Summary
Many universities make application conditions less strict for students of minority backgrounds. Is this just? Let us consider this by looking at three reasons proposing it: correcting bias in standardized tests, compensating for past wrongs, and promoting diversity.
The first one is that standardized tests are often discriminatory, and to find the student that is most academically achieved, we must correct this situation. However, this is an argument to find students with academic aptitude, not whether to find students with great aptitude (Sandel believes this is where the more important moral question takes place).
The second argument is to compensate for past wrongdoings. In the past, people were racist. It is the idea that the people of now should pay for that. That, of course, raises the obvious question: Do current people carry the responsibility of their “community”?
The third argument is to promote a diverse campus. This is the belief that students learn more when being surrounded by people with diverse backgrounds. This can also be a strong argument in specific scenarios. One can be admission into law schools. Students of law schools become judges, and for a fair court, it could be argued that diversity is necessary.
The chapter then continues by setting the premise that this debate is about rights, not a utilitarian calculus.
Some say that majorities get their rights violated due to affirmative action. However, that argument does not sound convincing to others. Opponents can believe that university admission is not to pick students who have great academic prowess. Universities pick students using many different standards that they want, such as residence, sports ability, singing ability, and volunteering experience. In other words, universities are often viewed to be able to pick students that satisfy their social purpose.
Critics of the argument can ask, “Is racist application also okay in your logic?” That can be refuted by saying, “No. Racist applications come from the despicable idea that one race is more worthy than another. Affirmative action comes from the idea that your racial trait can be socially useful.”
The book then introduces an affirmative action favoring whites, asking the readers their opinion on it.
Then is justice separable from moral desert? The author gives two reasons why it may be difficult to do so. First, justice is an honorific aspect. It awards what they think is worthy of respect. Second, institutions cannot do whatever they want; it serves to do good.
Is it possible to auction off universities? Is it justified to admit students who lack academic ability, yet have parents who donated a lot?
Our guts tell us, “Ew, no, universities should be fair.”
But a counter-argument can be raised. Can’t the universities do what they want?
A line can be drawn here by some people. “That is not the purpose of universities”.
This leads to a discussion on purpose.
For your information…
Professor Sandel intentionally did not give us all the tools to assess if affirmative action should be allowed. Therefore, it would make more sense for me to write my thoughts in a later post.