Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"

TL;DR

Affirmative action in university admissions is debated through the lens of justice, contrasting compensatory measures for historical injustices with merit-based admissions. The discussion explores whether race should be a factor to correct educational disadvantages and how societal missions of institutions justify diversity. Aristotle's philosophy introduces the concept of justice as giving people their due, emphasizing the purpose of distribution.

Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING] NARRATOR: Funding for this program is provided by-- Additional funding provided by-- [MUSIC PLAYING] MICHAEL SANDEL: Last time, we were discussing the distinction that Rawls draws between two different types of claims, claims of moral desert on the one hand, and of entitlements to legitimate expectations on the other. Rawls argued... Read More

Key Insights

• Affirmative action involves considering race in admissions to address educational disadvantages and promote diversity.
• Cheryl Hopwood's case challenged affirmative action, arguing it violated her rights due to her higher academic scores compared to some admitted minority applicants.
• Three main arguments for affirmative action include correcting educational disadvantage, compensating for past injustices, and promoting diversity.
• Critics argue that affirmative action may perpetuate racial divisions and question whether it unfairly impacts those not responsible for past injustices.
• Aristotle's theory of justice emphasizes giving people what they deserve based on their virtues and the purpose of the distribution.
• Aristotle argues that the best flutes should go to the best players, illustrating justice as aligning virtues with appropriate roles.
• The diversity argument in affirmative action suggests that a diverse student body benefits the educational experience and societal strength.
• Rawls' rejection of moral desert in distributive justice contrasts with Aristotle's view that justice involves rewarding virtue and merit.

Questions & Answers

Q: How does affirmative action address educational inequality?

Affirmative action aims to address educational inequality by considering race as a factor in admissions to correct for disparities in educational opportunities. Proponents argue that students from minority backgrounds may have faced systemic disadvantages, and affirmative action seeks to level the playing field by acknowledging these factors in academic evaluations.

Q: What was Cheryl Hopwood's case against affirmative action?

Cheryl Hopwood challenged the University of Texas Law School's affirmative action policy after being denied admission despite having higher grades and test scores than some minority applicants who were admitted. She argued that the policy unfairly discriminated against her based on race, violating her rights, and took her case to federal court.

Q: What are the main arguments for affirmative action?

The main arguments for affirmative action include correcting educational disadvantages, compensating for historical injustices like slavery and segregation, and promoting diversity within educational institutions. These arguments suggest that considering race can help create a more equitable and inclusive academic environment, benefiting society as a whole.

Q: What are the criticisms of affirmative action?

Critics of affirmative action argue that it may perpetuate racial divisions, unfairly impact individuals not responsible for past injustices, and violate the principle that admissions should be based on individual merit and achievements. They question whether race-based policies truly address the root causes of inequality or simply adjust outcomes superficially.

Q: How does Aristotle's view of justice differ from Rawls'?

Aristotle's view of justice focuses on giving people what they deserve based on their virtues and the purpose of distribution, such as aligning roles with individual merits. In contrast, Rawls rejects the idea that distributive justice is about rewarding moral desert, instead advocating for principles that ensure fairness and equality, regardless of individual virtues.

Q: What is the diversity argument in affirmative action?

The diversity argument for affirmative action posits that a diverse student body enhances the educational experience for all students and contributes to societal strength. It suggests that diversity in race and ethnicity brings varied perspectives and benefits, aligning with the broader mission of educational institutions to serve the common good and prepare leaders for a diverse society.

Q: How does Aristotle's philosophy apply to modern justice debates?

Aristotle's philosophy, which ties justice to moral desert and virtues, offers a framework for considering how roles and rewards should align with individual merits and the purpose of distribution. In modern justice debates, this perspective challenges views that separate justice from moral considerations, emphasizing the importance of aligning societal roles with virtues.

Q: Why is teleological reasoning important in justice, according to Aristotle?

Teleological reasoning, which considers the purpose or end goal of a practice, is central to Aristotle's concept of justice. He argues that understanding the purpose of what is being distributed, such as flutes or educational opportunities, helps determine the appropriate allocation based on virtues, ensuring that roles and rewards align with the intended goals and societal benefits.

Summary:

This video discusses the concept of distributive justice in relation to the case of affirmative action. The speaker explores arguments for and against considering race and ethnicity as factors in admissions, highlighting the perspectives of various individuals. The discussion delves into the notions of correcting for educational disadvantage, compensating for past injustices, and promoting diversity. The video also raises the question of whether distributive justice should be tied to moral desert or if it should be detached from questions of virtue.

Questions & Answers:

Q: What distinction did Rawls draw in regard to distributive justice?

Rawls distinguished between claims of moral desert and entitlements to legitimate expectations.

Q: How did Rawls argue against the idea of distributive justice as moral desert?

Rawls argued that it is a mistake to think that distributive justice is solely based on rewarding people according to their virtue.

Q: What case was discussed regarding affirmative action in university admissions?

The case of Cheryl Hopwood, who applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School and was turned down.

Q: What admissions policy did the University of Texas Law School have at the time?

The University of Texas Law School had an affirmative action admissions policy that took into account race and ethnic background.

Q: What was Cheryl Hopwood's complaint about the admissions policy?

Cheryl Hopwood argued that she was being turned down solely because she was white, as minority applicants with lower grades and test scores were being admitted in her place.

Q: What arguments were presented in defense of affirmative action?

The arguments presented included correcting for educational disadvantage, compensating for past wrongs, and promoting diversity.

Q: What is the corrective argument in defense of affirmative action?

The corrective argument states that considering race and ethnicity corrects for differences in educational background and provides a more accurate measure of academic potential.

Q: How does the compensatory argument justify affirmative action?

The compensatory argument justifies affirmative action as a way of compensating for past injustices, such as slavery and segregation.

Q: What is the diversity argument in support of affirmative action?

The diversity argument asserts that a racially and ethnically diverse student body enhances the educational experience for all students and contributes to the broader social mission of the institution.

Q: What objection is raised against the diversity argument?

The objection is that individual rights may be violated if admissions decisions are based on factors outside of an individual's control, such as race or ethnicity.

Q: What is aristotle's conception of justice?

Aristotle's conception of justice is based on giving people what they deserve, taking into account their virtues and appropriateness for social roles.

Q: Why does aristotle argue that the best flutes should go to the best flute players?

Aristotle argues that the best flutes should go to the best flute players because the purpose of flutes is to produce excellent music, and those who are best able to fulfill this purpose deserve the best flutes.

Q: How does aristotle's conception of justice differ from modern conceptions?

Aristotle's conception of justice focuses on honoring virtue and moral desert, whereas modern conceptions tend to detach justice from questions of desert and focus on equality and individual rights.

Takeaways:

The video examines the arguments surrounding affirmative action and raises questions about the relationship between distributive justice, moral desert, and virtue. It presents various perspectives on the fairness and effectiveness of considering race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. The concept of teleological reasoning is introduced through an exploration of aristotle's conception of justice, which ties justice to the purpose or goal of the social practice. The video encourages further reflection on the moral basis of justice and the potential consequences of detaching justice from questions of desert.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Affirmative action is debated through cases like Cheryl Hopwood's, where race-based admissions policies are questioned for fairness. The discussion highlights whether such policies correct educational inequities and compensate for historical wrongs. Critics argue they might perpetuate divisions or unfairly impact individuals not responsible for past injustices.

• Aristotle's philosophy contrasts with modern views by linking justice to moral desert and virtues. He argues that roles and rewards should align with individual merits and the purpose of what's being distributed, such as giving the best flutes to the best players, emphasizing the role of virtues in justice.

• The diversity argument supports affirmative action by asserting that diverse backgrounds enhance educational experiences and societal cohesion. This view challenges the notion of individual rights being violated by race-based admissions, suggesting a broader societal mission justifies diversity as a goal.