I'm so incredibly distracted
So the other day, I was watching TV, and I stumbled upon a university lecture on affirmative action. Actually I lied. This was more like a month or two ago, but I just stumbled upon my notes today. Anyhow, I was watching this recorded harvard class lecture at two or three in the morning on a weekend. And I feel like such a nerd that I started taking outlined notes as if I were to be tested on the material. But it was so interesting, something seldom found at such hours.
Pro- Affirmative Action Arguments
1. correcting for differences in educational background opportunities
- consistent in principle with idea with test scores, but consider other facts
2. AA justified even when there may not be the need to correct for disadvantaged. Compensates for past wrongs, slavery etcs.
3. Argue in the name of diversity. social mission of the college/university.
- important for educational experience of everyone, wider society.
Anti- against AA
1. Discriminatory on basis of desert
- Scholarly excellence alone has never meant grades. diversity changes. diversity preferences are arbitrary by nature
-rejection of moral desert. once a college makes mission statement, entitled to be admitted. but in this argument. noone deserves that harvard designs its mission statement in a particular way
2. Denies people of their rights as American citizens
-Don't want to take away from people's freedoms. .
-unless utilitarian, individual rights can't be violated. Is there a right being violated?
-takes us back to the question of rights, takes us question of moral desert the basis for distributive justice. legacy, etc. distributive justice VS moral desert VS virtue
So they basically were talking about how racism is institutionalized within society, and how affirmative action is trying to correct for these discrepant gaps only after the fact. It got very convoluted within the realms of race, socio-economic standing, quality of schools, the "glass ceiling", healthcare, etc. Anyways, something I never outwardly thought about was how race is always going to be a desirable diversity factor, at least usually in the United States. I think most people have this idea of the American dream, working your way to the top, where the dividends are fairly split according to one's effort. However, what's to say that a university cannot choose a student by arbitrary factors, such as state, musical ability, sports, intended major, life experiences, etc, is that morally wrong? Morally wrong assumes some right that is being violated.
Another point I thought was really interesting was the word freedom. That moral desert is a natural manifestation from freedom. However, he posed the question of which freedom was being defined? The freedom to or freedom from? When we say we have freedom as citizens of the United States, which are we discussing? I think it's most natural to assume the freedom to, the first amendment. However it's very interesting to think of the freedom from. We have so many freedom froms that are incomprehensible without having visited the jurisdiction of third world countries. Actually, I think it's the freedom to derives soley from the freedom from. ok. I need to study for finals.