Shortcomings In Response To Strong Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a policy that takes characteristics such as an individual’s race, sex, etc., into account by a business (in terms of the hiring process) or government (in college admission affairs). Affirmative action presents itself in two forms; weak and strong. Weak affirmative action occurs when preference is awarded to a minority person with equal qualifications as their white, male counterpart; in a decision between a minority and white male of equal competence, the minority individual will be given preference in terms of being hired, or admitted. Strong affirmative action involves giving preference to minorities/women who are less qualified than white, male applicants. I will be discussing the morality of the implementation of
strong affirmative action in the consideration of applicants for college admissions/the workforce, according to deontologist Immanuel Kant, Utilitarian theory, and John Rawls’ theory of justice. Deontological theories regard duty, or doing what is right for it’s own sake, as the foundation of morality. Kant asserts that we should act in accordance with our moral obligation and duty. According to this aspect of deontology and Kant’s stance on the doing of what is right through the execution of goodwill, strong affirmative action is moral. This holds true because it fulfills good will through the provision of benefits to disadvantaged groups in our society as a means to compensate for a long history of discrimination/racism. In addition to this, strong affirmative action also works to produce fairness in the workplace and school environment by lessening the discrepancy in proportions of white and minority students; all of these aspects combined affirm the good will behind strong affirmative action, which Kant would support. Alternately, however, strong affirmative action violates both of Kant’s categorical imperatives, and it can, therefore, be argued that Kant would oppose this form of affirmative action, and deny its morality. The first categorial imperative states that one must, "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law"; the use of preferential treatment solely on the basis of race or gender is not a practice that can be universalized, which violates Kant’s first imperative. Kant’s second categorical imperative holds that we should always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end. Businesses and colleges use individuals as a means only through the use of strong affirmative action to meet quotas for minority/female students and workers; minorities and women admitted or hired on the basis of color or gender in order to fulfill certain requirements for a school or corporation are used as a means to achieve an end, violating Kant’s second categorical imperative. Due to the conflicts between strong affirmative action and Kant’s categorical imperatives, I argue that Kant would find this policy immoral. Two sides to this moral question can also be addressed in terms of utilitarianism. On one side, it can be argued that preferential hiring/admissions helps minorities who are less qualified than their white counterparts (due to racism) develop their talents, which could contribute to a larger pool of qualified, diversified workers. Minorities, through strong affirmative action, have the ability to reach and take advantage of greater opportunity, which helps not only minority individuals, but also the workplace or campus in which they work or attend school through greater diversification. When individuals of all genders, ethnicities, races, etc. come together in one unified environment, there is vast potential for an overall greater quality of learning, performance, and success. Strong affirmative action, therefore, has the capacity to create the greatest amount of happiness for the most amount of people; through this policy, not only do minorities benefit through the provision of greater opportunity on fronts such as the workplace/school, but fellow workers and students would also benefit from greater diversity through exposure to different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences of others that can help everyone grow. Due to the promotion of happiness for the greatest number of people, strong affirmative action could be considered moral from a utilitarian standpoint. On the other hand, it can also be argued that preferential treatment of minorities actually works against those minority individuals through the creation of tension or resentment towards them by their peers, who may look unfavorably upon fellow minority students due to the belief that they received a leg-up, despite lacking qualifications, due to strong affirmative action.
Shortcomings in qualifications for a given job or university may also put the hired/admitted minority individual at a disadvantage if their credentials are not equivalent to those of a standard student or worker at a given school or workplace. This attitude in response to strong affirmative action, therefore, would not promote happiness for the greatest amount of people; admitted students/workers who are underqualified are set up for failure, which leads to unhappiness. In addition to this, a given workplace or university is also unhappy due to poor performance of minority individuals who are not properly qualified. Finally, peers of minority students/employees may feel resentment towards these groups for reasons stated above, which contributes to an overall level of unhappiness. In respect to strong affirmative impact from this different perspective, it may also be deemed immoral from a utilitarian
standpoint. John Rawls’ stance on this moral question can be addressed in terms of the social contract and his theory of justice.
The ultimate goal of social contract theories is show that social rules can be rationally justified, which is what Rawls’ theory can be interpreted to do in terms of our society’s social rule of strong affirmative action, implemented by great numbers of businesses and collegiate universities. Rawls’ theory of justice contains two principles; the first (The Principle of Basic Liberties) holds that each person is entitled to equal basic liberties that cannot trump another person’s basic liberties. In terms of this principle of Rawls’ theory, it can be asserted that all applicants in the hiring/admissions process are entitled to equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. The second principle (The Difference Principle) holds that social and economic inequalities should exist only under the condition that they are to the greatest advantage to the least advantaged people in society. Rawls ultimately recommends and advocates for equality of opportunity and the promotion of the interests of those most disadvantaged in our society; according to this viewpoint, strong affirmative action is moral on the grounds that it works to provide minority individuals with greater levels of opportunity and benefits that they’ve been denied over many years of
discrimination. I personally find the use of strong affirmative action in the consideration of applicants for job opportunities/college admissions to be immoral. While weak affirmative action favors a minority individual of equal competence in order to provide opportunity/promote diversity, strong affirmative action blatantly disregards merit and qualifications of applicants, debasing them all solely to the color of their skin. The use of an applicant's skin color or gender as a means to fulfill a quota requirement, or make a university/workplace appear more diversified, is immoral to me. If race doesn’t matter, and we are all equal, why is it still a deciding factor in an individual's chances to get into a school, or be hired for a job? Ideally, I think race/gender should be completely eliminated from such applications, to eradicate discrimination of any kind. Allan Bakke, a white man, sued the University of California at Davis Medical School when his application was denied, while minorities with lower test scores were admitted. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, stating that reverse discrimination was unconstitutional; if discrimination against minorities or women is immoral, how is moral to do so towards white males, if they possess the necessary attributes to qualify them for a job or admittance to a given university? While I can admit to and see the benefits of strong affirmative action, and how it works to diversify working/student populations, I ultimately find it immoral to award preferential treatment to an individual based upon the color of their skin or gender, should their credentials not be aligned with what would be expected of any other applicant.