The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 253–263

Was I Entitled or Should I Apologize? Affirmative Action Going Forward

Article

Abstract

As a U.S. civil rights policy, affirmative action commonly denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts by private and public officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education attributed to slavery, segregation, poverty and racism. Opponents argue that affirmative action (1) violates ideals of color-blind public policies, offending moral principles of fairness and constitutional principles of equality and due process; (2) has proven to be socially and politically divisive; (3) has not made things better; (4) mainly benefits middle-class, wealthy and foreign-born blacks; (4) stigmatizes its beneficiaries; and (5) compromises the self-esteem and self-respect of beneficiaries who know that they have been awarded preferential treatment. By way of a thought experiment, imagine that after decades of public policy and experimentation, the United States public finally came to agree: affirmative action is morally and legally wrong. Employing such a thought experiment, this essay by a beneficiary of affirmative action—written in response to James Sterba’s Affirmative Action for the Future (2009)—examines duties of moral repair and the possibility that the past beneficiaries of affirmative action owe apologies, compensation or some other highly personal form of corrective accountability. Beneficiaries of affirmative action have experienced woundedness and moral insecurity. Indeed, the practice of affirmative action comes with a psychology, a set of psychological benefits and burdens whose moral logic those of us who believe in our own fallibility—as much as we believe in the justice of what we have received and conferred on others—should address.

Keywords

Affirmative action African American Apology Corrective justice Discrimination Race Reparation 

References

  1. Allen, Anita L. 2005. Affirmative action. In Encyclopedia of African-American culture and history: The Black experience in the Americas, ed. Colin Palmer, 31–40. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, Anita L. 2001. Civic virtue, cultural bounty: The case for ethnoracial diversity. In Nomos XLIII: Moral and political education, ed. Stephen Macedo, and Yael Tamir, 434–456. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, Anita L. 1999. Affirmative action: Moral success and political failure. In Combating racial discrimination: Affirmative action as a model for Europe, ed. Erna Appelt, and Monica Jarosch, 23–40. London: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, Anita L. 1996. The half-life of integration. In Reassessing the sixties: Debating the political and cultural legacy, ed. Stephen Macedo, 207–227. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, Anita L. 1992a. Legal rights for poor Blacks. In The underclass question, ed. William Lawson, 117–139. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Allen, Anita L. 1992–1993. The role model argument for faculty diversity. The Philosophical Forum, 26:267–281.Google Scholar
  7. Allen, Anita L. 1990–1991. On Being a Role Model. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal [renamed, Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice], 6:22–42.Google Scholar
  8. Carbado, Devon W., and Cheryl I. Harris. 2008. The new racial preferences. California Law Review 96: 1139–1214.Google Scholar
  9. Gratz v. Bollinger. 2003. 539 U.S. 244.Google Scholar
  10. Grutter v. Bollinger.2003. 539 U.S. 306.Google Scholar
  11. McCorvey, Norma, and Andy Meisler. 1994. I am Roe: My life, Roe v. Wade and freedom of choice. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  12. Onwuachi-Willig, Angela. 2010. Another hair piece: Intersectional race and gender discrimination under title VII. Georgetown Law Journal 98: 1079–1132.Google Scholar
  13. Onwuachi-Willig, Angela, Mary Campbell, and Emily Houh. 2008. Cracking the egg: Which came first—stigma or affirmative action? California Law Review 96: 1299–1352.Google Scholar
  14. Parents v. Seattle. 2007. 551 U.S. 701.Google Scholar
  15. Ricci v. DeStefano. 2009. 129 S. Ct. 2658, 557 U.S.Google Scholar
  16. Sterba, James P. 2009. Affirmative action for the future. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations