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

TL;DR

Affirmative action affects justice by weighing race and ethnicity alongside grades and test scores to address unequal educational preparation and pursue a diverse student body. Episode 09 examines Cheryl Hopwood’s rejection from the University of Texas Law School despite her 3.8 GPA, then contrasts Rawls’s rejection of moral desert with Aristotle’s view that justice gives people their due. Read on to compare the competing principles behind admissions decisions.

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: Is affirmative action in university admissions just?

The discussion presents no simple verdict: affirmative action may be just when race and ethnicity help admissions officers account for unequal educational preparation or build a diverse student body. Critics respond that race is outside an applicant’s control and that using it may violate the rights of applicants such as Cheryl Hopwood.

Q: What happened in Cheryl Hopwood’s affirmative action case?

Cheryl Hopwood applied to the University of Texas Law School after earning a 3.8 grade point average and taking the law school admissions test. She was rejected while some African-American and Mexican-American applicants with lower academic indexes were admitted, and she argued in federal court that the race-conscious policy violated her rights.

Q: Why did the University of Texas Law School consider race in admissions?

The law school said African-Americans and Mexican-Americans made up 40% of Texas’s population and that having a diverse student body was important. It therefore considered the racial and ethnic profile of the class along with grades and test scores.

Q: How can affirmative action address unequal educational preparation?

One argument is that students from poorly funded and poorly supplied schools may not have received the same opportunities as students from affluent backgrounds. Their grades and test scores may therefore understate their academic potential, so admissions officers can interpret those measures in light of educational disadvantage.

Q: Why did critics consider the admissions policy unfair to Cheryl Hopwood?

A student defending Hopwood argued that race is an arbitrary factor an applicant cannot control, unlike a test score someone can work to improve. Hopwood maintained that she would have been admitted with the same grades and test scores if she had belonged to a minority group, and the trial’s admissions statistics supported that comparison.

Q: Can diversity justify considering race when applicants are otherwise equal?

The discussion asks whether a university may prefer racial and ethnic diversity even when two candidates have equal grades, test scores, and educational backgrounds. Hopwood’s student defender conceded that diversity could justifiably break the tie, while still describing race and ethnicity as factors outside an applicant’s control.

Q: How does Rawls connect moral desert to distributive justice?

Rawls distinguishes claims of moral desert from entitlements based on legitimate expectations. He argues that distributive justice should not be understood as rewarding people according to their virtue, a position the episode applies to opportunities, hiring decisions, and admission standards.

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

Aristotle links justice to moral desert, virtue, and the purpose of whatever is being distributed. His example that the best flutes should go to the best players illustrates giving people their due, whereas Rawls rejects moral desert as the basis of distributive justice.

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.