EQUALITY AND

AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION
EQUALITY

◦ “Equality” (or “equal”) signifies correspondence between a group

of different objects, persons, processes or circumstances that have
the same qualities in at least one respect, but not all respects.
◦ Equal treatment consistently requires a basis of equal rights and
resources that cannot be taken away from one person, whatever the
desire of others, and many hold that that justice entails according no
value to interests insofar as they conflict with justice (the basis of
equal rights).

2
EQUALITY

◦ Equality in its prescriptive usage is closely linked to morality and

justice, and distributive justice in particular.
◦ Philosophers have sought to clarify this by defending a variety of
principles and conceptions of equality.

1. Formal Equality
2. Proportional Equality
3. Moral Equality
4. Presumption of Equality

3
HISTORY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
◦ The order begins by proclaiming that “discrimination because of
race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional
principles and policies of the United States” and although
innovative, it did not, at that time, imply any quotas or measures to
balance the under-representation of any minorities or disadvantaged
groups.

◦ With time, affirmative action became part of the larger civil rights
movement and a more complex concept with various practical and
theoretical assumptions. One of those and maybe the most
important is that once these policies were put in motion, society
recognized itself as discriminating.
4
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION VS. DISCRIMINATION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DISCRIMINATION

Is a way of making amends for, or It refers to actions against people based on
eradicating, discrimination based on race, factors that cannot and should not be used to
ethnicity, and gender. justify those actions.
It takes the form of policies and programs
(usually mandated by government) designed
to bring about the necessary changes in
business, colleges and other organizations.

The ideal that spawned affirmative action is:

All persons deserve equal respect and equal opportunity in employment and education. It is
essentially an expression of the fundamental moral principle that equals should be treated
equally.
5
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

◦ Evolved in the United States over the past half century from several
groundbreaking laws, executive orders, and court cases.
◦ Most notable among these is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted
at a time when racial discrimination in the United States was a
deeply implanted infection – painful, injurious, and widespread.
◦ A notion characterized by both potential as well as predicament, is
one of the most controversial concepts of equality law.

6
1 TYPE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Weak Affirmative Action and Strong Affirmative Action

7
TWO KINDS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
WEAK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Is the use of policies and procedures to
end discriminatory practices and ensure
equal opportunity.
Can involve many strategies for
expanding equal opportunity, but it
stops short of preferential treatment.
Goal:
Equal opportunity to compete, not
equal results.
STRONG AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Is the use of policies and procedures to
favor particular individuals because of
their race, gender, or ethnic background.
It is a kind of preferential treatment that
is usually implemented through favoring
plans, quota systems, or other
approaches.
8
WEAK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
◦ Taking steps to ensure that discrimination based on race, gender, or other illegal
criteria is eliminated through legal remedies targeted at individuals.

◦ This might include:

a) Severe penalties for those who have been found guilty of discrimination (e.g.
paying a fine, being fired, etc.).
b) Compensation for specific individuals who have been victims of discrimination
(i.e. if an individual is shown to have been denied a job because of his or her
race, then the employer may be required to give that person the job or a
comparable job).
c) Oversight by an independent government agency to monitor employment
practices for evidence of discrimination.

9
STRONG AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
◦ Is necessary to foster diversity in a population – diversity of race, ethnicity, gender,
culture, and outlook.
◦ Is strongly opposed by many who see it as reverse discrimination – unequal,
preferential treatment against some people to advance the interests of others.
◦ The main charge is that preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender, or
minority status is always wrong.
◦ The idea that affirmative action should be aimed at results and not just at ensuring
equal legal rights is indicative of Strong Affirmative Action.

10
STRONG AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
◦ Giving a preference (or “special consideration”), in hiring or admissions, to members of
racial groups which have historically suffered from racial discrimination, in order to
achieve greater representation of those racial groups.

◦ This might include:

a) Requiring that the racial proportions of those hired/admitted are roughly the same as
those in the relevant population (either local or general). Thus, if about 14% of the
population is black, then it is expected that about 14% of those hired be black. This
is what is often called “racial quotas”, and has been determined unconstitutional by
the supreme court.
b) Giving members of certain racial groups a bonus when considering them for hiring
or admission, so that their race is considered as a positive factor. This will increase
their representation but does not guarantee any specific proportion of the total. This
is the standard way in which AA is practiced in college admissions.

11
2 MORAL THEORIES

12
◦ In the debates over strong affirmative action, those who oppose it as well as
those who endorse it appeal to conventional moral theories – both
consequentialist and nonconsequentialist.
◦ Many who support strong affirmative action make the utilitarian arguments
that these policies can have enormous benefits for minorities and women as
well as for society as a whole.
◦ Some think the best argument is that strong affirmative action may be able
to eradicate racism and transform our race-conscious society

13
A proponent of this view outlines the argument as follows:

Affirmative action programs rest on two judgements.

1. A judgement of social theory: that the United States will continue to be
pervaded by racial divisions as long as the most lucrative, satisfying, and
important careers remain mainly the prerogative of members of the white
race, while others feel themselves systematically excluded from a
professional and social elite.
2. A calculation of strategy: that increasing the number of blacks who are at
work in the professions will, in the long run, reduce the sense of frustration
and injustice and racial self-consciousness in the black community to the
point at which blacks may begin to think of themselves as individuals who
can succeed like others through talent and initiative.

14
◦ Many opponents of strong affirmative action also make utilitarian appeals.
◦ Their most straightforward counterargument is that those who favor race or
gender preferences are simply wrong about the consequences of the
policies: the consequences are either not as beneficial as supposed or are
actually injurious.
◦ The best role models in education, they say, are people who are the best –
the most competent, knowledgeable, inspiring, and decent – whatever the
color of their skin, their background, or their gender.

15
◦ In fact, they argue that racial preferences can often have the opposite effect:

▫ Preferences puts distinguished minority achievement under a cloud. It imposes

upon every member of the preferred minority and demeaning burden of
presumed inferiority.
▫ Preferences creates that burden; it makes a stigma of the race of those who are
preferred by race.

◦ A common nonconsequentialist argument for strong affirmative action is based on the

notion of compensatory justice: historically, minorities were the victims of racism by
the white majority; justice requires that members of those minorities now be
compensated for that past mistreatment; racial preferences in employment and
education are appropriate compensation; therefore, racial preferences are morally
permissible

16
3 MORAL ARGUEMENTS

17
• Affirmative action undoubtedly poses points of contention, one of
which is its social and ethical implications. Some of these implications
are positive and beneficial, while others tend to be more negative and
perhaps unintended.

• When balancing both sides, it can be difficult to determine if certain

implications outweigh others; yet overall, the ethical implications seem
to point towards the necessity of a regulatory system, so long as the
system does not produce overbearing discriminatory consequences

18
 No doubt few, it any, [young white male applicants] have themselves,
individually, done any wrongs to blacks and women. But they have
profited from the wrongs the community did. Many may actually have
been direct beneficiaries of policieswhich excluded or dwn-graded
blacks and women – perhaps in school admissions, perhaps in access
to fianncial aid, perhaps elsewher; and even those who did not directly
“ beefit in this way had, at any rate, the advanatge in the competition
which comes of conifidence in one’s full memrship, and of one’s rights
being recognized as a mater of course.

- Judith Jarvis Thomson

19
 [In] fact the nature of the wrongs done is such as to make jobs the best
and most suitable form of compensation. What blacks and women were
denied was full membership in the community; and nothing can more
appropriately make amends for that wrong than precisely what will
make them feel they now finally have it. And that means job. Financial
compensation (the cost of which could be shared equally) slips
“ through the fingers; having a job, and discovering you do it well, yield
—perhaps better than anything else – that very self-respect which
blacks and women have had to do without.

- Thomson

20
The normal criterion on competence is a strong prima facie
consideration when the most important positions are at stake. There are
three reasons for this:

First Second Third

Treating people Society has given Filling the most
according to their people expectations that important positions
merits repsects them as if they attain certain with the best qualified
persons, as ends in levels of excellence is the best way to
themselves, rather than they will be awarded ensure efficiently in
as means to social ends. appropriately job-related areas and in
society in general

21
4 ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE

22
ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANATGE OF
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGE
Climbing the socioeconomic ladder Reverse discrimination
Boosting the education of Lack of meritocracy
disadvantaged students Demeaning true achievement
Promoting education and work on
a communal level

23
SUMMARY

◦ Affirmative action is meant to make up for or eliminate

minority and gender discrimination, which is a for, of
unwarranted mistreatment.
◦ Affirmative action seeks to realize the ideal of equal respect
and opportunity for all in employment and education.
◦ There are two types of affirmative action: Weak affirmative
action and Strong affirmative action

24
SUMMARY

◦ Weak affirmative action is generally not controversial,

because it uses policies and procedures to ensure equal
opportunity without demanding that one group be preferred
over another.
◦ Strong affirmative action is controversial because it makes
use of minority and gender preferences.
◦ Strong affirmative action is opposed by many which think it
is reverse discrimination, unequal treatment that penalizes
white males to give advantage to black and women.

25
THANK YOU
ACLO – HADJI JAMEL – MITMUG – PALCONITE – SICLOT -
SULTAN

26
REFERENCES

◦ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/
◦ http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=
7357471&fileOId=7357652
◦ https://cs61.seas.harvard.edu/site/2020/EqualityEthiCS/
◦ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#DefiConc
◦ https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1014&context=shuscholar
◦ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/affi
rmative-action/

27