This content explores the complex ethical and moral arguments surrounding affirmative action in university admissions, specifically questioning whether race and ethnicity should be considered factors, and contrasting this with principles of individual merit and desert.
Mind Map
Clic para expandir
Haz clic para explorar el mapa mental interactivo completo
last time we were discussing the
distinction that walls draws between two
different types of claims claims of
moral desert on the one hand and of
entitlements to legitimate expectations
on the other walls argued that it's a
mistake to think that distributive
justice is a matter of moral desert a
matter of rewarding people according to
their virtue today we're going to
explore that question of moral desert
and its relation to distributive justice
not in connection with income and wealth
but in its connection with opportunities
with hiring decisions and admission
standards and so we turn to the case of
affirmative action you read about the
case of Cheryl Hopwood she applied for
admission to the University of Texas law
school Cheryl Hopwood had worked her way
through high school
she didn't come from an affluent family
she put herself through Community
College and California State University
at Sacramento she achieved a 3.8 grade
point average there later moved to Texas
became a resident took the law school
admissions test did pretty well on that
and she applied to the University of
Texas law school she was turned down she
was turned down at a time when the
University of Texas was using an
a policy that took into account race and
ethnic background the University of
Texas said 40% of the population of
Texas is made up of african-americans
and mexican-americans it's important
that we as a law school have a diverse
student body and so we are going to take
into account not only grades and test
scores but also the demographic makeup
of our class including its race and
ethnic profile the result and this is
what Hopwood complained about the result
of that policy is that some applicants
to the University of Texas law school
with the lower academic index which
includes grades and test scores than
hers were admitted and she was turned down
down
she said she argued
I'm just being turned down because I'm
white if I weren't if I were a member of
a minority group with my grades and test
scores I would have been admitted and
the statistics the admissions statistics
that came out in the trial confirmed
that African American and Mexican
American applicants that year who had
her grades and test scores were admitted
it went to federal court now put aside
the law let's consider it from the
standpoint of justice and morality is it
fair or is it unfair does Cheryl Hopwood
have a case a legitimate complaint where
her rights violated by the admissions
policy of the law school how many say
how many would rule for the law school
and say that it was just to consider
race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions
how many would rule for Cheryl Hopwood
and say
her rights were violated so here we have
a pretty even split all right now I want
to hear from a defender of Cheryl
Hopwood yes you're basing something and
that's an arbitrary factor you know
Cheryl couldn't control the fact that
she was white or not in a minority and
therefore you know it's not as if it was
like a test score that she worked hard
to try and show that she could you know
put that out there you know that she had
no control over her race good I mean
what's your name
breathe okay breathe stay right there
now let's find someone who's who has an
answer for breathe yes there are
discrepancies in educational system and
majority of the time I know this in New
York City the schools that minorities go
to are not as well-funded are not as
well supplied as white schools and so
there is going to be a discrepancy
naturally between minorities and between
whites if they go to better schools and
they will not do as well on exams
because they haven't had as much help
because of a worse school system it's
like let me just interrupt you this just
tell me your name Anisha Anisha Anisha
you're pointing out that minority kids
may have gone in some cases to schools
that didn't give them the same
educational opportunity as kids from
affluent families yes and so the test
scores they got may actually not
represent their true potential because
they didn't receive the same kind of
help that they matter received had they
gone to a school with better funding all
right Anisha has raised the point that
colleges still should choose for the
greatest academic scholarly promise but
in reading the test scores and grades
they should take into account the
different meaning those tests and grades
have in the light of educational
disadvantage in the background so that's
one argument in defense of affirmative
action anisha's argument correcting for
the effects of
unequal preparation educational
disadvantage now there are other
arguments suppose just to identify
whether there is a as a competing
principle here suppose there are two
candidates who did equally well on the
tests and grades both of whom went to
first-rate schools two candidates among
those candidates would it be unfair for
the college or university for Harvard to
say we still want diversity along racial
and ethnic dimensions even where we are
not correcting for the effects on test
scores of educational disadvantage what
about in that case brief if it's that
one thing that puts you know someone
over the edge
then it's I guess that would be you know
justifiable if everything else about the
individual first though everything we
consider about that person's you know
talents and where they come from and who
they are without these arbitrary factors
insisting without these arbitrary
factors you called but before you were
suggesting Bree that race and ethnicity
are arbitrary factors outside the
control of the applicants sure I agree
with that and your general principle is
that admissions shouldn't reward
arbitrary factors over which people had
no control all right all right who else
who else would like to thank you both
who else would like to get into this
what do you say well first of all I'm
for affirmative action temporarily but
what for two reasons first of all you
have to look at the university's purpose
it is to educate their students and I
feel that different races people coming
from different races have different
backgrounds and they contribute
differently to you know the education
and second of all when you say they have
equal backgrounds they that's not true
when you look at the broader picture and
you look
slavery and these are this is kind of a
preparation I think affirmative action
is a temporary solution to alleviate
history and the wrongs done to
african-americans it's particularly and
what's your name David David you said
that affirmative action is justified at
least for now as a way of compensating
for past injustice the legacy of slavery
and segregation right who wants to take
on that argument we need now a critic of
affirmative action
yes go ahead I think that what happened
in the past has no bearing on what
happens today and I think that
discriminating based on race should
always be wrong
whether you're discriminating against
one group or another just because our
ancestors did something doesn't mean
that that should have any effect on what
happens with us today all right good I'm
sorry your name is Kate Kate all right
who has an answer for Kate yes I just
wanted to comment and say that tell us
your name
my name is Mansour because of slavery
because of past and justices today we
have a higher proportion of African
Americans who are in poverty who face
left's less opportunities and white
people and so because of slavery 200
years ago because of Jim Crow and
because of segregation today we have
injustice based on race okay I think
that there are differences obviously but
the way to fix those differences is not
by some artificial fixing of the result
you need to fix the problem so we need
to address differences in education and
differences in in upbringing with with
programs like Head Start and giving more
funding to lower-income schools rather
than trying to just fix the results so
it makes it look like it's equal when
really it isn't yes with regard to
affirmative action based on race I just
want to say that white people have had
their own affirmative action in this
country for more than 400 years
it's called nepotism and quid pro quo so
there's nothing wrong with correcting
the injustice and discrimination that's
tell us tell us your name Hana Hana all
right who has an answer for Hana and
just to add to Hannah's point because we
need we need now is someone to respond
Hana you could have also mentioned
legacy admission exactly I was gonna say
if you disagree with affirmative action
you should disagree with legacy
admission because it's obvious from
looking around here that there are more
white legacies than black legacies in
the history of Harvard University and
explain what legacy admissions are well
legacy admissions is giving an advantage
to someone who has an arbitrary
privilege of their parent having
attended the University to which they're
applying alright so I replied for Hana
yes in the balcony go ahead first of all
if affirmative action is making up for
past injustice how do you explain
minorities that were not historically
discriminated against in the United
States who get these advantages in
addition you could argue that
affirmative action perpetuates divisions
between the races rather than achieve
the ultimate goal of race being an
irrelevant factor in our society and
what tell us your name Danielle Hannah I
disagree with that because I think that
by promoting diversity in an institution
like this you further educate all of the
students especially the white students
who grew up in predominantly white areas
it's certainly a form of Education to be
exposed to people from different
backgrounds and you put white students
at an inherent disadvantage when you
surround them only with their own kind
why should race necessarily be equated
with diversity there's so many other
forms why should we assume that race
makes people different again that's
perpetuating the idea of racial division
within our universities and our society
with regard to african-american people
being given a special advantage it's
obvious that they bring something
special to the table because they have a
unique perspective just as someone from
a different religion or socioeconomic
background would as well as you say
there are many different types of
diversity there's no reason that racial
diversity should be eliminated from that
criteria yes I had racial discrimination
is illegal in this country and I believe
that it was African American leaders
themselves when Martin Luther King said
he wanted to be judged not on the color
of his skin but by the content of his
character his merit his achievement and
I just think that to do to decide solely
based on someone's race is just
inherently unfair I mean if you want it
if you want to correct based on
disadvantaged backgrounds that's fine
but they're also disadvantaged white
people as well it shouldn't matter let
me know white tell us your name Ted Ted
yes think of hopwood it's unfair to
count race or I assume you would also
say ethnicity or religion yes do you
think she has a right to be considered
according to her grades and test scores
alone there no there's there is more to
it than that you need to universities
need to promote diversity and I you
agree with the goal of promoting
diversity there's ways to promote
diversity besides discriminating against
people solely based on a factor that
they cannot control all right so what
makes it wrong is that she can't control
her race she can't control the fact that
she's white that's the that's the heart
of the unfairness to her we made a
similar point that basing admissions on
factors that people can't control is
fundamentally unfair what do you say
there's a lot of things you can't
control and if you're gonna go it
through it based on merit like just
based on your test scores a lot of what
you can achieve has to do with the
family background that you raise that if
both your parents were scholarly then
you have more of a chances of actually
being more scholarly yourself and giving
those grades and you can't control what
kind of family you were born into so I
think good well that's that's a great
rejoinder what's your name
da-da-dah Ted are you you against
advantages that come from the family you
were born into what about legacy
admission I mean I I do believe that in
terms of like a legacy admission you
shouldn't have a special preference Emmy
if there is a legacy admission you could
argue as another part verse you could
say it's important to have a small percentage
percentage
people that have a just several
generation family and family attendance
at a place like Harvard however that
should not be a fact an advantaged
factor like race that should just be
another part of the promoting diversity
count at all
I think the Alumni status should it
count at all kept yes it should it
should count all right I want to step
back for a moment from these arguments
thank you all for these contributions
we're going to come back to you if
you've listened carefully I think you
will have noticed three different
arguments emerge from this discussion in
defense of considering race and
ethnicity as a factor in admissions one
argument has to do with correcting for
the effects for the effects of
educational disadvantage that was
anisha's argument this is what we might
call the the corrective argument
correcting for differences in
educational background the kind of
school people went to the opportunities
they had and so on that's one argument
what's worth noticing though is that
that argument is consistent in principle
with the idea that only academic promise
and scholarly potential should count in
admissions we just need to go beyond
test scores and grades alone to get a
true estimate of academic promise and
scholarly ability that's the first
argument then we heard a second argument
that said affirmative action is
the need to correct for educational
disadvantage in the in a particular
applicants case it's justified as a way
of compensating for past wrongs for
historic and justices so that's a
compensatory argument compensating for
then we heard a third a different
argument for affirmative action from
Hanna and others that argued in the name
of diversity
now the diversity argument is different
from the compensatory argument because
it makes a certain appeal to the social
purpose or the social mission of the
there are really two aspects to the
diversity argument one says it's
important to have a diverse student body
for the sake of the educational
experience for everyone and I made that
point and the other talks about the
wider society this was the argument made
by the University of Texas in the
Hopwood case we need to train lawyers
and judges and leaders public officials
who will contribute to the strength the
civic strength of the state of Texas and
the country as a whole so there are two
different aspects to the diversity
argument but both are arguments in the
name of the social purpose or the social
mission or the common good served by the
institution well what about the force of
these arguments we've also heard
objections to these arguments the most
powerful objection to the compensatory
argument is is it fair to ask Cheryl
Hopwood today to make the sacrifice to
pay the compensation for an injustice
that was admittedly committed and was
egregious in the past but in which she
was not implicated is that fair so
that's an important objection to the
compensatory argument and in order to
meet that objection
we would have to investigate whether
there is such a thing as group rights or
collective responsibility that reaches
over time
so having identified that issue let's
set it aside to turn to the diversity
argument the diversity argument doesn't
have to worry about that question about
collective responsibility for past
wrongs because it says for reasons
Hannah and others pointed out that the
common good is served is advanced if
there is a racially and ethnically
diverse student body everyone benefits
and this indeed was the argument that
Harvard made when it filed a friend of
the court brief to the Supreme Court in
the 1978 case affirmative action case
the Bakke case and the Harvard brief the
Harvard rationale was cited by Justice
Powell who was the swing vote in the
case upholding affirmative action he
cited that is providing the rationale
that he thought was constitutionally
acceptable Harvard's argument in its
brief was this we care about diversity
scholarly excellence alone has never
been the criterion of admission the sole
criterion of admission to Harvard
College fifteen years ago diversity
meant students from California and New
York and Massachusetts city dwellers and
farm boys violinists painters and
football players biologists historians
and classicists the only difference now
Harvard argued is that we're adding
racial and ethnic status to this long
list of diversity considerations when
reviewing the large number of candidates
able to do well in our classes Harvard
wrote race may count as a plus just as
coming from Iowa may count or being a
good middle linebacker or pianist a farm
boy from Idaho can bring something to
Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot
offer similarly a black student can you
we bring something a white student
cannot offer the quality of the
educational experience of all students
depends in part on these differences in
the background and outlook that students
bring with them
that was Harvard's argument now what
about the diversity argument is it
persuasive if it's to be persuasive it
has to meet one very powerful objection
that we've heard voiced here by Ted by
Bree unless you're a utilitarian you
believe that individual rights can't be
violated and so the question is is there
an individual right that is violated is
Cheryl Hopwood 'he's right violated if
she is used so to speak denied admission
for the sake of the common good and the
social mission that the University of
Texas law school has defined for itself
does she have a right don't we deserve
to be considered according to our
excellences our achievements our
accomplishments our hard work isn't that
the right at stake now we've already
heard an answer to that argument no she
doesn't have a right nobody deserves to
be admitted notice how this gets us back
to the issue of desert versus
entitlement they're arguing there is no
individual right that Hopwood has she
doesn't deserve to be admitted according
to any particular set of criteria that
she believes to be important including
criteria that have only to do with her
efforts and achievements why not
I think implicit in this argument is
something like Rawls's rejection of
moral desert as the basis of
distributive justice yes once
word defines its mission and designs its
admission policy in the light of its
mission people are entitled who who fit
those criteria they are entitled to be
admitted but according to this argument
no one deserves that Harvard College
define its mission and design its
admission criteria in the first place
in a way that prizes the qualities they
happen to have in abundance whether
those qualities are test scores or
grades or the ability to play the piano
or to be a good middle linebacker or to
come from Iowa or to come from a certain
minority group so you see how this
especially the diversity argument takes
us back to the question of Rights which
in turn takes us back to the question of
whether moral desert is or is not the
basis for distributive justice think
about that over the weekend and we'll
Haz clic en cualquier texto o marca de tiempo para ir directamente a ese momento del video
Compartir:
La mayoría de las transcripciones están listas en menos de 5 segundos
Copia con un clicMás de 125 idiomasBuscar en el contenidoIr a marcas de tiempo
Pega la URL de YouTube
Ingresa el enlace de cualquier video de YouTube para obtener la transcripción completa
Formulario de extracción de transcripción
La mayoría de las transcripciones están listas en menos de 5 segundos
Instala nuestra extensión para Chrome
Obtén transcripciones al instante sin salir de YouTube. Instala nuestra extensión de Chrome y accede con un clic a la transcripción de cualquier video directamente desde la página de reproducción.
