races come from and
accepting those differences, can positively impact people and avoid discrimination.
Like the saying goes, knowledge is power.
Moreover,
Appiah, (2011) suggested that affirmative action is not wrong, based on the
idea that it involves assigning group rights. He does not believe it has to be
about assigning rights, and that there may be “collective rights” based on
group membership. He further believes that there are ongoing harms that
the black community suffers which can be treated fairly. He further states
that there is a right that everyone has to be treated by a process that is
morally defensible, and this process may take into account a person’s
membership in a larger group. I find that these statements are not
compatible, since he suggests that mere membership in a group morally defends
any specialized treatment of the individual members. I have to question
whether he is suggesting that regardless of the treatment, a person’s
membership entitles them to compensation. I believe that there is something
owed, how the country deals with that issue can further the idea of discrimination. I
think we have not learned to think outside the standard way of resolving
issues, in order to meet the goal of eliminating discrimination. Paying
back does not necessarily fix the problems with discrimination.
References
America, R. F. (1986). Affirmative action and
redistributive ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(1), 73-77.
Appiah, K. (2011). 'Group rights' and racial affirmative
action. Journal of Ethics, 15(3), 265-280. doi:10.1007/s10892-011-9103-5
Glum, J., (2015, December 8). Who is abigail fisher? Facts
about the 2015 supreme court affirmative action case. International Business
Times. Retrieved from
http://www.ibtimes.com/who-abigail-fisher-facts-about-2015-supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-2216026
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ponds, K. T. (2013). The trauma of racism: America's
original sin. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 22(2), 22-24. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1427457869?accountid=27203
No comments:
Post a Comment