优点

K. Lippert‐Rasmussen
{"title":"优点","authors":"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that objections to affirmative action based on the ideal of meritocracy have little force. Initially, the chapter distinguishes a concern for merit from the concern not to disappoint reasonable expectations. It then offers two counterexamples to the claim that the best qualified applicants have a claim to the positions for which they have applied. The chapter also argues that once we adopt a suitably broad notion of merit, many putative affirmative action schemes do not clash with the principle of merit, and, in any case, outreach affirmative action is compatible with standard, but problematic, versions of the merit principle. It then expresses skepticism about the fruitfulness of building into the notion of affirmative action that selected candidates must be minimally qualified. Finally, the chapter suggests that it is an open question whether selecting applicants who are not the most meritorious results in the selected individuals having a lower level of merit. The reason for this is that affirmative action affects the pool of applicants.","PeriodicalId":365406,"journal":{"name":"Making Sense of Affirmative Action","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Merit\",\"authors\":\"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter argues that objections to affirmative action based on the ideal of meritocracy have little force. Initially, the chapter distinguishes a concern for merit from the concern not to disappoint reasonable expectations. It then offers two counterexamples to the claim that the best qualified applicants have a claim to the positions for which they have applied. The chapter also argues that once we adopt a suitably broad notion of merit, many putative affirmative action schemes do not clash with the principle of merit, and, in any case, outreach affirmative action is compatible with standard, but problematic, versions of the merit principle. It then expresses skepticism about the fruitfulness of building into the notion of affirmative action that selected candidates must be minimally qualified. Finally, the chapter suggests that it is an open question whether selecting applicants who are not the most meritorious results in the selected individuals having a lower level of merit. The reason for this is that affirmative action affects the pool of applicants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Making Sense of Affirmative Action\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Making Sense of Affirmative Action\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Making Sense of Affirmative Action","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章认为,反对基于精英主义理想的平权行动没有什么力量。首先,本章区分了对优点的关注和对不辜负合理期望的关注。然后,它提供了两个反例,以证明最合格的申请人对他们所申请的职位有权利。本章还认为,一旦我们采用了一个适当的广泛的功绩概念,许多假定的平权行动计划就不会与功绩原则相冲突,而且,在任何情况下,外展平权行动都与标准的、但有问题的功绩原则版本兼容。然后,它表达了对建立平权行动概念的有效性的怀疑,即选定的候选人必须达到最低限度的资格。最后,本章表明,选择那些不是最有价值的申请人是否会导致被选中的个人具有较低的价值水平,这是一个悬而未决的问题。原因是平权法案影响了申请者的数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Merit
This chapter argues that objections to affirmative action based on the ideal of meritocracy have little force. Initially, the chapter distinguishes a concern for merit from the concern not to disappoint reasonable expectations. It then offers two counterexamples to the claim that the best qualified applicants have a claim to the positions for which they have applied. The chapter also argues that once we adopt a suitably broad notion of merit, many putative affirmative action schemes do not clash with the principle of merit, and, in any case, outreach affirmative action is compatible with standard, but problematic, versions of the merit principle. It then expresses skepticism about the fruitfulness of building into the notion of affirmative action that selected candidates must be minimally qualified. Finally, the chapter suggests that it is an open question whether selecting applicants who are not the most meritorious results in the selected individuals having a lower level of merit. The reason for this is that affirmative action affects the pool of applicants.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信