ETHICS & SOCIETY-PHIL 28

The Relevance of Practices of Affirmative Action

The practices of Affirmative Action in the US call for justice for minorities in public institutions establishments such as education, political offices, and national security. Elizabeth Anderson provides models for States to realize Affirmative Action that include the compensatory, diversity, discrimination, and integration perspectives. The models help understand the arguments that make up Affirmative Action in the US. The author argues that nine States in the US refrain from Affirmative Action following the arguments for the association, dissociation, and presumptive right of the state. However, majority of the States acknowledge the essence of Affirmative Action. The advantages include access to resources, anti-discrimination dispensations, and the knowledge about democracy justifies the need for Affirmative Action toward social cohesion and economic development. Therefore, Affirmative Action practices cannot be justified to those who would ‘pay its costs’ because it enhances common good and improves on the socioeconomic developments.

The models for Affirmative Action help understand the arguments that deliberate on the origin of the law. This shows that some of the theories may be insufficient, but the combination of the outlook may generate positive socioeconomic outcomes. Firstly, the compensatory approach suggests that minorities in the US should receive Affirmative Action to reimburse for past atrocities. The problem with the outlook is that innocent persons are made to pay for historical issues. An example is that persons born in the 21st century may not be guilty of burdens cast in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, the strategy uses probability and may not match the victims to the compensation. For instance, Africans living in America may fall under the category of minority, but they may not share the roots of slavery with the Black Americans. More so, the outlook disregards the importance of balance in justice as some of the people in the community become scapegoats (Anderson 9). It makes me believe that the compensatory model may not be the best match for Affirmative Action.

Secondly, the diversity model provides Affirmative Action and helps promote inclusivity of cultural patterns as a representative of minority groups. The aim is to increase social value as persons gain different ways to approach problems. For example, a firm may wish to include Asians in the design process to influence the Asian market. The approach prioritizes proportionality in consideration of races. The problem with the model is that it disregards other variables that affect diversity, such as age or origin. Similarly, diversity may be detrimental to institutions with a centralized ideology. A good example is the inclusion of Muslims in a Christian-based business. The approach promotes racial myths such as Black inferiority rather than focusing on unique traits. On the other hand, diversity fails to address the problem of race as it does not focus on the attributes of recruits, such as background (Anderson 12). Hence, the approach may not be sufficient as justification for Affirmative Action.

Thirdly, the current discrimination construct focuses on the existing unjust habits and societal stereotypes. It is a complement aspect to the anti-discrimination laws that fail to eliminate overt stigmatization. Based on this argument, the practices of Affirmative Action aims to correct systems in society that promotes discrimination. The outcomes of Affirmative Action, in this case, leads to the background assumption that all races have the qualifications for a particular position in school or work. Consequently, the approach allows committees to exercise tie-breaking, considering race when all qualifications are equal amongst participants. For example, a recruitment panel may choose a Black man as a manager when all participants have similar education backgrounds and identical interview scores. The mishaps with the outlook are that it fails to deliberate on insufficient human resources. However, it may limit the means to oppose current discrimination as it ranks race as the only variable (Anderson 14). Therefore, the model may be insufficient as the sole justification for practices of Affirmative Action. 

Lastly, the integrative model focuses on the disadvantages of segregation to society and the economy. It describes segregation as detrimental to socioeconomic opportunities for minorities as it causes discrimination and stigmatization of the minority groups. In the sense that it is inconsistent with the democratic values of equal access to resources and the law. The pro of the outlook is that the institutions can promote justice as a national duty to individuals (Anderson 16). The model also disregards the timeliness of discrimination and builds on diversity based on the argument of Rawl’s principles of justice that express the importance of Affirmative Action. The first principle maintains that every individual has a claim to liberties that match the available rights in society. The second principle is that inequalities in society and economy are attached to positions and offices open to all persons, and they stand to benefit the minority groups. Consequently, Rawl provides the need for balance in society through correction of access to public offices by minority groups as they represent the downside (Meshelski 429). An alternative measure could be reducing the number of wealthy persons in the nation, although it may be impractical in a democratic society.   

On the other hand, nine States in the US oppose practices of Affirmative Action based on the right to association, right to dissociate and presumptive right of local governance over the borders. In this case, it allows us to understand that the freedom to associate follows the ability of local governments to allow or disallow immigrants after consideration of the impact on the economy or society. A good scenario is marriage whereby a person may not find it mandatory to pick a spouse, especially when he lacks an option within a list. Another scenario is in the case of freedom of worship which may determine the extent of worship since it is the foundation of society. Based on this argument, the Affirmative Action misaligns with the right to autonomy (Wellman 113). Therefore, States should have the political space to opt for or against Affirmative Action for immigrants as per the freedom to association, worship, or the right to autonomy.

Secondly, the right to dissociate discounts Affirmative Action due to the dual nature of Freedom of Association. The latter implies that the holistic view of association connects to the capacity of States to dissociate from particular actions that affect internal dealings. An example is the country club businesses that limit the members, which may not amount to discrimination or stigmatization. While the non-members may have rights to access the club, the club owners have a right to define the attributes of members or the maximum number of users (Wellman 114). Similarly, States that disregard practices of Affirmative Action exercise power to dissociate from external influences.  

Thirdly, the presumptive right for a State to control its borders emanates from the rights of association for individuals and groups. The first premise is that a person has a right to associate or dissociate as per the cultural elements of worship and marriage. The second premise is that a group such as a country club has a right to associate or dissociate. It makes us believe that a state representing a group of citizens has a right to associate or dissociate. The instance may focus may be on the immigrants or minority groups (Fine 341). The argument highlights the idea that immigrants that venture into prohibited territory may not claim justice for unfair treatment. 

Case for Affirmative Action and association

The practices of Affirmative Action are advantageous as it promotes equal access to social opportunities, jobs, and public services. They ensure that professions or education courses suited to minority groups are available. An example is the provision of Black doctors in African-American communities that are underserved in the current era (Anderson 17). Consequently, the American nation promotes the standards of living overall. Secondly, practices of Affirmative Action are important as they help diminish stigmatization and discrimination. An example is the stigma of Blacks through the lens of generational poverty and crime. The argument is Affirmative Action that helps move Blacks to the middle class helps fight against association stigma. Thus, it helps implement the theories of association whereby minorities are participants rather than an audience (Anderson 18). Consequently, it creates the butterfly effect as beneficiaries can extend a helping hand to the members of their groups. 

Thirdly, any practice of Affirmative Action is a form of democracy and knowledge as persons understand the experiences of the disadvantaged members living within their borders. These members comprehend the asymmetrical impacts of social, economic, and political policies, which helps avoid the same in the future (Anderson 19). On the other hand, it may allow individuals and organizations to be aware and accountable for the asymmetric impacts of the programs on minorities. Based on this argument, the case of dissociation is invalid in that it can only exist when freedom of association is apparent to a region. However, it is invalid in modernity due to globalization that may lead to the reciprocity of the same. An example is the case of North Korea which imposes dissociation yet suffers from economic disarray and cultural seclusion (Wellman 116). Hence, States should claim association in the vision of a sustainable and peaceful world under the practices of Affirmative Action.

Conclusively, Affirmative Action is possible through the integrative model as it focuses on the current problems facing minorities and creates solutions based on the same. The practices of Affirmative Action are critical to States as compared to protectionism of borders and resources. People that may seem to be worse-off may become beneficiaries of the outlook. Affirmative Action ensures naturalization of equal access to opportunities by all persons, despite the history of their social groups. Consequently, States attain economic, social, and political advancement. More so, they ensure the availability of resources to the minority and reduce the generation stigmatization under all costs. Given these arguments, the practices of Affirmative Actions for States are based on differences in societies across the globe and the need to retain sanity therein. The elements of association, dissociation, and presumptive right should not override the essence of democracy for global citizens. States should understand the impact of asymmetrical policies and work towards correcting them. Therefore, the practices of Affirmative Action remain important aspects for all persons as a means towards fairness, tolerance, and development.

Works Cited

Anderson, Elizabeth. The Imperative of Integration. Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 1-20.

Fine, Sarah. “Freedom of Association is not the answer”. Ethics, vol 120, no. 2, 2010, pp. 338-356. University of Chicago Press, https://doi.org/10.1086/649626.

Meshelski, Kristina. “Procedural Justice and Affirmative Action”. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol 19, no. 2, 2016, pp. 425-443. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-015-9633-1. Wellman, Christopher Heath. “Immigration and Freedom of Association”. Ethics, vol 119, no. 1, 2008, pp. 109-141. University Of Chic