Introduction to Ethics

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? California has recently addressed this concern by requiring that businesses satisfy quotas for women serving on company boards. Is that a sensible policy? That is, are there conditions where might it make sense to require quotas for women and other under-represented groups in business leadership?

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

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

Read This:

Coping with Prejudice

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, in California v. Bakke (1978), the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to use quotas for university admissions, though the Court did permit universities to select students based on the goal of promoting a diverse community.

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:

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?
According to Rachels, what four circumstances must hold in order to justify using quotas on a decision-making process?
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.