read slides and answer the questions
usf1414
Q1.pptxRacism and Affirmative Action
Pursuing Social and Racial Justice
4-Year HS graduation (Dept of Ed, 2010)
Bureau of Labor Stats (2010)
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Born in Atlanta, Georgia in 1929 to a Baptist minister.
Completed a theology PhD at Boston University in 1955.
Influenced by the nonviolent direct action of Gandhi.
Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for racial justice work.
Assassinated by in 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee.
Letter from Birmingham Jail
Held on Good Friday, 12 April 1963, for violating a ban of public demonstration, King addressed a long letter to white Christian leaders.
The letter is passionate, eloquent, and intellectually compelling in making the case for nonviolent direct action for the cause of racial justice.
Given his own position as a Baptist minister and the immediate recipients of the letter, King naturally appeals to Christian teachings.
But his moral stance does not necessarily rely on a religious foundation: there are also appeals to humanist concerns and to the US Constitution.
The overall impact of King’s celebrated letter stems from its powerful fusion of spiritual, political, and ethical appeals to moral equality.
Theology of Encounter
In his theological studies, King had focused on the twentieth-century protestant thinker, Paul Tillich.
Tillich was a prominent figure within intellectual Christianity at the time, who saw religious questions as deeply existential in nature.
In common with contemporaries such as Karl Barth and Rudolf Otto, Tillich thought theology should focus on the divine-human encounter.
As opposed to traditional Catholic theology, where God is taken to the “highest being,” here God is what appears when we doubt given meaning.
King was able to apply this theology to make the case for engagement with the great question of the day in the US: racial equality.
Early Christianity
Another central concern of the theology King studied related to recapturing a concrete sense of the early Christian community.
Until the Roman Emperor Constantine annulled the ban on Christian worship in 313 CE, Christians were a persecuted minority.
Many passages in King’s letter appeal to the readers to recall these origins of their faith when confronting the issue of racial persecution.
King’s challenge to Christians, in this context, is really to remember the socially revolutionary impact of original Christianity.
His criticism of the white clergy calls on them not to condone the status quo as morally sanctioned, but to embrace the original spirit of their faith.
Unjust Laws
King claims: “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
A law is not morally defensible just because it is a law; a law is a means to justice and if it subverts this purpose it must be opposed.
Oppressive social organization, such as Gandhi encountered under British imperial rule of India, manipulates legal institutions for immoral ends.
King identifies four stages of nonviolent direct action against unjust laws: 1) investigation, 2) negotiation, 3) self-purification, 4) direct action.
Having ascertained the existent of injustice one must seek dialogue to end it; if that fails, one must prepare oneself for and carry out nonviolent direct action with a view to ending the unjust practices and arrangements.
Urgency and Equality
The spiritual and moral dimensions of King’s address are closely wedded to his appeal to the political constitution of the United States.
In the long, compelling passage on virtuous “extremism” King cites Thomas Jefferson’s famous words: “all men are created equal …”
King takes this as a promise connected to the political “destiny” of the US not only to abolish slavery but to grant equal social status to all races.
In turn, he sees the American Constitution as a revolutionary document within a long tradition of spiritual-political resistance starting with St. Paul’s letters.
In this way, King appeals to his readers to see the country’s destiny as an evolving development towards full, substantive equality for all.
Discussion Questions
Are we justified in breaking laws in order to draw attention to important cases of moral injustice?
Is King right to assert: “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”?
Can and should the ethical basis of King’s demand for racial justice be separated from the religious/spiritual dimension of his stance?
Morally speaking, how can we balance the rival demands for civil peace and the right to protest?
In a liberal democracy, how can the moral demands of minorities be met in ways that maintain overall social cohesion and solidarity?
Michele Moody-Adams, “Racism”
Racism involves: a) the idea that the human species can be divided according to essential racial traits and b) some traits are superior.
Historically, racially determined social divides have been extremely varied; it is certainly not always a black/white polarization.
It can be demonstrated that attempts to provide a scientific basis to race-based characterizations have been proven as flawed.
Moody-Adams argues that no classical moral theory captures the wrong of racism, but rather MLK’s Socratic idea of spiritual self-harm.
The cause may be that moral theory sees moral responsibility relative to individuals. By contrast, racism is collective, intergenerational, and institutional.
Institutional Racism
Cases of institutional racism: a) “red lining” in connection with mortgage deals and b) disproportionate policing and incarceration.
While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to end institutional racism in public schools and elsewhere, racism has not disappeared.
But it is an unreasonable expectation to think legislation could vanquish racism if it has been institutionalized over generations.
The persistence of racism does not indicate that laws have “failed,” but rather that legal provisions have not yet created new social norms.
An recent issue is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with a majority of the US Supreme Court arguing (Feb 2013) it is time not to reauthorize it.
Louis Pojman, “The Case Against AA”
Weak affirmative action (AA): aims at “equal opportunity to compete, not equal results.” It is about ensuring a fair chance for all.
Strong AA: “preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender, discrimination in favor of underrepresented groups.”
Pojman argues that weak AA is legitimate and necessary to a fair and equal society; but that strong AA is a violation of fairness.
Against the role models defense of strong AA: “Our common humanity should be a sufficient basis” for us to recognize merit.
Against the compensation arguments for strong AA: each person should be treated according to her merits, not instrumentally.
Restorative justice and diversity
Strong AA can be defended to redress a historical legacy of unequal treatment. Pojman argues there is no direct responsibility evident.
He argues by analogy: in regular legal matters we look to prove a specific person’s guilt; AA is insensitive to individual responsibility.
Pojman also argues: “It’s not diversity of race or gender that is important but diversity of ideas.”
He comments further, that there are certain types of diversity that we don’t want: openly intolerant or bigoted persons, for example.
In terms of vocational roles, he feels that proficiency in fulfilling the role always has to be the overriding criterion of suitability.
Discrimination and Mediocrity
Pojman’s basic ethical argument against strong AA is that it constitutes “unjust reverse discrimination” against certain groups.
In essence, this amounts to saying that strong AA is based on a “two wrongs makes a right” approach that cannot be defended.
He takes a decidedly Kantian line, when he contends that individuals and groups are being used as “instruments” here.
But there is also a utilitarian argument: strong AA places underqualified individuals into positions and so weakens society.
Finally, Pojman argues that the core American civil ideal is equal opportunity and strong AA violates this ideal.
Harris and Narayan, “AA as Equalizing Opportunity”
A common misrepresentation among opponents is that AA is a purely racial policy that unfairly disadvantages certain groups.
It is a well established fact that the greatest beneficiaries of AA policy in the US have been white women.
But beyond race and gender, AA aims at equalizing opportunity across more general economic, social, and cultural divides.
Against those who claim that AA is a historical experiment that has failed, the authors argue that the scope of AA is limited.
The general position: AA is an attempt “to promote equality of opportunity in a social context marked by pervasive inequalities.”
Systemic Institutional Bias
Opponents of AA argue it enshrined unfair discrimination against innocent individuals and groups.
This relies on the idea that moral responsibility can only ever take the form of individuals intentionally harming others.
This misses a crucial point: patterns of discrimination often work in terms of largely unconscious, institutional bias.
Even those who are well-minded can operate according to unconscious stereotypes and prejudices.
For example, in interviews certain modes of cultural behavior can be negatively evaluated, leading to negative decisions.
A Different Appeal to Equality
As in the Pojman article, the underlying ethical/civic principle appealed to here is that of equality of opportunity.
Whereas for Pojman the way forward is genuine neutrality, this article feels more aggressive and proactive measures are needed for equality.
This article distances its defense of AA from the compensation framework, arguing that equality cannot ultimately be measured.
It is only when AA policies are evaluated through a “cost-benefit” framework, that one can argue against unfair reparations.
The whole point of strong AA is not to undermine meritocratic social organization but finally to make this a reality.
