Affirmative Action: Social Justice Or Reverse Discrimination?Francis Beckwith, Todd E. Jones Prometheus Books, 1997 - 250 páginas What is our goal: equal opportunity or equality of result? The debate rages on. The November 5, 1996 decision by voters in California to eliminate most forms of state sanctioned affirmative action ignited a civil rights debate that sent shock waves across the country. The vote had critics celebrating the dawn of a new era of equal rights, while opponents warned of school and workplace discrimination without the protective blanket of affirmative action. The question of racial equality has inspired new debate today, reminiscent of the conflicts of the 1960s. Again we ask ourselves: Is affirmative action necessary to maintain equal labor practices, school desegregation plans, and broad social standards of racial equality? Does affirmative action or laws to roll it back go against the idea of equality itself? Should race play an important role in college admissions and corporate hiring? Is affirmative action a poison instead of a cure? For some, it depends on how the term is defined. These and other questions are debated in this highly charged collection of essays by a distinguished group of politicians, philosophers, educators, and others including Tom Beauchamp, Ward Connerly, Ronald Dworkin, Stanley Fish, Lyndon Johnson, Nicholas LeMann, Louis Pojman, George Sher, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Richard Wasserstrom, Cornell West, and Steven Yates. Included also are important legal decisions bearing on affirmative action. |
Contenido
What Is Affirmative Action | 9 |
Introduction to Part I | 21 |
Taking Affirmative Action Apart | 34 |
Derechos de autor | |
Otras 16 secciones no mostradas
Términos y frases comunes
ability achieve admission admitted affirmative action American applicants argues argument basis become believe benefit better California civil rights claim color compensation compete Constitution Court cultural debate decision DeFunis deserve disadvantaged economic effect effort employer employment equal example fact fair favor give given goals groups hiring important income increase individual institutions issue justice justify law school less liberal live major males means ment minorities moral Negro opportunity past percent person policies political poor positions possible practice preferences preferential treatment prejudice Press principle problem programs qualified question quotas race racial reason require result reverse discrimination Review scores seems sense simply social society sort statistical sure things tion treated University utilitarian Washington women wrong York