You are going to discuss affirmative action in terms of a current event. Your initial post and peer reply should each consist of approximately 150-200 words.
Part I (Original Post)
Find a current event that deals with affirmative action and discuss it here. Be sure to bring one of this week’s readings to bear on the discussion. Part II (Peer Reply)Be sure to complete your original post by Friday, and your peer reply by Sunday. 
Which TWO classmates’ posts stood out to you? Why? Be sure to engage the concept(s) and argument(s) your classmates present, rather than only agreeing or disagreeing with the substance of the post. Describe and explain your thinking!
Be sure to complete your original post by Friday, and your peer reply by Sunday. 

Read Mosley — Affirmative Action
Some Terms
Weak Affirmative Action: Taking steps to ensure that discrimination based on race, gender, or other illegal criteria is eliminated through legal remedies targeted at individuals.
This might include: (a) Severe penalties for those who have been found guilty of discrimination (e.g. paying a fine, being fired, etc.). (b) Compensation for specific individuals who have been victims of discrimination (i.e. if an individual is shown to have been denied a job because of his or her race, then the employer may be required to give that person the job or a comparable job). (c) Oversight by an independent government agency to monitor employment practices for evidence of discrimination. 
Medium Affirmative Action: In cases where applicants (either for a job or college admission) are equally qualified, preference is given to the candidate who is a member of a racial group which has historically suffered from racial discrimination.
In medium affirmative action, race breaks ties. It does not mean that a less qualified candidate is hired over a more qualified candidate. In addition, medium affirmative action includes all of the protections of weak affirmative action. Medium affirmative action might also include “outreach” programs, where special effort is made to seek out qualified minority candidates, rather than simply waiting for them to apply. Strong Affirmative Action: Giving a preference (or “special consideration”), in hiring or admissions, to members of racial groups which have historically suffered from racial discrimination, in order to achieve greater representation of those racial groups.
This might include: (a) Requiring that the racial proportions of those hired/admitted are roughly the same as those in the relevant population (either local or general). Thus, if about 14% of the population is black, then it is expected that about 14% of those hired be black. This is what is often called “racial quotas”, and has been determined unconstitutional by the supreme court. (b) Giving members of certain racial groups a bonus when considering them for hiring or admission, so that their race is considered as a positive factor. This will increase their representation but does not guarantee any specific proportion of the total. This is the standard way in which AA is practiced in college admissions. The first use of the phrase “affirmative action”, JFK 1961: [contractors using federal funds are to] “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employers are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
In other words, don’t just assume that discrimination isn’t going on, take action to make sure that it isn’t. This certainly sounds like a call for Weak Affirmative Action (see above). 
Legislative and Judicial Background
FDR: Executive Order 8802 (1941)“the specific victim of discrimination be “made whole,” that is, put in the position he or she would have held were it not for the discriminatory act, including damages for lost pay and legal expenses.”Brown v. Board of Education (1954)State mandated segregation of schools (and then other publicly funded facilities) was unconstitutional. (Separate by equal (which was from Plessey v. Ferguson) is not equal.)Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971)Schools needed a prescribed rations of Blacks to Whites because promoting racial diversity was necessary for preparing students to live in a pluralistic society.Sort of a racial quota.Introduced “bussing.”Montgomery Bus Boycotts (mid 1950s)Rosa ParksEnded with Browder v Gayle (1956)Prompted JFK to notice what was happening:See 210 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Mosley’s discussion here points out the need for the CRA.Here are some highlights of what the CRA states:Public Accommodations: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.Desegregation of Public Education: “Desegregation” means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but “desegregation” shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programmes: No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.Discrimination Because of Race, Colour, Religion, Sex, or National OriginIt shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Conceptual Issues
Governments and societies have a responsibility to rectify liabilities they incur. “One such liability derives from past and present unjust exclusionary acts depriving minorities and women of opportunities and amenities made available to other groups.” (210)There are two ways to do this. In this section, he addresses Backward Looking justifications for Affirmative Action[Backward-Looking Justifications of Affirmative Action]
“Demand affirmative action as a matter of corrective justice, where paradigmatically the harmdoer is to make restitution to the harmed so as to put the harmed in a position that the harmed would have occupied has the harm not occurred.” (210-211)This raises the issue of restitution as morally obligatoryLet’s look at his X,Y,Z, and F examples.PROBLEM: But does now hiring Y instead of Z for a job that Z is, in fact, more qualified for discriminate against Z?We can’t exclude Z1 purely on the basis of race, right?SOLUTION: F is actually free to offer the position to the public now – it’s already owed to Y.See Thomson quote (211-212)So Blacks are owed something because they have suffered from discrimination in the past.What about White Males?They have been privileged by “unjust enrichment.”Redistributing opportunities will come as a harsh blow to them perhaps, but since they neither deserved not were entitled to those benefits they OUGHT not feel resentment (even though they MIGHT.)It’s extra burdensome to the current generation of white males because the white males who benefited most from the unjust enricehemtn are protected by Title VII (the protection of senority)When F (the Gov) egregiously discriminates it causes more harm than that done to specific individuals (specific v latent effects.)The specific effect was that Y didn’t get the job.The latent effect was that the entire system became skewed against Blacks. (see 213)But do we need strong AA to rectify this? What percentage of Blacks in a work place is the percentage that should have/would have been there were it not for the initial discrimination?Mosley also argues that Strong AA is a way of correcting the dispositional effect of discrimination. If an employer is known to have discriminated against blacks, then many blacks will simply not apply at all, adding considerably to the discriminatory effect. Using Strong AA sends a clear message that the positions are now open to blacks.“…given the impossibility of determining what level of representation blacks would have achieved were it not for racist discrimination, the assumption of proportional representation is the only fair assumption to make. This is not to argue that blacks should be maintained in such positions, but their contrived exclusion merits an equally contrived rectification.” (213.)This claim is open to the response that “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Of course, it would be question begging to simply assert that Strong AA is wrong. But it is equally question-begging to assert that a “contrived rectification” of the sort Mosley describes is just. 
Forward –Looking Justifications of Affirmative Action
Some, like Ronald Ficus, claim that backward look rectifications put the burden on individuals who weren’t the beneficiaries of the unjust practices.See the Tort, X,Y discussion on 214.Instead Ficus suggest we look forward using distributive justice to ensure a fair and proportionate allocation of opportunities, regardless of how things “were in the past.”So White males won’t get an unjust share, but White male won’t have to bear an unjust burden.Just look at population percentages.(At this point Mosley points out lots of different sectors to show us how things actually play out.)“The question should not be whether White males are innocent or guilty of racism or sexism, but whether they have a right to inflated odds of obtaining benefits relative to minorities and women. A White male is innocent only up to the point where he takes advantage of ‘a benefit he would not qualify for without the accumulated effects of racism. At that point he becomes an accomplice in, and a beneficiary of, society’s racism. He becomes the recipient of stolen goods…’” (216.)Other, like Cass Sunstein, point out that Ficus’s model is ridiculous – we can’t know what position the disenfranchised would have been in, so it’s ridiculous to attempt to promote that.Instead, Sunstein raises the ideas of:risk managementoffset risks based by a group rather than compensate injuriesSee 217the principle of nonsubordinationmeasures are taken to reverse a situation in which an irrelevant difference has been transformed by legally sanctioned acts of the state into a social disadvantageSee 217Mosley then turns to whether racial classifications are important (he seems to think they are.) 
Conclusion

Louis Pojman “The Case Against Affirmative Action”

 “The two wrongs make a right theses goes like this: because some whites once enslaved some blacks, the descendants of those slaves (some of whom now may enjoy high incomes and social status have a right to opportunities and offices over better qualified whites who had nothing to do with either slavery or the oppression of blacks (and who may have even suffered hardship comparable to that of poor blacks.)” (221)

“Strong affirmative action creates a new Hierarchy of the Oppressed: blacks get primary preferential treatment, women second, Native Americans third, Hispanics fourth, handicapped fifth and Asians sixth and so on until white males, no matter how needy or well qualified, must accept the leftovers…” (222)


The Compensation Argument
AA doesn’t sit well with the ordinary concept of compensation, since that involves specific wronged individuals being compensated without harm to third parties.
“Still, there may be something intuitively compelling about compensating members of an oppressed group who are minimally qualified.” (223)
BUT: there are three prima facie reasons for sticking with meritocracy that must first be overridden
(1) treating people according to their merits respects them as persons rather than as means to social ends (a Kantian principle)
(2) society has given people expectations that they will be awarded for achieving certain levels of excellence
Comment: This reason seems especially weak. The mere fact that people expect something does not justify giving it to them.
(3) filling the most important positions with the best qualified is the best way to ensure efficiency in job-related areas and in society in general (an appeal to utility)

The Argument for Compensation From Those Who Innocently Benefitted From Past Injustice
 Pojman summarizes the argument in his own words:
“Young white males as innocent beneficiaries of unjust discrimination against blacks and women have no grounds for complaint when society seeks to level the tilted field. They may be innocent of oppressing blacks, other minorities, and women, but they have unjustly benefited from that oppression or discrimination. So it is perfectly proper that less qualified women and blacks be hired before them”. (224)
Pojman responds: “If A steals B’s car and wrecks it, A as an obligation to compensate B for the stolen car, but his son has no obligation to compensate B. Furthermore , if A dies or disappears, he has no moral right to claim that society compensate him for the stolen car…Sometimes a wrong cannot be compensated, and we just have to make the best of an imperfect world…” (224)

The Diversity Argument

Diversity has social utility: being exposed to others of different backgrounds can broaden your horizons and make you more tolerant and able to live and work with others. This is one of the chief justifications for Strong AA at college campuses. Some colleges argue that diversity is important for achieving the education mission of the school, and so Strong AA is justified in achieving diversity.
Pojman: “…while we can admit the value of diversity, it hardly seems adequate to override the moral requirement to treat each person with equal respect…furthermore, unless those hired are highly qualified, the diversity factor threatens to become a fetish.” (224)

“On the other hand, if a black policeman, though lacking some of the formal skills of white policemen, really is able to do a better job in the black community, this might constitute a case of merit, not affirmative action.”(225)
In other words, the “better qualified” white may not be better qualified in the ways that count. Test scores and other formal criteria or not always the most relevant to the job. Hiring a “less qualified” black in such a case is not really AA, but is a case of hiring the best person for the job, period. Thus, Pojman might agree to some of what is called AA, on the grounds that it is really not AA at all.


Two Arguments Against Strong AA

AA Requires Discrimination Against a Different Group
“…this discrimination [of Strong AA] is unwarranted, since, even if some compensation to blacks were indicated, it would be unfair to make innocent white males bear the whole brunt of the payments. …it is poor white youth who become the new pariahs on the job market. …Affirmative Action simply shifts injustice, setting Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians and women against young white males, especially ethnic and poor white males.” (228)
Respect for persons entails that we treat each person as an end in him or herself, not simply as a means to be used for social purposes. What is wrong about discrimination against Blacks is that it fails to treat Black people as individuals, judging them instead by their skin color not their merit. What is wrong about discrimination against women is that it fails to treat them as individuals, judging them by their gender, not their merit. What is equally wrong about Affirmative Action is that it fails to treat White males with dignity as individuals, judging them by both their race and gender, instead of their merit.


An Argument from the Principle of Merit

“Rewarding excellence both seems just to the individuals in the competition and makes for efficiency. Note that one of the most successful acts of racial integration, the Brooklyn Dodger’s recruitment of Jackie Robinson in the late 40s, was done in just this way, according to merit. If Robinson had been brought into the major league as a mediocre player or had batted .200 he would have been scorned and sent back to the minors where he belonged.” (228)
…
“In the end, we will be better off by honoring excellence. We want the best leaders, teachers, policemen, physicians, generals, lawyers, and airplane pilots that we can possibly produce in society. So our program should be to promote equal opportunity, as much as is feasible in a free market economy, and reward people according to their individual merit.”(229)