Affirmative Action: Ethics, Diversity, and Inclusion

Introduction

The term affirmative action collectively refers to the positive steps taken to increase the representation of minority groups in business, employment, and college admissions by according them preferential treatment — partly as a means of compensating for injustices committed against them in the past (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001). Its contestation, defense, and development tend to proceed along two paths: administrative and legal (in the form of executive orders or court rulings requiring organizations to practice affirmative action), and public debate (in the form of literature exploring the pros and cons of such preferential treatment).

A notable legal case occurred when the Supreme Court ruled against three white students who had challenged their university's selection policy, which awarded students from minority groups higher points during admissions. The students argued that the policy encouraged race-based discrimination (Messerli, 2012). The university's position was that the policy created opportunities for achieving genuine diversity — an argument that most proponents of affirmative action have since endorsed. Skeptics have, however, questioned its rationale, with some arguing that affirmative action has already served its purpose and is no longer necessary, unless the nation intends to compensate for past injustices indefinitely.

This paper analyzes the arguments presented by both opposing and supporting factions in order to determine whether affirmative action supports an ethical rationale for diversity and inclusion.

Affirmative Action in Practice: Key Court Cases

Before embarking on the main discussion, it is useful to examine several court cases in which affirmative action was directly at issue, in order to illuminate the specific ethical questions involved.

Weber v. United Steelworkers of America (1979): In this case, a white employee brought suit against a Louisiana steel manufacturing plant, arguing that its in-plant training program — which distributed positions on a 50-50 basis between white and black employees — violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (The Leadership Conference, 2015). The argument was that by reserving a set number of spots for each racial group, the program infringed on the rights of white employees by allowing the promotion of less-senior black employees ahead of more-senior white ones, solely to meet numerical targets (The Leadership Conference, 2015). The court ruled that private entities had the right to implement their own affirmative action programs to address the racial injustices of the past.

U.S. v. Paradise (1987): In this case, a petitioner challenged the legality of the Alabama Department of Public Safety's one-black-for-one-white promotion scheme, which required that a qualified black candidate be promoted for every white candidate promoted (The Leadership Conference, 2015). The court ruled in favor of the Department, reasoning that the affirmative action program offered the state a meaningful opportunity to compensate for racial injustices historically committed against the Black American community (The Leadership Conference, 2015).

Core Ethical Questions

These cases raise three fundamental ethical questions:

i) Is it ethical to show preference for one group over another on the basis of demographic characteristics?

ii) To what extent should these preferences be permitted to overshadow other qualities such as merit, qualifications, or experience?

iii) Is affirmative action an effective means of eliminating discrimination against minorities?

Proponents and opponents of affirmative action have offered differing responses to each of these questions. The sections below present and weigh the arguments put forward on both sides.

Arguments for Affirmative Action

The most fundamental argument in favor of affirmative action is that it creates avenues for organizations to increase their degree of diversity, and to consequently reap the associated benefits — including a wider array of perspectives and a greater likelihood of challenging entrenched assumptions in productive ways (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001). Thanks to affirmative action, minorities are able to enter fields of work and study that they might otherwise never have considered: women, for example, are able to pursue careers in technology, while men can enter fields traditionally coded as feminine, such as nursing. Proponents argue that this could significantly help society dismantle stereotypes about the abilities and capabilities of minority groups.

Affirmative action also provides an opportunity for majority groups to compensate their minority counterparts for historical injustices. Over the first centuries of America's existence, for instance, Native Americans and Black Americans were enslaved, subjected to unpaid forced labor, brutal punishment, and inhumane treatment. Proponents of affirmative action in the United States argue that according these groups preferential treatment is among the most meaningful ways to acknowledge and begin to redress those wrongs. Skeptics have disputed this claim, however, arguing that it is not ethical to compensate minority descendants for wrongs committed against their forebears by penalizing majority descendants who bear no personal responsibility for those historical actions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001).

Conclusion

Affirmative action accords minorities preferential treatment in employment and college admission as a way of compensating them for the historical injustices committed against their forebears. However, while it does increase opportunities for diversity and inclusion, affirmative action also fosters damaging stereotypes, enables reverse discrimination, and implicitly undermines confidence in minorities' ability to succeed on their own terms. On balance, the costs of affirmative action outweigh its benefits, and it therefore cannot be regarded as a fully effective or ethically unambiguous means of promoting diversity and inclusion.

References

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2001). Affirmative action. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Leadership Conference. (2015). Affirmative action. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Retrieved 6 March 2015 from

Tomasson, R. F., Crosby, F. J., & Herzberger, S. D. (2001). Affirmative action: The pros and cons of policy and practice. Rowman & Littlefield.