More handpicked essays just for you.
Unequal opportunity in the workplace
Current framework on equal opportunities
Outline of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Episode 9:
Very vital issues are discussed under this video especially when arguing affirmative action. The case and the merits discussed dealt with Cheryl Hopwood, who was denied admission to a Texas law school, which held that the “Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow race to be used as a factor in law school admission.” Although the United State Supreme Court denied certiorari, she had the potential to impact the future of affirmative action programs significantly and should capture the attention of law school admissions committees across the nation. Furthermore, the goals of the law school’s affirmative action admissions program included achieving diversity and overcoming early effects of discrimination. This
…show more content…
Further, Sandel pointed that one of the loudest objectives to Aristotle’s views on freedoms was the denial of the slaves as a proper use for particular human beings.
Which gets us to the believe that justice is a matter of feeding people what they merit, and acquiring the practicing of those who participate and should be honored. Sandel brings forth the golfer and the lawsuit, which is noted under the “42 U.S.C. 12182 (a) sets forth Title III’s general rule prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating against individuals because of their disabilities.” As the law states “A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures. When such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities. Unless the entity can demonstrate that making such changes would fundamentally change the nature of such commodities, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
…show more content…
Becomes obligations to our family or community, then comes into conflict with our universal obligations to humanity. So, do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries, or is patriotism a virtue, or prejudice for one’s kind. Besides, Kant replied to Aristotle’s views that the Constitution, laws and rights should not encourage any form of animation as it interferes with freedom to name a few. Now does everyone have the right to liberty and the cause of our lifestyle, for this reason, it was written for us to interpret the document and understand their way of living to the best of their abilities? Thus, it is critical for us to understand truly it to the wide extent and protect it as the jurisprudence of the
In Aristotle's "Justifying Slavery" and Seneca's "On Master and Slave," the two authors express their opposing sentiments on the principles of slavery. While Aristotle describes slavery as predestined inferiority, evidenced greatly by physical attributes, Seneca emphasizes the importance of "philosophical" freedom as opposed to physical freedom. (p. 58). The authors' contrasting views are disclosed in their judgments on the morality of slavery, the degree of freedom all people possess at birth, and the balance of equality between a slave and his master.
Affirmative Action Question: Newton and Wasserstrom seem to disagree about whether affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Explain how each arrives at their position about whether or not affirmative action is similar to or different from discriminatory laws of the Jim Crow era
Discrimination is still a chronic global issue, and drastic inequalities still exist at the present time. Thus, the Affirmative Action Law is an important tool to many minorities most especially to women, and people of color, for the reason that this program provides an equality on educational, and professional opportunities for every qualified individual living in the United States. Without this program, a higher education would have been impossible for a “minority students” to attain. Additionally, without the Affirmative Action, a fair opportunity to have a higher-level career...
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
Over the past 15 years tremendous awareness has been raised around this and programs of preferential treatment emerged. These programs ensured equal rights for people of color and females in the work place, allowing for them to apply for executive level positions and earn the same amount of money, benefits, and prestige as a white male ensuring equality for all race and sex. Lisa Newton argues that, “reverse discrimination does not advance but actually undermines equality because it violates the concept of equal justice under law for all citizens. In addition, to this theoretical objection to reverse discrimination, Newton opposes it because she believes it raises insoluble problems.” Among them are determining what groups have been sufficiently discriminated against in the past to deserve preferred treatment in the present and determining the degree of reverse discrimination that will be compensatory. Newton outlines the importance of ensuring her argument is recognized as logically distinct from the condition of justice in the political sense. She begins her argument for reverse discrimination as unjustified by addressing the “simple justice” claim requiring that we favor women and blacks in employment and education opportunities. Since women and blacks were unjustly excluded from such opportunities for so many years in the not so distant past, however when employers and schools favor women and blacks, the same injustice is done. This reverse discrimination violates the public equality which defines citizenship and destroys the rule of law for the areas in which these favors are granted. To the extent that we adopt a program of discrimination, reverse or otherwise, justice in the political sense is destroyed, and none of us, specifically affected or no is a citizen, as bearers of rights we are all petitioners
The petitioner of PGA Tour, Inc. believed that the golf tournament was supported by the American’s with Disabilities Act because it was a “private club or establishment” (PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 2001). On the other hand, the
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
Sacks, David, and Peter Thiel. "The Case Against Affirmative Action." Stanford Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2014.
The writings of Locke on the subject of revolution in his second treatise of government were one of the founding and seminal texts on the “right” of a populace to resist the power of the state if a government was to overstep its defined power and become an unjust tyranny. Kant, however, took what could be labelled a surprising view for a republican and made the denial of the logical and legal coherence of this “right”, as well as the potential harm caused by the rejection of what Kant saw as an individual's moral duty in maintaining the rule of law by the preservation of a government. This essay aims to examine the arguments put forward by both thinkers, draw out their key foundations and assess their coherence with the component parts of their arguments, as well as their wider philosophy. It is my conclusion that whilst Locke's stance on the matter clearly stems from his key ideological tenets of inalienable individual rights and the duty of self preservation, Kant's argument sits uneasily with his stance on moral autonomy, as well as leaving certain areas (such as the right to resist on the grounds of injustice) untouched, and thus is lacking in both scope and coherence when placed in comparison to the writings of Locke.
Today there is considerable disagreement in the country over Affirmative Action with the American people. MSNBC reported a record low in support for Affirmative Action with 45% in support and 45% opposing (Muller, 2013). The affirmative action programs have afforded all genders and races, exempting white males, a sense of optimism and an avenue to get the opportunities they normally would not be eligible for. This advantage includes admission in colleges or hiring preferences with public and private jobs; although Affirmative Action has never required quotas the government has initiated a benefits program for the schools and companies that elect to be diversified. The advantages that are received by the minorities’ only take into account skin color, gender, disability, etc., are what is recognized as discriminatory factors. What is viewed as racism to the majority is that there ar...
Affirmative Action Affirmative action can be defined as action taken to compensate for past unfairness in the education of minorities. The current system of affirmative action allows universities to admit applicants from certain ethnic and minority groups with lower credentials. The main purpose of affirmative action is to produce a diverse campus population that is comparable to today's society. The use of race as a facto by which someone is admitted to college in the long run will compromise the quality of the university. Implicating affirmative action to solve the problem of diversity on today's campuses has lead to the creation of problems.
Tanabe, C. (2009). From the courtroom to the voting booth: Defending affirmative action in higher education. Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 291–300.
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
Affirmative action policies were created to help level the playing field in American society. Supporters claim that these plans eliminate economic and social disparities to minorities, yet in doing so, they’ve only created more inequalities. Whites and Asians in poverty receive little to none of the opportunities provided to minorities of the same economic background (Messerli). The burden of equity has been placed upon those who were not fortunate enough to meet a certain school’s idea of “diversity” (Andre, Velasquez, and Mazur). The sole reason for a college’s selectivity is to determine whether or not a student has the credentials to attend that school....
In the context of enlightenment Kant believes that freedom is the best way to achieve enlightenment. Freedom accord...