Introduction to Political Philosophy

The Issue of Affirmative Action

As you read the material for the next class, keep the questions below in mind. To answer these questions you will have to reflect critically on what you have read and possibly re-read important passages. Keep in mind that there are two basic kinds of information that you need to look for in the readings.

1. What are the main points or conclusions that an author accepts with respect to a particular issue?
2. What are the reasons or important considerations that lead the author to accept that conclusion?

For our purposes, it is information of the latter sort (2) that will be our primary concern since our most basic task is to evaluate the reasons that are offered to support accepting one possible conclusion about an issue, rather than another. 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 speak intelligently to these issues in the next class meeting.

Reading:

• Richard Bernstein, “Racial Discrimination or Righting Past Wrongs?” (handout).
• Michael Kinsley, “Bakke to the Drawing Board” (handout).
• Dahlia Lithwick, “Frank Admissions: The court finally talks serious about race” (handout).
• Michael Brus, “Proxy War: Liberals denounce racial profiling. Conservatives denounce affirmative action. What’s the difference?” (handout).
• Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, “Bakke’s Case: Are Quotas Unfair?”, pp. 293-303 (handout).
• Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, “The Case of Affirmative Action” pp. 135-147 (handout).

Questions:

1. According to Dworkin what is the goal that affirmative action is supposed to achieve? What two judgments does affirmative action rest upon?
2. What two objections to affirmative action does Dworkin consider? What are his arguments against these objections? What assumptions concerning natural assets and merit does he make?
3. In what respects does Sandel claim that Dworkin’s argument coincides with Rawls?
4. According to Sandel, Utilitarian motivations underlie Dworkin’s otherwise rights-based approach. How is this so? Why does Sandel take exception to this insofar as it raises problems concerning who has possession of an individual’s assets?
5. How does Sandel’s conception of “enlarged self-understanding” respond to these problems? Why is this conception not meritocratic? Does this stand in favor of affirmative action? Against it? Or something else entirely?

I love Apache! So should you!