In Defense of Preferential Treatment

Preferential treatment programs are often defended on the grounds of distributive justice, which requires that society's benefits and burdens be distributed equitably among its members. As a result of past discrimination, women and minorities have been denied their fair share of opportunities. Entrenched and subtle discriminatory policies and practices continue to permeate businesses and educational institutions, ranging from prejudice in job classification and minority systems to biases in college entrance exams. A recent study of 94 Fortune 1000 companies revealed that only 2.6 percent of the surveyed firms' executives were minorities and only 6.6 percent were women. In 1988, the wages of women working in full-time jobs were 72 percent those of men. That same year the unemployment rate for blacks was 11.7 percent compared to 4.7 percent for whites. Preferential treatment programs seek to reduce these disparities as justice requires.

Those who support preferential policies also appeal to the principle of compensatory justice, which states that people who have been treated unjustly ought to be compensated. Throughout history, race and sex have been used to deny individuals equal treatment in employment and education. And while many of today's minorities and women may not have been themselves the victims of discrimination, they have been victimized by its effects. As descendants of those who were denied jobs or relegated to low-paying positions, they have grown up deprived of the resources, opportunities, and education necessary to develop the skills and confidence needed to compete on equal terms with white males. Preferential treatment programs compensate for past harms and present disadvantages by giving qualified members of these groups preference in hiring or college admissions.

Supporters of preferential treatment policies counter the charge that preferential treatment is as unjust as past discrimination. Past practices, fueled by ignorance, contempt, and hatred, systematically relegated minorities and women to inferior positions in society, while concentrating power and wealth in the hands of white males. Preferential treatment programs, in contrast, are not motivated by contempt for non-minorities and aim to achieve equal opportunity and provide a more equitable distribution of social and economic benefits.

In response to the objection that preferential policies impose unfair burdens on today's white males, who are not responsible for injustices committed in the past, supporters of preferential treatment programs argue that while today's white males may not themselves have been perpetrators of discrimination, they have benefitted most from its effects. Racial and sexist policies have given white males an unfair advantage in competing for jobs and college slots. Preferential treatment programs help neutralize this unfair advantage.

Finally, advocates believe that the benefits of preferential treatment programs far outweigh their costs. First, preferential policies redirect jobs and educational opportunities to those who are most in need of them, leading to a reduction in poverty and its associated social costs. Second, increasing the number of women and minorities in the professions and in institutions of higher education dispels the stereotypes that they are incompetent or lack potential - stereotypes that perpetuate sexism and racism. Third, the presence of women and Minorities in previously inaccessible positions provides mentors and role models for members of these groups. Fourth, preferential treatment is likely to produce a greater supply of professionals more responsive to the needs of minorities and women. And fifth, society benefits from the diverse perspectives and experiences that minorities and women bring to the work place and to colleges and universities.

In comparison to the benefits, the programs' costs are minimal. Contrary to critics' claims, society is unlikely to suffer a loss of productivity or efficiency as a result of giving qualified minorities and women preference over qualified non-minorities. In cases in which candidates are equally qualified, productivity will not be affected and in cases in which qualifications do differ, the differences are unlikely to be significant enough to affect productivity. A further charge that preferential programs "stigmatize" minorities is hardly an argument against their use; any stigmatizing that might concur is no worse than that resulting from the absence of minorities in positions of influence and power.

Few people question the need to eliminate racial and sexist barriers that exclude minorities' and women from full participation in society. Preferential treatment programs may be one means toward this goal. But these programs also raise ethical issues that direct us to consider their potential benefits and harms, the justice of compensating groups for past harms and present disadvantages, and the fairest way to distribute the burdens of compensation.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

Are preferential treatment programs morally justified?

Дата добавления: 2015-10-31