Affirmative Action

Is affirmative action just? Following the chapter dedicated to John Rawls, our book delves into the question of affirmative action, and provides the arguments both for and against. The idea of discriminating (though it sounds like a harsh word, I believe it to be appropriate) based on race in the college admissions process immediately sounds unjust. However, this may arise from a little bias of my own; being a white, middle class male, my natural instinct is to disapprove of affirmative action. However, how would the philosophers that we have studied in our course so far justify or condemn affirmative action?

For John Rawls, I believe the answer is clear. Since Rawls believes that a just society is that which benefits the least advantaged, affirmative action is just if indeed it benefits the least advantaged. Therefore, affirmative action based on socioeconomic status would certainly be just because the least advantaged, those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, would benefit from affirmative action. Affirmative action based on race is a little less clear, for no race is naturally more advantageous over another. However, because socioeconomic status and race are not independent, factoring race into the college admissions process may benefit the least advantaged as well.

However, Nozick, I believe, would not advocate for affirmative action. While inequalities in a society naturally exist, neither the state nor anyone else has the right to redistribute good or inequalities in the name of welfare. Therefore, Nozick would condemn the state mandate that colleges must admit students based on affirmative action, because this impedes the college and the student to make a fair transaction. However, what if colleges and universities decided to admit students according to the same principles of affirmative action, but it was not mandated by the state. Would Nozick consider this to be just or unjust? I believe that Nozick would consider this just, namely because the college and the students made a fair transaction. The government’s holding is the education offered to the students; therefore, because it is the college’s holding, it has the right to do with it what it chooses. So, for Nozick, the injustice does not lie in the discrimination of the college admissions based on race, but rather the mandate of the government to dictate which students the colleges admit.

I think this is an interesting topic, interesting enough to write my research paper on it. So, I would love to hear your opinions. Agree, disagree, or provide a different perspective with a different philosopher.