MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Patricia · 07-06-2009, 08:51 PM

This was one of the key U.S. cases on reverse discrimination (aka positive discrimination and affirmative action).

THE BAKKE CASE
Regents of the University of California vs. Allan Bakke, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on 5th July 1978. [98 S. Ct 2733 (1978)]

'Allan Bakke applied for admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis. In an attempt to increase the number of members of minority groups who attended medical school, the university reserved 16 out of every 100 places for students belonging to a disadvantaged minority. Since these students would not have won so many places in open competition, fewer white students were admitted than there would have been without this reservation. Some white students denied places would certainly have been offered them if, scoring as they did on the admission tests, they had been black. Bakke was among these white students and on being rejected he sued the university.' [Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (1st edn. 1979), p 41]

Bakke won his case. It was held that the U.S. Civil Rights Act (1964) provides that no person shall, on the grounds of colour, race or national origin, be excluded from any activity receiving Federal financial assistance. A bare majority of judges held that this excluded all forms of discrimination, even reverse discrimination. The university was told that it could not operate a quota system but could extend admission criteria to include race as one of a number of factors, such as athletic or artistic ability, work experience, leadership potential a history of overcoming disadvantage or demonstrated compassion.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

1. The Backward-Looking Argument
This starts from the claim that certain groups in the past have been discriminated against and deserve compensation now. Hence reverse discrimination is justifiable.
Objection (a)
It is not whole groups of people who deserve compensation but those individuals who have been harmed by past discrimination. Reverse discrimination cannot compensate these individuals but only the group. So it may benefit the wrong people.
Reply
The whole group has suffered. Through knowledge of discrimination against other group members, all members suffer. They may feel that their self confidence and self respect have been damaged. The whole group is insulted of one of its members has been insulted.

Objection (b)
Reverse discrimination harms people who don't deserve it. E.g. white males such as Bakke aren't responsible for discrimination against minority groups.
Reply
All members of a 'superior' group have benefited from membership of that group.

Objection (c)
Is preferential admission (to college, jobs etc.) really a suitable form of compensation?
Reply
It is justified because it is the best way of enhancing the prospects of those who have been discriminated against.

Objection (d)
Reverse Discrimination is unjust because any discrimination is unjust. Discrimination in favour of certain groups is just as unjust as discrimination against them in the past.

2. The Forward-Looking Argument
This concedes that reverse discrimination is not a good thing in itself. However, it is a necessary temporary means to a more equal society in the long term.

This can be seen as a broadly utilitarian argument in that it appeals to long-term beneficial consequences.

Objection
Reverse discrimination will not work: one will not achieve an equal society by pursuing inequalities in the short term. Will it really help minority groups if their members realise that they only got a college place or a job because of reverse discrimination? This could undermine their self confidence and could reinforce prejudice against them. Justice Powell said in the Bakke case, 'Preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection.'

This, however, is an empirical question and could be settled by sociological studies over time. There are other considerations. These include:

(a) The need for role models. These are necessary in order to encourage members of minorities to follow the footsteps of the role model and to realise that more options are available. One problem, however, is that role models are often regarded as atypical or as tokens.

(b) It could improve the quality of life for everyone - not just for disadvantaged groups - if everyone lived in a more equal society.

07-06-2009, 08:51 PM	#15
Patricia Reader Posts: 11,504 Karma: 8720163 Join Date: May 2007 Location: South Wales, UK Device: Sony PRS-500, PRS-505, Asus EEEpc 4G	This was one of the key U.S. cases on reverse discrimination (aka positive discrimination and affirmative action). THE BAKKE CASE Regents of the University of California vs. Allan Bakke, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on 5th July 1978. [98 S. Ct 2733 (1978)] 'Allan Bakke applied for admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis. In an attempt to increase the number of members of minority groups who attended medical school, the university reserved 16 out of every 100 places for students belonging to a disadvantaged minority. Since these students would not have won so many places in open competition, fewer white students were admitted than there would have been without this reservation. Some white students denied places would certainly have been offered them if, scoring as they did on the admission tests, they had been black. Bakke was among these white students and on being rejected he sued the university.' [Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (1st edn. 1979), p 41] Bakke won his case. It was held that the U.S. Civil Rights Act (1964) provides that no person shall, on the grounds of colour, race or national origin, be excluded from any activity receiving Federal financial assistance. A bare majority of judges held that this excluded all forms of discrimination, even reverse discrimination. The university was told that it could not operate a quota system but could extend admission criteria to include race as one of a number of factors, such as athletic or artistic ability, work experience, leadership potential a history of overcoming disadvantage or demonstrated compassion. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION 1. The Backward-Looking Argument This starts from the claim that certain groups in the past have been discriminated against and deserve compensation now. Hence reverse discrimination is justifiable. Objection (a) It is not whole groups of people who deserve compensation but those individuals who have been harmed by past discrimination. Reverse discrimination cannot compensate these individuals but only the group. So it may benefit the wrong people. Reply The whole group has suffered. Through knowledge of discrimination against other group members, all members suffer. They may feel that their self confidence and self respect have been damaged. The whole group is insulted of one of its members has been insulted. Objection (b) Reverse discrimination harms people who don't deserve it. E.g. white males such as Bakke aren't responsible for discrimination against minority groups. Reply All members of a 'superior' group have benefited from membership of that group. Objection (c) Is preferential admission (to college, jobs etc.) really a suitable form of compensation? Reply It is justified because it is the best way of enhancing the prospects of those who have been discriminated against. Objection (d) Reverse Discrimination is unjust because any discrimination is unjust. Discrimination in favour of certain groups is just as unjust as discrimination against them in the past. 2. The Forward-Looking Argument This concedes that reverse discrimination is not a good thing in itself. However, it is a necessary temporary means to a more equal society in the long term. This can be seen as a broadly utilitarian argument in that it appeals to long-term beneficial consequences. Objection Reverse discrimination will not work: one will not achieve an equal society by pursuing inequalities in the short term. Will it really help minority groups if their members realise that they only got a college place or a job because of reverse discrimination? This could undermine their self confidence and could reinforce prejudice against them. Justice Powell said in the Bakke case, 'Preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection.' This, however, is an empirical question and could be settled by sociological studies over time. There are other considerations. These include: (a) The need for role models. These are necessary in order to encourage members of minorities to follow the footsteps of the role model and to realise that more options are available. One problem, however, is that role models are often regarded as atypical or as tokens. (b) It could improve the quality of life for everyone - not just for disadvantaged groups - if everyone lived in a more equal society.