Towards the end of “Whiteness as Property,” Harris contends
that our main issue regarding affirmative action is that we consider it to be a
principle of solely corrective justice rather than both corrective and distributive
justice. Using Ronald Fiscus’s definition, she argues, “distributive justice
‘is the claim an individual or group has to the positions or advantages or
benefits they would have been awarded under fair conditions’” (1781). Harris
asserts that rather than focusing on “the need to compensate minorities for
harms done to them in the past,” we focus on the harm that affirmative action
inflicts on individuals competing for the same positions, especially “innocent
whites”(1781). She notes that the Court, even when upholding affirmative action
plans, remains concerned about the “burdens” these policies have placed on
whites and instead argues that this “bipolar corrective justice between
individual Black and white competitors renders invisible parties essential to
the proper adjudication of the claims at issue”(1782). This is a very
compelling point. For support, Harris again quotes Fiscus: “If in a fair world,
white males would have achieved N percent of a given set of benefits, then
white males who claim benefits beyond that percentage are claiming benefits
they are not entitled to, whether or not they appear to have ‘earned’ the
benefit according to accepted criteria” (1784).
However,
while this idea of combating racial injustice through a distributive justice
affirmative action lens is a very appealing one, it is not easy to reject the
“accepted criteria” to which Fiscus refers. After all, this “accepted criteria”
has been upheld by law since the nation’s founding. And it is to this Harris
refers when she states, “whiteness has value, whiteness is valued, and
whiteness is expected to be valued in law” (1777). Further, even though
Fiscus’s example seems perfectly neat on paper, “equalizing treatment by
redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequalities and to
achieve real equality” creates very significant issues in practice (1788). Even
if a white male has earned N+5 benefits in today’s world (where in an entirely
fair world he would have only earned N), it would be very difficult to tell
this person that he does not have any property right in these goods. It is
possible to create a tax for achieving more than N goods. However, it would
violate the 14th Amendment to only tax groups who have not been
subject to racial discrimination. Likewise, it is very difficult to tell
someone that even though they haven’t done anything wrong, their application to
a school is rejected while a student with lower test scores is accepted based
on race. Isn’t it a problem that individuals are punished for past injustices when
they have done nothing wrong? Is it okay to say that this is permissible if
distributive justice is what’s best for the greater good of society? Harris
would certainly say yes, this version of affirmative action is extremely necessary.
But I’m not as convinced, even though the United States clearly has a history
of immense injustice to non-white racial groups and it is extremely obvious to
me that something must be done to correct for these wrongs.
Bria,
ReplyDeleteIf it's "extremely obvious to [you] that something must be done to correct for these wrongs" do you feel that you need to come up with an alternative to our current system of affirmative action in order to debase its legitimacy? If so, what's your proposition?
Furthermore, I find the "done nothing wrong" rhetoric extremely problematic, not because white, economically privileged students applying to college today have done something wrong, but because the implication behind that argument is that higher education in some way belongs to white people, and that white people will be "punished" by taking away something that's rightfully theirs.
I'm interested to hear more about your ideas in class!
I will pick up Becca's question of proposing an alternative form of affirmative action. I would argue for two things: first, that affirmative action should move away from being a form of racial justice towards one of socioeconomic justice, and second, that in order for affirmative action to really work at all it must be implemented long before students reach higher education (Think for kindergarten instead of college).
ReplyDeleteBecca as you pointed out it is not merely an issue of a student being white or black, but a "white, economically privileged student." If the goal of distributive justice style affirmative action is to give everyone the fair share they would have achieved as Harris argues it is, "the claim an individual or group has to the positions or advantages or benefits they would have been awarded under fair condition," we must consider that socio-economic status is an important factor, maybe even more so than race. I would argue that a wealthy african american student that attended private school has less to benefit from an affirmative action program than a poor student of any other race. While race certainly is related to socio economic status, we should focus more or the socio-economic status then race when it comes to affirmative action.
All of this, though,is moot if we don't begin to implement affirmative action in a more thoughtful and sustainable way. While students stand to benefit from affirmative action at the college level, it still comes with problems. First and foremost, while those students that benefit from affirmative action are helped in securing admission, they don't receive the benefits that a student who comes into school having attended an expensive, rigorous prep school likely has, and arguably in a position where he is more likely to fail. Additionally, if you consider college education something that all individual would reach if given a fair shot, then affirmative action must seek to remedy issue like groups likely to drop out of high school or get a slow start academically. Affirmative action with such an understanding would work to help give students their fair due at an earlier age so they can truly take advantage of it by making sure they learn to read on time and are less likely to be hurt by poor schooling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I would like to add to Bria's evaluation “equalizing treatment by redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequalities and to achieve real equality”, because I find it problematic for another reason. Though it might be true that “If in a fair world, white males would have achieved N percent of a given set of benefits, then white males who claim benefits beyond that percentage are claiming benefits they are not entitled to, whether or not they appear to have ‘earned’ the benefit according to accepted criteria”, it is extremely problematic to think that we can redistribute or tax the unfairly gained benefits. Harris fails to define how we are to measure the level of inequality resulting from past harms as well as the level of benefit received by white people as a result of past unfair circumstances. If we cannot accurately measure the level of injustices then how can we fairly correct these past injustices?
ReplyDeleteI would also like to address Becca's objection to the 'done nothing wrong' rhetoric due to its implication that higher education in some way belongs to white people. I would argue that (the right to) higher education does in fact belong to white people as it does to Blacks and people of every other race. This is significant because it means that Blacks and Whites have as much right to higher education and therefore innocent whites should not be disadvantaged for 'doing nothing wrong'. This does not mean that we neglect the past injustices and ensuing inequalities for African Americans, but it does mean that solutions need to find a way to increase opportunities for Blacks, without limiting the opportunities for Whites.