Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The high level of relevance of race issues in the United States has continuously imposed equality considerations on multiple levels of human interactions. From the ethical point of view, the historically conditioned omnipresence of racism and racial or gender inequality in the US triggers the necessity of providing equal opportunity for all.
Affirmative action as a measure of attempting to equalize opportunities for the diverse populations is an ambiguous issue that has its supporters and opponents within the moral field. Upon familiarizing myself with the theoretical foundations behind racism and affirmative action laid out by LaFollette (2007), I consider affirmative action an unethical issue. This paper will provide reasoning for the argument against affirmative action and present opposing views base on the conducted research.
Racism has been an inherent characteristic of American society for centuries. The old-fashioned racism is based on discrimination and prejudiced attitude toward people based on their skin color (LaFollette, 2007). Long-lasting debates around the necessity of combating racism on a national level were approached by the practice of affirmative action that encourages educational institutions and employers to enroll candidates by providing preference to minorities (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2017).
In my opinion, affirmative action is not ethical because it is manifested as a reverse or positive discrimination. People who belong to disadvantaged groups are not merited based on their qualifications, talents, or achievements. Their race is the only decisive element that inclines the board to decide whether to enroll them or not.
Moreover, when taken to the educational field, another aspect of the unethical application of affirmative action might be illustrated. Universities burdened with race-induced quotas for applicants still need to benefit their institutions by adding diversity and gaining talented and promising students. Therefore, they might tend to comply with the quota requirements, enroll the representatives of racial minorities but provide developmental opportunities to individuals who already have benefits and come from fortunate backgrounds.
This tendency contradicts the whole purpose of affirmative action as a means to help the disadvantaged. As LaFollette (2007) states, affirmative action leads to the stigmatization of the people of color, discrimination of white people, and diminishes the role of knowledge and skill in gaining opportunity. Thus, affirmative action as it exists in the American reality now cannot be considered ethical.
However, the proponents of affirmative action claim that such initiatives cannot be claimed unethical from a moral point of view. Indeed, according to Lippert-Rasmussen (2017), affirmative action is not unjust since it provides a basis to benefit historically innocent victims of racism by recognizing their diminished opportunities in the past.
Also, the supporters of affirmative action state that minorities that are wrongfully disadvantaged by society do not have equal opportunities as do those who have not been disadvantaged (Brown, 2018, p. 1). However, whether supporting or opposing affirmative action, one does not want their achievements to be based on the characteristics that are outside of human influence, one of which is race.
Prejudice should not be a basis for policy-making and cannot define the attitudes toward people of color or other minorities. The US society has always been a diverse one and continues to become more versatile, which is why it is important to justify objectivity in treating people based on characteristics that depend on ones decision and actions, and race is not such a thing.
References
Brown, C. H. (2018). Principles and consequences in a virtue ethics analysis of affirmative action. Montview Liberty University Journal of Undergraduate Research, 4(1), 1-16.
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Blackwell.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2017). Affirmative action, historical injustice, and the concept of beneficiaries. Journal of Political Philosophy, 25(1), 72-90.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.