The Legal Ramifications of Affirmative Action Programs
Assignment 01 ENN103F
Question 1 Yes I would say it is morally defensible. Although affirmative action programs can be attacked on strictly legal grounds, they are far more defensible on moral and practical grounds, and if they are carefully designed, even their legality can be defended. The fact that current defenders of legal color-blindness so often have a history of condoning preference as long as it benefited white men shows that they argue in bad faith. The presence of such a powerful and wide-ranging impulse to guard white privilege against inroads by minority "interlopers" strongly suggests that a good-faith effort to end discrimination against minorities and to remedy the pernicious effects of historical discrimination would require a fairly muscular approach. On purely practical grounds, the state has a significant interest in promoting equality of opportunity for all. As long as members of certain minorities are effectively prevented from escaping the narrow range of opportunities which historical discrimination has relegated them to, a significant portion of those minorities will continue to be trapped in poverty.
It is in the best interests of society to promote the general well-being of as many of its citizens as possible. A healthy, well-educated, well-adjusted citizen contributes to both the wealth and the stability of the society. On the other hand, a citizen that is a product of the culture of poverty is more likely to suffer from complex and multiple dysfunctions of the sort that would render him a drain on the economy and a force for disruption rather than stability in society. Furthermore, even the privileged members of society would benefit from improving conditions for those who are trapped in the cycle of poverty, which often has its roots in patterns of historical discrimination.
A wealthy white man who is afraid of carjackings or even simple auto theft whenever he drives his high-budget car, whose wife wears paste jewels in
Question 1 Yes I would say it is morally defensible. Although affirmative action programs can be attacked on strictly legal grounds, they are far more defensible on moral and practical grounds, and if they are carefully designed, even their legality can be defended. The fact that current defenders of legal color-blindness so often have a history of condoning preference as long as it benefited white men shows that they argue in bad faith. The presence of such a powerful and wide-ranging impulse to guard white privilege against inroads by minority "interlopers" strongly suggests that a good-faith effort to end discrimination against minorities and to remedy the pernicious effects of historical discrimination would require a fairly muscular approach. On purely practical grounds, the state has a significant interest in promoting equality of opportunity for all. As long as members of certain minorities are effectively prevented from escaping the narrow range of opportunities which historical discrimination has relegated them to, a significant portion of those minorities will continue to be trapped in poverty.
It is in the best interests of society to promote the general well-being of as many of its citizens as possible. A healthy, well-educated, well-adjusted citizen contributes to both the wealth and the stability of the society. On the other hand, a citizen that is a product of the culture of poverty is more likely to suffer from complex and multiple dysfunctions of the sort that would render him a drain on the economy and a force for disruption rather than stability in society. Furthermore, even the privileged members of society would benefit from improving conditions for those who are trapped in the cycle of poverty, which often has its roots in patterns of historical discrimination.
A wealthy white man who is afraid of carjackings or even simple auto theft whenever he drives his high-budget car, whose wife wears paste jewels in