Affirmative Action and Racial Preference: A Debate
Racial preferences are among the most contentious issues in our society, touching on fundamental questions of fairness and the proper role of racial categories in government action. Now two contemporary philosophers, in a lively debate, lay out the arguments on each side. Carl Cohen, a key figure in the University of Michigan Supreme Court cases, argues that racial preferences are morally wrong--forbidden by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and explicitly banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also contends that such preferences harm society in general, damage the universities that use them, and undermine the minorities they were intended to serve. James P. Sterba counters that, far from being banned by the Constitution and the civil rights acts, affirmative action is actually mandated by law in the pursuit of a society that is racially and sexually just. The same Congress that adopted the 14th Amendment, he notes, passed race-specific laws that extended aid to blacks. Indeed, there are various kinds of affirmative action--compensation for past discrimination, remedial measures aimed at current discrimination, the guarantee of diversity--and Sterba reviews the Supreme Court cases that build a constitutional foundation for each. Affirmative action, he argues, favors qualified minority candidates, not unqualified ones. Both authors offer concluding comment on the University of Michigan cases decided in 2003. Half a century afterBrown v. Board of Education, issues pertaining to racial discrimination continue to grip American society. Ideal for courses in political, social, ethical, and legal philosophy, this penetrating debate explores the philosophical and legal arguments on all sides of affirmative action, but also reveals the passions that drive the issue to the forefront of public life.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Race Preference Is Morally Wrong
Race Preference Is Rod for
Race Preference Is Bad for the Universities that
Race Preference Is Bad for Society as
The Future of Race Preference
DEFENDING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEFENDING PREFERENCES
A Definition of Affirmative Action
A Defense of Remedial Affirmative Action
Other editions - View all
achieve admissions admitted affirmative ac affirmative action program affirmative action/racial preference African Americans argued argument Bakke benefits black students Bollinger California Carl Cohen Civil Rights Act claims Constitution crimination Croson decision desegregation discriminatory diversity affirmative action employer employment enrollment equal opportunity equal protection clause erence ethnic groups factors favor federal Fourteenth Amendment goal grades graduates Gratz Grutter high school hiring Hispanic injury institutions intellectual Justice Justice Powell justified law school legacy preferences LSAT minority students moral national origin nonminority norities objection past discrimination percent persons Powell pref preference by race preferential Proposition 209 qualified race preference race-based racial balance racial classifications racial discrimination racial group racial preferences racial proportionality reason rejected remedial affirmative action segregation sexual Shoney's simply skin color society Sterba strict scrutiny student body Texas tion Title VII U.S. Supreme Court UMCP undergraduate United University of Michigan versity violation women wrong