Affirmative Action Debate Essay Research Paper Affirmative — страница 2

  • Просмотров 377
  • Скачиваний 13
  • Размер файла 16
    Кб

qualified in all other aspects. Because of the injustices that exist, race and gender must be considered in order to achieve justice for minorities and women in our society. –include Onora O’Neill quote from Kant. (p. 442) Possible Objections and Responses: 1. Affirmative action does not show racial equality toward white males– Response: the goal is justice, not making everyone happy 2. Affirmative action accepts unqualified applicants under the pretense of diversity Response: isolated incidents like this may occur, but this is not the majority of the cases. Like in the Bakke case, there may be other reasons that haven’t been exposed (e.g., an age limit for medical school). Even if this were the case, however, the benefit of the diverse perspectives that the person brings

to the position will compensate for their seeming lack of qualification. 3. Are role models of one’s race or gender really necessary for success? Response: diversity alone gives a woman or minority the hope of success for all students. Diversity also allows male and white students to see that success is not limited to a specific group of people and debunks any of their racist or sexist assumptions. 2 minute Responses to the anti-A.A. side Their argument: AA causes reverse discrimination, compensation for past actions is unjustified, and AA perpetuates the victimization syndrome. We agree that AA is reverse discrimination. This discrimination is justified, however, in that our society there is a set amount of burdens and benefits to be shared. If one side has all the benefits

while the other carries the majority of the burden, in order to shift the disparity between the two sides, the advantaged side must accept some of the burdens and lose some of the benefits. In the case of AA, this takes place in the form of reverse discrimination. It is important to note, though, that even with the reverse discrimination, the advantaged side is still at a large advantage. Add statistics. As was mentioned in our lecture, sometimes a certain group will be heavily recruited, but once you look at the racial profile of the school, it is apparent that the under-recruited group still makes up the majority of the enrollment. Discrimination, as defined by Pojman, is judging one thing to differ from another on the basis of some criterion. An example of such discrimination

that is rarely seen as such is UNC undergraduate admissions. The criteria to have 84% in-state enrollment is justified by the University’s goal to provide an affordable education for the residents of North Carolina. However, an out-of-state student can view this decision as discrimination against the 16% from outside of N.C. If this form of discrimination against out-of-state students were eliminated, we would find a higher undergraduate retention rate. Despite this benefit, the goals of the university clearly state that North Carolina residents are the targeted group, and the enrollment reflects this goal and justifies the discrimination. Moreover, you argue that compensation for past actions is not justified. However, when the repercussions of those past actions still provide

a benefit for the advantaged group and continue to keep the other group at a disadvantage, then the situation must be rectified and compensation is necessary. Why should those not directly responsible for this disparity of advantages be the ones to compensate for these past actions? Because even though they are not directly responsible, they still reap the benefits from the past. Returning to the shackled runner analogy, how can you expect the newly unshackled group to be able to compete against the unshackled side that has benefited from years of coaching and practice without providing resources that will help them not only catch up but also become competitive. In this case, compensation is more than justified. In addressing the victimization syndrome that may or may not be

caused by AA, it must be understood that some people are always going to feel like victims. However, there is a more positive way to view this situation. Think back to when you were a child learning to ride a bike. You may have started out with training wheels or your parents may have held on to the back of your bike but they did not let you go until they felt that you were adequately prepared to ride on your own without training wheels. In this situation, most children did not feel like victims but instead appreciated the guidance they were given until they could achieve on their own. Similarly, your parents probably gave you a head start in races, knowing that over time you would be able to compete against them and win races on your own. Giving you the head start gave you the