A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative action is a program usually established by government or sometimes private parties that is designed to give preference to the historically underprivileged by making access more equitable in education and employment. Historical injustices are not simply quelled for racial minorities, but for religious, national, ethnic, and sexual minorities (people of the lgbtqa community and women). Affirmative action is about access and opportunity. In a rather consequentialist perspective, affirmative action is about equality of outcomes, not just equality of opportunity. For deontologists, affirmative action may be seen as a head start in a foot race, as the goal of securing more spaces for under-privileged groups in arenas that lead to higher success rates causes some to believe that minorities are getting positions and acceptance in institutions simply because they are minorities. 

President Lyndon B Johnson originally past affirmative action so that they are more more minorities within the government and better opportunities for minority agencies to secure government contracts, since minority voices were starkly under-represented and unrepresented and high-paying government positions and development contracts (U.S. Department of Labor).

In to University of Virginia's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs site, UVa notes that federal contractors must (Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 2012):

• identify and remove barriers that negatively affect underutilized groups;
• support inclusion through respect and equal dignity of all persons;
• review recruitment strategies to ensure focused outreach is occurring;
• ensure equal representation in all applicant pools for all job groups and at all levels in the organization; and
• put forth retention efforts and provide professional development opportunities for underutilized groups equal to the efforts and opportunities afforded others in the workforce.

From a deontologist perspective, these sound like decent methods; however, they are also broad and sound immeasurable. How, then, is affirmative action measured by educational institutions in accepting students? Affirmative action did not become an issue until universities started pushing for more diversity within admissions. In 1973, quotas were discussed in the determination of admission to the University of California-Davis. In this case a white man to the University of California-Davis because they set aside 16 out of 100 spots for med school admission for racial minorities, and he believed that he was denied entry because of the 16 spots designated for people of color; the man won and the Court ruled that quotas did not provide equal opportunity and that writing historical wrongs was not the duty of the government comma though the historical wrongs that were implemented by the government caused the historical injustices that call for affirmative action.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. stated (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, n.d.):

The decision of the California Court presented us with two central questions; the first and the one widely perceived as the only ultimate question is whether the special admissions program discriminated unlawfully against Bakke either under the Constitution or under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I will refer to this as Bakke admissions question.

The second and broader question is whether it is ever permissible to consider race as a factor relevant to the admission of applicants to a State University.

I will refer to this question generally as whether race maybe considered.

As will be perceived at this point, if the answer to the second question were negative, that is that race may never validly considered, this answer disposes of both issues.

In 1978, racial quotas were made illegal. However, they did post to note that diversity within higher education was a compelling government interest. In so much that these have been the two reasoning for affirmative action for the past 55 years, the Supreme Court has denied the rights of affirmative action policies to government contracts and has only upheld situations involving higher education, but have not ruled consistently on questions of racial quotas or preferences, thus further creating confusion and controversy. It has not always upheld affirmative action due to the strict reasoning of scrutiny tests. The government strict scrutiny level states it must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest (Linder, 2016).

For example the University of Michigan received two complaints about affirmative action, one about their undergraduate admissions process in another regarding their law school admissions process, in which only the law school's admissions process was upheld in promoting the goal of diversity. Anything that looks like a quota is struck down. Several states have gone forward to pass their own anti-civil rights laws that use verbiage such as “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin"; California, Washington, Florida, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, Michigan and Oklahoma have such bans (DeSilver, 2014). However, it seems the support is determined by how it is presented, as 63% of people said such programs aimed at increasing the number of black and minority students on college campuses were a good thing.

In John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971), he discusses the claims of moral desert and entitlements to legitimate expectations. To explain the difference, Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez notes (2011):

 To say someone deserves X is to say that X is in some sense an appropriate or fair reward in light of that person’s morally virtuous qualities or conduct. To say that someone is entitled to X is just to say that the person has a just claim to X, without any implied commitment to some deeper claim about their moral merit.

Rawls states that distributive justice is not a case of moral desert. It is also not a question of income and wealth but of connections to opportunities. For example, affirmative action has been used to make the estimate of academic promise equitable. The major defense against affirmative action has been that the majority (white people) should not be implicated or suffer from past wrongs. However, affirmative action serves many purposes that have nothing to do with punishing white people.

A University's purpose is to educate students. Race contributes to that education. In the same way that a university sees diversity within a student who grew up on a farm, or a student who was a soccer player, or a mathlete or one who struggled through a tragic accident that left him/her permanently disabled, such is the holistic experience that incorporates ethnic, national, racial, and religious difference (Hyman and Jacobs, 2009). Adding race and ethnicity to a long list of diversity considerations and complaining about it is as inane as if a student from Boston complained that a student from California was accepted to Harvard simply because they were closer and distance to the institution, or complaining that a international student was accepted over a domestic student because of an inference that domestic student should have a better shot at admissions over a "foreigner". Students who argue against affirmative action and admissions essentially state that there is a presumed criteria that they believe they meet, without actually knowing what the university is looking for. If affirmative action is seen as a reparation, it is a temporary solution to wrongs done to minorities that compensate for past injustice, which is the fault of the University and the government (institutional discrimination), not of the white student. Therefore, the white student injects themselves in a process that has nothing to do with them.

A majority student pleading that affirmative action discriminates against white people should note that white people have had affirmative action for more than four hundred years. Through nepotism, quid pro quo, and legacy admissions, white people have had astounding benefits stacked against minorities in terms of higher education. Princeton's Thomas Espenshade notes that legacy admits essentially have a boost that adds 160 SAT points to a candidate's record (on a scale of 400-1600)(Kahlenberg, 2010). There is also no evidence that alumni preferences increase giving, which is a defense used to defend the practice, saying it helps support low-income students with scholarships. Without legacy admission, alums still gave at the same rate. The stack is still weighted for white people.

Affirmative action is simply a matter of giving minorities a stack of unequal height to play with. Scholarly Excellence alone has never been the sole criterion for admissions. This does not mean that minorities get in at higher rates than white students or that a minority student with zero credentials would be accepted to an institution above a qualified white student. Affirmative action in its results helps white students. When whites learn only from their own time, they are ignorant to the global world and are ill-prepared to function in a society where diverse students have been raised to learn the culture of majority people but majority people aren't completely ignorant of diverse cultures. Therefore allowing diverse students saves colleges time and money in teaching diversity classes, which are usually electives rather than required courses, inside classrooms of different subjects and outside of the classroom on the campus. In addition, society as a whole needs diverse and educated voices that are trained on all levels of higher educational institutions. Therefore affirmative action is beneficial to the common good.

To end, I will allow a former Harvard admissions representative define once again affirmative action and why it is an ethical flag netted in a more inherently biased base (2015):

First of all, there are a number of small factors that can move the admissions needle in small amounts: location, economic background, race. You can just accept that these exist and don't really count for much—a slight counterbalance to the general advantages that wealthier folks tend to enjoy as a rule. Or you can spend millions of dollars on lawyers and consultants, and hundreds of hours fighting in court in order to claw back this tiny little potential advantage from those in the lower half of the socioeconomic spectrum.

References

Anonymous. (2015). Ivy League Admissions Are a Sham: Confessions of a Harvard Gatekeeper. Gawker. From http://gawker.com/ivy-league-admissions-are-a-sham-confessions-of-a-harv-1690402410

 

DeSilver, Drew. (2014). Supreme Court says states can ban affirmative action; 8 already have. Pew Research Center. From http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/22/supreme-court-says-states-can-ban-affirmative-action-8-already-have/

Hyman, Jeremy S.; Jacobs, Lynn F. (2009). Why Does Diversity Matter at College Anyway? US News. From http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/professors-guide/2009/08/12/why-does-diversity-matter-at-college-anyway

 

Linder, Doug. (2016). University of Missouri–Kansas City. Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. From http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. (2012). Top Ten Most Frequently Asked Questions. Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. From https://www.virginia.edu/eop/AA%20Plan%20FAQs%205-1-09.html

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811

Sanchez, J. (2011). Desert vs. Entitlement. Julian Sanchez. http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/04/14/desert-vs-entitlement/

 U.S. Department of Labor. (n/d). Executive Order 11246. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). From http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fs11246.htm

A634.3.4.RB - The Harder They Fall

Using concepts from the Kramer (2003) article as a baseline, share your insights on dilemmas that happen in society, work, and in your life.

We all have weaknesses, but it is better to acknowledge them and learn to use them as a strength, or, at the very least, be keen to how they appear in certain situations.
I am a very determined person and I am never satisfied in the moment; I am always thinking about the next thing I am going to accomplish. I struggle with appreciating what I have right now - people, things, experiences - everything is a means to an end, but there really is no end. One way of helping me stay grounded is that I constantly look back to where I have come from and realize how thankful I am for the people and experiences that helped me get to where I am.

When I read about our fictional executive Marjorie Peel, I was inspired by her. Peel is everything I thought I would be as a teenager - the head of class at a top university, the corporate up and comer who was quick-witted and thorough in thought, the next in line for CEO – these are not easy accomplishments (Kramer, 2003). However, I cannot imagine how could someone mess that up with cheating the system and forgetting the skills that people lauded her for (being quick with praise and slow to spite)? Perhaps, if I heard this story with minimal detail, I’d presume Peel fell off because of something tragic, like becoming an alcoholic or becoming addicted to prescription or recreational drugs (a la The Wolf of Wall Street). I suppose I could also imagine (though it is difficult) that Peel decided that the rat race is not for her and she settled down to start a family. Who knew that power could make someone so focused, so uncalculated and careless?

The story notes that Peel “the self-deprecating style that had been her trademark seemed to fade, replaced by a sudden desire to be in the limelight.” I believe I am the type of person that does seek recognition quite often – a flaw that comes along with my woo (“winning other over” [Strengthsquest] personality) – but I also enjoy giving credit, compliments and mentorship. The story discusses how Peel was also this type of leader to her employees – “generous with praise, quick to recognize others’ achievements” – yet as she ascended the corporate ladder, she “became more demanding of her subordinates and devoted little time to mentoring them.” She crossed the wrong people and did unethical things with the finances she was entrusted with.

Here was where Pell fell. If you keep people happy and do the right thing, I believe anyone can be successful, as long as you actually have the talent to take advantage of the doors people open for you. Film producer Lynda Obst said it best: “nerve, not talent, is the one necessary and sufficient trait for success […] if you lean back on your ropes and […] ponder the risks, the moment may be gone.”
Throughout my life, I have never felt that I needed to stop growing my supervisees to devote more time to my own success. In fact, I see my employees as the reason why I am successful. They do good work, and it makes me look good, so I treat them well and I grow them to be creative, thoughtful leaders. I can only hope that through my influence, they do the same to their employees, because their employees are direct contacts to our clients. If our employees are happy, then the service they provide will make our clients happy, which also reflects positively on me.

One fatal flaw of mine is putting in the work with other things falling to the wayside. "I’ve been successful, but never satisfied" (Rookwood, 2012). At first I just thought I was losing connection because people did not want to see me "shine". I thought that if they could not deal with me putting 100 percent into work, they did not need to be around. I'd see doors open, opportunities to shine, and I run for them with a flashlight, and this has left my loved ones in a dark corner at times. What is success if there's no one to share it with? I have failed monstrously at the work/life-balance decision. However, I have tried to involved the people affected in keeping me on par. My godmother calls me every Sunday if we have not talked during the week, as to say, "I only expect one hour from you, missy, by Sunday!" My partner calls me frequently to reminds me what time I get off so we can have dinner together. There's been times that I slept at the office. I've left the office at midnight. These are the days my partner really grinds me over. He will come over to my office and and lay on the floor until I pack my things. Every once in a while he will nudge me to take a Wednesday off to explore the free parks in the area, or a Friday so we can escape town. We'll stay at a hotel and have an amazing dinner at a place we find on a Food Channel episode. It always delights me to take photos of plates and review places like I used to do before I came back to students affairs from journalism. There is something so freeing about these days that reminds me that life is not just the weekend. I have tried my best to realize that I do not work to live, but I work to have a life.

References

Kramer, Roderick M. (2003). Harvard Business Review.
The Harder They Fall. Accessed at https://hbr.org/2003/10/the-harder-they-fallRookwood, D. (2012). Put Your Career Second. GQ. Accessed at http://www.gq.com.au/lifestyle/editors+pick/put+your+career+second,18251

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.

Consequentialists claim as cited by LaFollette (2009) “that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p.23). He continues that in seeking a decent act,
“consider available actions" and "trace the likely consequences of each for all affected". The ends justify the means in consequentialism, no matter how gory the process may be. War, for instance, in the eye of a consequentialist, may or may not be moral. The reasoning for involvement is key. Where a consequentialist may say that the United States involvement in WWII was in response to millions being slaughtered in Nazi camps, one may note that the Civil War was fought on one end to keep slavery in existence. Havel (1995) takes a more
deontologist approach to the subject:

Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity probably will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.

Deontology theory is that “we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 22). Deontology is rule or duty-based ethics. There are acts that are right, and there are acts that are wrong, and there is no middle ground or special circumstance in which the act may shift. Therefore, a deontologist believes that lying, stealing and murder are wrong; however, they do not consider whether the truth hurts people. Whereas a utilitarian would say that the consequence is the best way in determining the good or evil within an act, if either the motive, means or result is wrong, everything is immoral about the act from the deontologist eye. How does one get at a moral act?

Kant doubted if eternal truths (natural law) were real in and of themselves, since they are always drawn through a biased foci. He believed we could only act in ways we believed to be in line with universal law. Categorical imperative, or a (self-defined) necessary determination, is a user-friendly way of determining right or wrong. All moral judgements are rationally supported.

There are three maxims within the categorical imperative (O'Neill, 1990):
All actions must have universality, which means that an action is only moral if you believe that it would be right to do if everyone did it all of the time. For instance, if you believe that murder is wrong (an example in line with eternal truths), then all war is wrong, and even killing a murderer is wrong.
Every human must be treated as an end, not a means to an end. Manipulation of people and lives is wrong. Whereas consequentialism states that the greater good trumps the individual,
deontology states that every person's individual welfare matters and that people cannot use others to achieve their own selfish goals. the emphasis is on respect for each person and their moral rights.
Individuals should act as moral authorities for others. We are always responsible for alerting others of their immorality and should thwart their plan to commit evil acts.

The holes in Kant's argument lie within cultural relativity: How can we know whether our perceptions are correct? What justification/reasons do we have for a belief? Kant's law are set to be utilized by those who deem themselves to be moral authorities and who will, though their own selfishness and egocentrism, will take it upon themselves to punish those who are inherently immoral by their ruler. This was the justification of slavery; John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually" (Independence Hall Association, n/d).

Velasquez et al states (2011):

Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

In situations where the overall dilemma is not life threatening or incredibly crucial to the overall duties and responsibilities of the populace, I find that consequentialism can be beneficial; “right” or “wrong” are relative based on upbringing, which is what makes deontology flawed. One should always consider how those around them will be affected, before trying to decide what natural law solidifies.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub.

Independence Hall Association. (n/d). The Southern Argument for Slavery. Accessed at http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

Havel, Vdclav. (1995). Forgetting That We Are Not God, 51 FIRST THINGS 47, 49-50. Accessed at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9503/articles/havel.html 

O'Neill, Onora. (1990). Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Velasquez, M., Claire, A., Shanks, T., S.J., Meyer, M.J. (2010). What is ethics? Accessed at https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

MSLD 634 - 1.4.CM: The Train Dilemma

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.

Will you throw the switch?

I would not throw the switch. A switchperson attends the switch in a railroad yard, switching trains from one track to another. It is safe to assume that all of the children standing on the track are not tied down and are standing on the track of their own volition. If so, I would have been present to see this occur and would have access to radio to alert the engineer and conductor to stop the train. However, the situation assumes that the children are on the tracks right before my role as a switchperson would come into play. I am going to do my due diligence to yell or use a loudspeaker to alert them of their folly, but my job will not be changed by their actions. If they are in the way of a moving train, the same logic (or lack thereof) they used to stand on the track should be used to sense impending danger and urge them to swiftly relocate. Perhaps the five children are anticipating the train and have strategically placed themselves there. The child on the other track must have chosen to stand on the track where the train is unexpected, knowing he or she would not be impacted by the train coming. I do not believe I should change the fate of such expectation. To allow fate to occur results in not being a murder.

Same scenario except:

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the

train and all the children will be saved.

Will you push him?

I would not push the elderly man. Once again, the man has not placed himself in the line of danger, and it would be criminal to kill him. Once again, to allow fate to occur results in not being a murder. However, the children, no matter immature their decision, have placed themselves in the line of danger. I do not feel any responsibility to save them from their poor decision, particularly if it means risking another life to do so. However, if one would be so inclined to save the children, why not fling themselves into the track?

Same scenario except:

The one child on the side track is your child.

Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

I would not save the five children. It is not about the quantity of life, but the quality. One who would stand on the tracks where an active train occasionally passes is already taking a mighty risk of being electrocuted or hit by the train. 

In reflection of all of the situations, I would perhaps had different answers if those on the tracks were tied down. However, it also depends on what I know or can perceive to know about the persons. Perhaps if the five were tied down, and the lone person was jumping up and down, excited for the coming of the train, I would choose to divert due to the freewill of the one versus the entrapment of the five. However, in a situation where all six were tied down and the five were dressed as neo-Nazis or KKK members, I would spare the life of the lone person without the apparent terrorist affiliation! However, as the stories stand, There are several internal questions that aided in my decision-making.

• Who can say that saving these children once will not result in them returning to the tracks once again? 
• Who is to say they have not already been saved and have not learned their lesson? 
• How many elderly men and lone children must have their existences questioned before this child collective meets their fate?

References

Anderson, Thomas. (n/d). Case Western Reserve University. Accessed at https://erau.instructure.com/courses/32985/files/4883974/download?wrap=1.