Advertisement

Advertisement for the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics major at UB
Advertisement for the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics major at UB
Advertisement for the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics major at UB

Prejudice & Quotas

Module 10

Unit 2: On What is Morality Grounded?

A leader sits at her desk.

Photo: Colleen Hayes / NBC.

While women may make up around 50% of the US population, they occupy, on average, about 20% of senior leadership positions in business. Is this a problem that ought to be rectified? In particular, should businesses be required to set aside a certain number of board seats and other executive positions for women?

In our analysis of this issue, we have 4 learning outcomes. By the end of this module, you will be able to…

  1. Describe some basic statistics about women in business leadership positions,
  2. Reflect on whether implicit bias has any influence on your decisions,
  3. Summarize James Rachels’ four conditions justifying the use of quotas, and
  4. Analyze Rachels’ defense against criticisms of quotas.

Read & Annotate This:

Coping with Prejudice

Coping with Prejudice by James Rachels

Context

Affirmative action programs began in the 1960s as a way of redressing discrimination against African-Americans. Later these programs were expanded to include other groups, such as women, Hispanics, and people with disabilities. Today, about 80 countries require quotas, or set percentages, for a certain number of seats in parliament be held by women. Similarly, many countries require that businesses achieve certain quotas for women in executive and leadership positions.

In the United States, however, there remains general skepticism about quotas. For example, California began requiring that businesses satisfy quotas for women serving on company boards in 2018. Then, in 2020, it required that businesses similarly satisfy quotas for members of any underrepresented community. This was overturned in 2022 when the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled all this as unconstitutional. Currently, the state is appealing that decision.

This reading from James Rachels asks us to reconsider the value of quotas for correcting systemic bias and prejudice.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

  1. What is “heightism”? Does James Rachels believe that it is a serious social issue in need of immediate corrective action? Why does Rachels present this issue?
  2. According to Rachels, what four circumstances must hold in order to justify using quotas on a decision-making process?
  3. What objections against quotas does Rachels consider, and how does he respond to them?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.

References

Rachels, J. (1997). Coping with prejudice. In Can ethics provide answers? And other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 199–212). Rowman & Littlefield.

Watch This:

Video 1

Ethics! Module 10, Video 1. Introduction to Module 10.

Video 2

Ethics! Module 10, Video 2. Implicit Bias.

Video 3

Ethics! Module 10, Video 3. Heightism.

Video 4

Ethics! Module 10, Video 4. The Case for Quotas.

Video 5

Ethics! Module 10, Video 5. Do Quotas Promote Unqualified Women?

Video 6

Ethics! Module 10, Video 6. Do Quotas Punish Innocent Men?

Do This:

Module 10 Quiz

Module 10 quiz. Due October 1

Due: October 1

Tweets for the Week

Tweet for the Week. Due October 1

Due: October 1

Unit 2 Exam

Unit 2 exam. Due October 2

Due: October 2

Submit the Unit 2 Exam here!