murray.liam.termpaper.final
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC) *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
344
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by HighnessChimpanzee4125
Murray 1
Liam Murray
PHIL 344
16 December 2019
Dr. Sungwon Woo
Affirmative Action as Moral Discrimination
Affirmative action is a program that exists to distribute scarce positions to oppressed people. In order to provide this form of distributive justice, it requires discrimination. Iris Marion
Young argues in favor of affirmative action as an idea, but against the societal structures that persist which allow a group to maintain hierarchical control over other oppressed groups. She believes that nondiscrimination should be discarded as a goal. Equality, according to Young, cannot be achieved through the assimilationist ideal of transcending group differences. Differential treatment would better serve equality of outcome, especially in cases where equality of opportunity is much more difficult to ensure. In this paper, I will argue that discrimination against groups in power as a means to aide oppressed groups is morally acceptable. In instances where that aide has been removed, like the state of California, it is evident that oppressed groups are at a much greater disadvantage.
Young argues against the notion that affirmative action is wrongful discrimination, in favor of a starkly opposed position: discrimination for the purpose of combatting oppression is morally required (Young 197). The most prominent legal justification for affirmative action is that it serves to correct previous instances of discrimination against marginalized groups. Some that support it will often argue that affirmative action is an extension of nondiscrimination. Young chooses to redefine the traditional argument between those for and against affirmative
Murray 2
action by embracing the notion that the program is inherently discriminatory. She highlights the need to focus on the practice of oppression, rather than the pursuit of a system of pure nondiscrimination. Discriminatory practices support oppression, but they are a symptom, not the cause. Oppression takes on a much greater form. It affects the ability of marginalized groups to earn the credentials required for privileged positions that affirmative action would assist them in attaining. Young also targets the narrow scope of discrimination. It is often assessed at an individual level, and it is the responsibility of the victim to prove discrimination, rather than the agent to defend themselves.
Affirmative action exists within a merit-based ideological framework. This framework does not acknowledge that oppressed groups lack the opportunity to attain the merit deemed necessary by the people in power. Education, a prominent proxy for experience, provides a great advantage to white men over other groups. White men are more likely to attend better schools as well as having their learning experience and standardized testing targeted toward their cultural experience. The current education system is not an example of discrimination, but oppression. Women and people of color are not targeted as members of groups but victimized by a system that was not designed for them to be successful. Affirmative action is discrimination. However, it seeks to discriminate against those in power to provide opportunities to the groups that are victimized by an oppressive system. The position that affirmative action is morally justifiable discrimination is defensible when the argument is re-situated around oppression, rather than discrimination. Young argues at great length about the role education plays as a proxy for experience when determining merit. She centers much of the argument around standardized testing, which I will agree are inherently biased towards white males. However, she fails to recognize a key part
Murray 3
of the argument surrounding affirmative action and education. Affirmative action programs are often used when assessing college admissions. In 1990, when Young’s piece was published, affirmative action had not been successfully challenged as discriminatory. Affirmative action is a
tool available to many disenfranchised people seeking to achieve the education needed when seeking scarce positions. The fact that this tool exists undermines much of her argument surrounding merit, not just in education. While her criticisms surrounding the assessment of merit are sound, it is not as difficult to achieve merit as she describes. Standardized testing is taken into account when entering undergraduate schools and become much less of a concern after completion of high school. This is not the case when seeking highly sought after and scarce professional positions that require entering graduate school or specified schools such as law or medical. However, affirmative action is still in place to allow for marginalized groups to not perform as well on these tests and still gain admittance over white males who received higher scores. Affirmative action as a program extends beyond the scope of distributive job placement. It effectively awards educational merit to the same groups Young believes to be at a disadvantage. I believe Young would see the merit in affirmative action’s role in distributive education. However, she would also argue that, much like workplaces, education should become democratized. I cannot envision what shape a democratized higher education would take, but I imagine there would be more than a select few admissions officers deciding the fates of applicants. Young would also reference the fact that affirmative action in higher education has been under attack since the mid-1990s. Part of this attack stems from the fact that affirmative action has effectively created quota systems, forcing members of groups to only compete with themselves,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Murray 4
with the largest groups still being white men. At this point, eight states have banned affirmative action in higher education. California, one of the most racially diverse states in the country, was among the first to do so. Under the guise of ending a discriminatory practice, California ended affirmative action, and by doing so entrenched the system of oppression that affects socio-
economically disenfranchised minority groups. In 2013, it was reported that Black student admission to the University of California had declined. Between 1994 and 2010, admission of Black applicants dropped from seventy-five percent to fifty-eight percent.
1
This would put the state in a difficult situation because if this many Black students are less prepared for college, it is
an indictment of their public school system as racially oppressive. If it is not the public school system, then it is the admissions process that is racially oppressive. 1
Sharon Bernstein, "Black Students Lagging in Admissions to the University of California," Reuters
, December 5, 2013, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-race/black-students-lagging-in-admissions-to-university-
of-california-idUSBRE9B504120131206
.