Rethinking the Dworkinian Forward-Looking Approach: is Affirmative Action Compatible with Fairness?

Chong Ho Alex Yu, K. Cheung
{"title":"Rethinking the Dworkinian Forward-Looking Approach: is Affirmative Action Compatible with Fairness?","authors":"Chong Ho Alex Yu, K. Cheung","doi":"10.26417/EJSER.V11I2.P166-174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Whether Affirmative Action is a proper way to accomplish social justice in terms of fairness has been an ongoing debate in the United States. Late philosopher Ronald Dworkin was a vocal supporter of Category 4 Affirmative Action, in which preferential treatments for minorities is justified. Dworkin emphasized a forward-looking approach as a means to achieve social justice and overall fairness. In his view, it is not sufficient for black applicants to enjoy preferential treatment now just because in the past their ancestors suffered due to slavery. Rather, a successful argument for affirmative action programs must include a forward-looking justification. To be specific, this policy promises a better educational environment in terms of diversity and promotes a less racially conscious society for all citizens. Additionally, Dworkin often cited the study entitled The Shape of the River to substantiate his claim that special treatment for minorities could amend social injustice and produce fairer outcomes. This article attempts to evaluate this Dworkinian theory on both the principle and practical levels. It concluded that while a neutral or non-interventional policy is insufficient to achieve racial equality, interventions in terms of special treatments and soft quotas are not yet shown to be fair in practice.","PeriodicalId":219203,"journal":{"name":"Humanities Today: Proceedings","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Humanities Today: Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26417/EJSER.V11I2.P166-174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Whether Affirmative Action is a proper way to accomplish social justice in terms of fairness has been an ongoing debate in the United States. Late philosopher Ronald Dworkin was a vocal supporter of Category 4 Affirmative Action, in which preferential treatments for minorities is justified. Dworkin emphasized a forward-looking approach as a means to achieve social justice and overall fairness. In his view, it is not sufficient for black applicants to enjoy preferential treatment now just because in the past their ancestors suffered due to slavery. Rather, a successful argument for affirmative action programs must include a forward-looking justification. To be specific, this policy promises a better educational environment in terms of diversity and promotes a less racially conscious society for all citizens. Additionally, Dworkin often cited the study entitled The Shape of the River to substantiate his claim that special treatment for minorities could amend social injustice and produce fairer outcomes. This article attempts to evaluate this Dworkinian theory on both the principle and practical levels. It concluded that while a neutral or non-interventional policy is insufficient to achieve racial equality, interventions in terms of special treatments and soft quotas are not yet shown to be fair in practice.
重新思考德沃金的前瞻性方法:平权行动与公平相容吗?
从公平的角度看,平权行动是否是一种实现社会正义的合适方式,在美国一直是一个争论不休的问题。已故哲学家罗纳德·德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)是第4类平权法案(Category 4 Affirmative Action)的直言不讳的支持者,在该法案中,对少数族裔的优惠待遇是合理的。德沃金强调以前瞻性的方法作为实现社会正义和整体公平的手段。在他看来,仅仅因为他们的祖先过去因奴隶制而受苦,现在黑人申请者享受优待是不够的。相反,平权行动计划的成功论证必须包括前瞻性的理由。具体地说,这项政策承诺在多样性方面提供更好的教育环境,并为所有公民促进一个不那么具有种族意识的社会。此外,德沃金经常引用题为《河流的形状》的研究来证实他的说法,即对少数民族的特殊待遇可以改变社会不公,产生更公平的结果。本文试图从理论和实践两个层面对德沃宁的这一理论进行评价。它的结论是,虽然中性或不干预政策不足以实现种族平等,但在特殊待遇和软配额方面的干预在实践中尚未证明是公平的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信