Despite being seen as an academic liberal (with all associated sins), I have long had a mixed view of affirmative action in education and employment. As an individualist who believes in the value of merit, I hold that college admission and hiring should be based entirely on the merit of the individual. That is, the best qualified person should be admitted or hired. This is based on the principle that admission and hiring should be based on earning the opportunity and this is fairly and justly based on whether an individual merits the admission or job.
To use a sports analogy, the person who gets the first-place award for a 5K race should be the person who runs the race the fastest. This person has merited the award by winning. To deny the best runner the award and give it to someone else in the name of diversity would be absurd and unfair—even if there is a lack of diversity among the winners.
However, I know about the foundational institutionalized inequality in America and that addressing it can, on utilitarian grounds, allow treating some people unfairly for the greater good. There is also the matter of the fairness of the competition, which allows me to believe both in merit and affirmative action.
In my 5K analogy, I assume the competition is fair and victory is a matter of ability. Everyone one runs the same course, and no one possesses an unfair advantage, such as having a head start or using a bike. In such a fair competition, the winner earns the victory. Unfortunately, the world beyond the 5K is rigged and unjust.
Discrimination, segregation and unjust inequality remain the order of the day in the United States. So, when people are competing for admission to schools and for jobs, some people have unfair advantages while others face unfair disadvantages. For example, African-Americans are more likely to attend underfunded and lower quality public schools and they face the specter of racism that still possessed the body of America. So, when people apply for college or for jobs they are not meeting on the starting line of a fair race which will grant victory to the best competitor. Rather, people are scattered about (some far behind the starting line, some far ahead) and some enjoy unfair advantages while others carry unfair burdens.
Many of these advantages and burdens involve employment and education. For example, a family that has a legacy at a school will have an advantage over a family whose members have never attended college. As such, affirmative action can shift things in the direction of fairness by, to use my 5K analogy, moving people to bring everyone closer to the starting line for a fairer competition.
To use a problematic analogy, 5K races usually divide awards by age and gender (and some have wheelchair divisions as well). As such, an old runner like me can win an age group award, even though the young fellows have the advantage of youth in competing for the overall awards. The analogy works in that the 5K, like affirmative action done properly, recognizes factors that influence the competition that can be justly addressed so that people can achieve success. The analogy, obviously enough, does start to break apart when pushed (as all analogies do). For example, affirmative action with awards will never make me as fast as the youth, whereas affirmative action in college admission can allow a disadvantaged student to gain an education to match those who have enjoyed advantages. It also faces the obvious risk of suggesting that the competitors are inferior and cannot compete in the open competition. However, it does show that affirmative action can be squared with fair competition.
In closing, I do believe that a person of good conscience can be concerned about the ethics of affirmative action. After all, it does seem to run contrary to the principles of fairness and equality by seeming to grant an advantage to some people based on race, gender and such. I also hold that a person of good conscience can be for affirmative action—after all, it is supposed to aim at rectifying disadvantages and creating a society in which fair competition based on merit can properly take place. Unfortunately, the most vehement foes of affirmative action are white supremacists and misogynists who do not argue in good faith. Ironically, the anti-DEI folks in positions of power, such as certain Trump regime officials, seem to have been gifted with these positions despite their utter lack of merit. That is, they exemplify the claimed horrors of affirmative action gone wild.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.
I fully agree. The job should be given to one who can do it the best way, and ‘affirmative action’ is a contradictory monstrosity, it’s just an inverse form of racism, where one is discriminated for instead of against. These two things are completely different. But racism is negative. It can never be positive.
Needless to say, no one should be discriminated against because of race or provenience, IF all things being equal, also apply to skills sought for, for the job in question.
Also, this would lead to an absolute absence of competition: no one would try to be better than anyone else, since the level of skill would not be the deciding factor, but an entirely arbitrary one that has nothing to do with it. But competition, unless is unhealthy or obsessive, is indeed beneficial, I’d say necessary.
This is why I dismiss modern feminism: I don’t believe that merit has anything to do with what one has between the legs, and I do not believe that women fare any better or worse than anyone else, not in first world countries.
It also seems to suggest that there’s something wrong with me just because I have a penis between my legs.
“The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen.”.
Here we can substitute ‘national pride’ with any other pride: that about gender, race, height, shape of my nose, etc etc. In other words: natural physical attributes, not skills. Of course, one can be ‘proud’ of whatever he or she likes, but skill has zero to do with that.
Say, I am an immigrant. I don’t believe I should be treated worse than anyone else. Neither I believe I should be treated much better than natives, just because I am an immigrant.
Of course, the former is common, the latter very uncommon, but that’s not the point.
It’s about not doing wrong, not doing ‘right’ that is not really merited. Fairness must be balanced, not lopsided in one way or the other. For otherwise it’s not fairness.